The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Westerplatte[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

Battle of Westerplatte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A bit longer than my recent A-class battle of Hel, but overall pretty similar; already a GA. Let's see if we can polish it to an A-class :) Thanks for any suggestions! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I see an issue with the first sentence "one of the first battles in Germany's invasion of Poland, marking the start of World War II in Europe". If it was only one of the first battles (rather than... "the first battle"), how could it mark the start of World War II in Europe? (IIRC, the concentration camp prisoners killed for the Gleiwitz incident and Operation Himmler are considered the first fatalities of WWII, according to Nikolaus Wachsmann.) (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to rewording this. Certainly, this battle wasn't THE first battle, although some Polish sources make this claim - but yes, it is incorrect, and discussed more in the article itself. But as it was one of the first battles of the invasion that begun the WWII in Europe, I think the sentence is overall clear, uncontroversial and relevant. As for the Gleiwitz incident, it is an interesting issue, but overall majority of the sources do ignore it (as in, WWII is commonly assumed to have started on Sept 1, not August 31, see also our article on WWII). Could add a footnote discussing it, I guess.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think wording along the lines of "considered by Poland to mark the beginning of the war" would be better. This would tie it into the postwar commemoration ceremonies and how it is remembered in Poland especially. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not "by Poland" but "in Polish historiography". But actually you'll note this is discussed in the article, and specifically criticized by a relatively new in-depth study, who pretty much shares your view (as do I). Is undeniably one of the first battles of the war, but the territory of what was "the first battle" is a minefield. The only issue is that this battle is often called "The first battle", we know this is not accurate and controversial, but the fact remains this is a common description, particularly found in older sources that are not in-depth and like generalizations and sound bites that sound "cool" :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there should be some way to concisely state that it is often called the first battle but the designation is disputed. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments[edit]

@Piotrus:: reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy and Gog the Mild: Thank you, I missed the above. Fixes and comments:
Lead has been expanded, please let me know if anything else you think is significant and you'd like to see it there.
I don't see a problem with hectares being fist, and I changed m2 to km2.
I reduced the overuse of ranks. And overlinking of the mentioned term and few others.
Backlit sounds good, added clarification.
"Did any fighting take place here during the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1945?" Yes, I've added something to the aftermath. I'd appreciate advise on whether the Polish term "76 dywizja gwardii" (roughly, the Soviet 76th Guards Division) can refer to the 76th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)?
"Is it relevant that contemporary sources misidentified Sucharski?" I am not entirely sure which part of the current text you refer to when asking this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On hectares, wasn't Poland on the metric system? Generally we favor the unit of measure of the country at the time.
Hectares are metric, 1000 sq meters to be precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 76th Guards Rifle Division as well, which is probably the correct unit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, the relevant line is " Contemporary English-language publications (such as Life and the Pictorial History of the War) misidentified the Polish commander as a Major "Koscianski"". Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a modern Pole, while of course we use metric system, hectares are also often used in Poland, even today, to discuss land acreage. Thanks for the unit ID, will use it. I think the Koscianski item is relevant in case someone uses an old publication and asks about the possible error? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

@Sturmvogel 66: Ref c/e done. Could you take a look and see if I missed anything? I standardized date formats to use 1 January 2017 for publications but did not change the automatic code generated retrieval/archive dates, I hope this is fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Date format should be consistent throughout, so the access date format needs to match the rest of the article.
Some of the Polish titles need to be translated.
Is there any particular reason why you retained the all caps in #52?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I translated all of them? Also, the title is half caps, so I just retained the half caps in translation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See #6, 10, 32, 44
MOS:CONFORMTITLE says that you should put the translated title should conform to the usage in the rest of the title, so title case.
According to MOS:CAPTITLE all translated titles should be in title case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Piotrus: - I have to disagree respectfully with you on one of the English-language sources. IMDB is cited at one point, and it's largely user-generated and is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Hog Farm Bacon 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: IMDb is used just as a ref to confirm that the movie exists, nothing more. I think for such use IMDb is sufficient.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Er, no. It is a user-generated source and never reliable as a citation. If the film is notable and WP:DUE for inclusion, you should be able to find a review of it or some news item relating to it. (t · c) buidhe 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Shrug. Sure, no problem, better ref added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

((od}:}@Piotrus: It seems that a few of my remaining comments have gotten lost amongst the other comments and have yet to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Would you mind copying any unadressed issues below here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it does.
  • #45 needs an ISBN, not whateverthehell it's got now.
  • Done.
  • What is #42? It appears to be a book and if so, it also needs an ISBN
  • It looks indeed like a book; added an ISBN.
  • Keep only the year of publication for books like 36, 38, 39, etc.
  • Done.
  • Be consistent about the format of your access dates. Forex 35 and 42 use different formats. I told you that this was a problem back in September and am opposing now until everything gets cleaned up. I've not enumerated every example, but I've told you the problems that you need to fix, most for the second time.
  • Hey Piotrus around 10 November 2011 the access dates were DD/MM/YYYY which we should accept and not change them. We should reverse these dates. Also I've added some ISBNs I hope they're the right ones.

