For previous nomination see here.

History of Solidarity second nomination

I am resubmitting this article to FAC after addressing concerns (layout, copyedit - thank you, User:Logologist!) raised during the past nomination. I have also asked for an External peer review to assess the concerns raised by some editors (propaganda, unnecessary POV fork). While I have not received a permission to post the information on who has reviewed the article (I am still waiting for reply on that, for now I can say that he is a professor at a US university and has published a major book on this subject), I believe I am allowed to post an opening sentence from his review emailed to me: "Overall: exhaustively reserarched, thorough in coverage." I have of course addressed all issues from that review as well. Therefore I sincerly believe the article is now FA-level.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggest a rephrasing with the transferring of what Solidarity is closer to the article name. --Brand спойт 18:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I follow your advice. The first para of the lead notes in the first sentence it was a Polish non-governmental trade union, and in the second and third elaborates on other important characteristics. How more 'closer' to the article's name (at the top of the page) can you get?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • E.g. like that: "The history of Solidarity, a Polish non-governmental trade union, began in August 1980 at the Gdańsk Shipyards, where Lech Wałęsa and others formed the union". --Brand спойт 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, reworded.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Full. I am particularly glad to note that the external (and professional) peer review encourages me to quote my previous rationale (since the article was yet improved I deleted a part of it). Well done. Essentiallly, it wins when compared to many other texts on the subject, encyclopedic ones included. References for any crucial statement. I think we could wish the article gets into a next encyclopedia contest --Beaumont (@) 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object - per technical issues: → Support.
  • There are a lot of redlinks. It is useless in FA level to introduce a link that does not exist. Remove redlinks or create a stub article for them.
  • Too many unrelated (blue) wikilinks cluttered in the article. Read again WP:CONTEXT. You don't need to link plain English words, such as (picked randomly) morale, dissident, nation, religion, media, etc. You don't have to link multiple times to the same page, such as social movement, People's Republic of Poland, etc. that only makes reader jump to the same page all over again. If you need to point so many times to the same article that contains more details, then consider to use Template:see also or other similar forms.
  • I'm a bit concern of using images in the article. Some of the images do not have any relation to the current section. For example, the 25th anniversary of Solidarnosc image and the US president Ronald Reagen visit to Pope. I know there is one sentence about Reagen's visit, but it is unecessary to be illustrated with one image. The article itself has already more than enough images. I'm baffled also with images of more recent politicians at the end of the article, that has small relationship with the subject of the article. It seems to me when I reached at the end that this article looks like an electorate campaign poster.

I only found those above items at the moment. Further comments will be given later. — Indon (reply) — 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the first two points. Red links are important to show what we are missing, although I will see if I can create few more stubs. As for blue links, they are important concepts and should be ilinked either on their first use (if general), or more often if they are relativly rare - although I will look through WP:CONTEXT and see what it suggest we can do differently. As for images, I think they are all relevant; feel free to remove any you think are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I think the red links in references and further reading should be checked for notability and unlinked if they don't meet the criteria. --Brand спойт 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for technicalities, I'd suggest that plain English words could be disconnected (not too many instances; I'll try to do this immediately; double links too, if any). However, please note that Wikipedia is not meant for native English speakers only. Some more complicated expressions with a deeper meaning, as e.g. social movement should be kept! Links like this are desirable and make Wikipedia better than other encyclopedias. As for red links, I think we should keep the balance between a positive new article demand and, on the other hand, the red color in a FA text. I suggets that red links (13) can be revised, and we can stub a half of them. I can not see not notable ones. Maybe a few of them could be integrated in the Structure of historical Solidarity or something like this (not so sure), but this does not concern the present nomination anymore. --Beaumont (@) 08:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's better to make a little stub (1-2 paragraphs) if editors think that a certain terms should be wikilinked but do not exist yet. As for not notable ones, please see the References section and you can see the "ocean of red links" there. Should all of the authors be wikilinked? And as for the blue wikilink, I agree for social movement link, but not to link it twice. Well, it might be not a good example. Take a look at the lead section, there are 2 (if I didn't mistakenly calculate it) links to People's of Republic of Poland. One is enough. — Indon (reply) — 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good article on interesting and important topic. I think implementation of Brandmeister's and Indon's suggestions would make the article even better. Alex Bakharev 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-researched, readable article on an important subject. logologist|Talk 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's much better than during the last voting (yet probably worse than it could be during the next one... err... only joking) //Halibutt 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments
  • A good encyclopaedic article should be accurate whenever it is read, either now or 20 years later. I found some terms point to an inexact time, which makes this article will be obsolete in the future. Avoid words, such as currently, the present, etc.
  • Section Solidarity underground (1982-88) is still listy. Unlike previous sections which give a nice flow of historical description, this section contains one or two-sentences paragraphs, that looks like bulleted historical timeline items.