Support Oppose --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nah it's fine, sometimes we have to help each other out. BTW Sturm I've been cleaning a little bit up and have addressed your last comment. Do you believe it's now ready? Let me know if I screwed something up or forgot a spot. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the help. Is there still some lingering issue with access dates? AFAIK they are auto-generated by scripts used to add add references (at least when I add them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, thanks to CPA-5's hard work. I believe that you can control the format in which your access dates are outputted in. Nobody cares which format you pick, but consistency will be required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOpposeSupport by PM[edit]

OK, turns out I have a quite a few comments:

Lead and infobox
Body

Phew, that's quite a bit. Mostly just prose and MOS stuff, but a proper description of the defences and the directions from which the Germans attacked etc are definitely needed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: It took a while but I think I addressed most of the issues you raise. All the Polish positions mentioned are labelled in the recently labelled map: File:Westerplatte en.PNG. It uses the word guardhouse instead of the outposts so I changed the language used in the article to match what is on the map. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of my comments have not been addressed, even MOS ones. Could you go through again, and if you disagree with my comments, explain why? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused, I think I addressed 90% or so of the above. Some were incorrect, for example radio code does not exist so I had to link to code (military). Which are MoS-ones that were not addressed? In some cases you noted 'suggest' etc. and I did address some suggestions and felt some others were not necessary. For questions about locations, a map has been added and terminology standardized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than quibble over individual comments, I have just gone through and changed the things I think need changing. However, the text needs to explain where attacks were made and where from, you cannot just rely on the map for that information. For example, is the red arrow across the port pool/Dead Vistula the abortive Danzig Police assault? Were all the marine infantry attacks conducted from the eastern side against the brick wall border outposts? The map doesn't show the Wał outpost. Could you add the railway lines to the map legend and say that the train attacks were also launched from the eastern end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I asked the map author to add more information per your suggestions. The problem is that the sources I have tend to be very cryptic about the directions of the attack. I think it is semi-obvious all the attacks came from the east, which is why sources don't geneally talk about the directions (and no, I don't have any source that says they were all from the east, but also no source suggests anything to the contrary). And yes, the arrow on the left is most likely the place of the failed landing, although none of my sources is more precise than to say it was 'on the western side' of the depot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the source on which the repulsed red arrow's location at the eastern end of the peninsula is based? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the author of the map, User:Lonio17, on his talk page at Commons a while back (commons:User_talk:Lonio17#File:Westerplatte_maps_1.png), but he has been inactive since. As far as I know, he has a sizable library and uses it for his map making, but he does not usuall cite detailed sources in his maps. Generally we WP:AGF such map-making work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no experience of AGFing of mapwork. Everything, including the detail on maps, needs to be verifiable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen one case where maps have ever been AGF, and those were ACW maps by User:Hlj, who happens to be a highly respected cartographer who specializes in that subject matter. So that's an odd case. Hog Farm Bacon 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I agree sourcing the maps is best practice, but... look at commons:User:Lonio17. Is it really beneficial to consider removing hundreds of generally uncontroversial, clearly helpful and generally correct maps? I am not aware of any errors on those maps (there are occasional small issues but Lonio17 has usually fixed them - the thing is, he is in his 70s+ and his health is not the best, so I am not sure what will he do if we ask him to source all of that work better than he does already - note the "The maps are based on Polish military maps from 1917 - 1939 from my own collection." on his userpage...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is ACR, not GAN. I might give it a pass there, but not here, and it certainly wouldn't get past the usual image reviewers at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image is clearly helpful to the readers, and nobody identified any errors in it, so what's the problem? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it is not verifiable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it matches all the other maps I have seen (and that are a google away like [1], [2] or [1.f.jpg]). Since due to the copyright we are not supposed to redraw maps, but can create rough reproductions, I am not sure how to proceed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although two of those maps (I get a 404 error on the third) provide the defensive position locations, none of those maps replicate the attack information, in fact the first one essentially shows attacks coming from every which way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is because it seems to want to show the artillery or even machien gun shelling. For example, it contains the location of the old lighthouse which had a German machine gun (in the left of the map), so the corresponding arrow seems to be for the machine gun fire, not any landing. Ditto for another arrow in the bottom right, which is from the German mortars (but I haven't seen any soruce discussing the location of German mortars in my sources). PS. For the third map, the file name contains a [1] so it breaks wiki syntax, to access it you need to copypaste http://www.tomek.strony.ug.edu.pl/image/westerplatteuc3[1].f.jpg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I get that about the first map, but the third map doesn't really help much either. It also has arrows all over the place. The central problem is that we don't have detailed information about the exact location of the secondary attack but the map in the article provides a clear indication of where it was, but doesn't have a basis in a source I have seen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I finally got a reply from the map creator, he is updating the map (on his common's talk page). Also, I asked him to list the sources used. Hopefully he will do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, ping me and I will be happy to support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand this is out of my hands. I asked the map author for sources and fixes, but they have been mostly inactive these days. As a reminder, they are OLD... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could just delete the map, which currently contains unverified information, and I would support. Then re-instate it when the map creator gets it up to speed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but deleting the map, which seems to contain no errors and is overall quite helpful, would lower the quality of the article. I'd rather not get an A-class than make the article less helpful. The class improvement should focus on suggestions to make articles better, not worse. This is a great case of WP:IAR. The map may have minor problems, but makes the article better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It contains material that is unverified. Switching to oppose until this is addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lonio replied that source has been added: [3]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey PM, can you point us whether or not this issue has been solved? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hog Farm[edit]

I'll try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Through Prelude. More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 16:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my main points, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias[edit]

That's my lot. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

I have some questions here. Since this one is from July can we have another look where we are going here:
  • Buidhe what is the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
  • That's true but you've made this sentence "Yes, I think there should be some way to concisely state that it is often called the first battle but the designation is disputed." which wasn't answered and I just wanted to know whether or not it was important? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel 66 what is the status here does this ARC pass the source review?
  • There's nothing terribly complicated about the remaining things that need to be done, but it's not ready yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacemaker67 what's the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
  • Harrias what's the status here in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?

Hopefully, we can close this as soon as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay Nate PM has decided to support it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More