I think these are all my last comments. I'll see responses from the editors before I change my vote. Overall, it's a good article, although at the end it's a bit detoured to the general current Poland's political situation. — Indon (reply) — 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I now addressed those two issues. The word present is left in acceptable context (as in history of Poland (1989-present).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree to the History of Poland (1989-present), either. When is present? Today when we are writing it? Or tomorrow? Or 10 years later when we read that? — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nature of Wikipedia makes it relativly safe to assume that present means 'up to any major event which happened few hours ago'. Polish historiography splits history of Poland into several chapters, with period after 1989 being the last one; once that changes we will likely see a new article on Wikipedia. There seem to be no rule against unsing present, and similar format is followed in many articles. History_of_Italy_as_a_Republic last section is entitled 'The "Second Republic" (1992-present)'. History_of_France last section is 'France in Modern Times II (1914-today)'; French Fifth Republic in the French history tempalte is entitled 'Fifth Republic (1958–present)'. Germany's latest history is found in History of Germany since 1945, Australia in History of Australia since 1945. Open-ended titles like this seem to be a rule in articles about events which are still ongoing - and history, certainly, has not ended yet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I concur. — Indon (reply) — 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little concerned with image clustering, It looks like you tried to fit in as many images as possible into the article. - Tutmosis 14:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a wonderful article and atleast 2 images have been removed. Still, I wished to have received a reply from the nominator for my concern. - Tutmosis 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I thought that I addressed this issue in a reply to another reviewer, and we also discussed this on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, my fault. I'm sorry for my comment. Nothing personal. :) - Tutmosis 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks much better than the last time. Maybe some formal issues listed above should be applied but generally it is OK. - Darwinek 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are many redlinks in the article. Is it that difficult to put a one-liner substub or a redirect of a sort for each redlink in the main body of the article? Also is it really needed to have red wikilinks for each author of a referenced material? Some authors are quite possibly not notable. Alex Bakharev 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all have concerns about the redlinks in the article. I have made similar comments above. — Indon (reply) — 08:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The problems are still here: short passages, piles of ill-digested (and unnecessary) images, red links for non-notable authors (have no idea why Piotrus thinks every author he cites is notable), WP:CONTEXT... Seriously, we need to set a limit on the number of nominations of the same article within one month, especially as concerns about partisan voting on Piotr's articles have not been addressed as yet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe the technical concerns expressed above have been addressed. In particular,

1. no more redlinks
2. plain English words delinked, no more double links
3. two images have been deleted (actually, I do agree that all of them were relevant; but to respond to a few independent and coherent remarks, and to reach a consensus, I've tried to select the images that would cause the less quality loss. It turns out that my choice coincides with that of Indon.) --Beaumont (@) 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All issues addressed now. --Lysy^talk 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article looks complete and ready. There are many citations that do need some technical clean up on. Mkdw^talk 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been greatly improved. Mkdw^talk 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All concerns have been addressed. This one is ready to go. I congratulate Piotrus for not getting discouraged after the first failed FA nomination and instead working to turn this into a truly outstanding article. Balcer 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indeed, all issues addressed, very nice. A grand piece of work from Logologist correcting, and from Piotrus well... he knows why. --Ouro 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:
  • Images: Image:Lech Walesa Solidarity Time.jpg → no rationale. Image:Solidarnosc.png → no rationale, no source. Image:WieczorWroclawia20marca1981.jpg → it is not a free image. Just because I scanned/photographed an album cover I cannot claim copyright in it. Image:Jaruzelski przemowienie.jpg → not a photo. Image:Dewiza-SW.jpg → not a free image. Permission is needed from Solidarity and not some website. Image:High noon 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg → no rationale. Image:Okragly Stol 1989.jpg → no source, how do you know it was a Polish photographer? Image:Lechwalesa.jpg → no copyright tag. Image:Tadeusz Mazowiecki1.jpg → no rationale. Most of the other images are climed under disputed ((Polishpd)) (nevermind legal arguments, how do you know if it was a Polish photographer and it was published without a (c) sign? How do you know (c) was not in the image caption?)
    • Image:Lech Walesa Solidarity Time.jpg → hasd rationale. Image:Solidarnosc.png → added source, rationale. Image:WieczorWroclawia20marca1981.jpg → it is not an album cover, it is scan on newspaper, and a special issue at that (modified by signatures and such). I would leave it to the copyright experts to determine if it's free or not. Image:Jaruzelski przemowienie.jpg → it can be a photo of the screen. Do you have proof otherwise? Image:Dewiza-SW.jpg → uploader claims he has permission to release the picture under no copyright - take it up with him, I tend to assume good faith (especially when we are talking about a logo of an illegal underground organisation which would like for it's logo to be spread as widely as possible and thus likely release it into PD if they cared about such issues at all). Image:High noon 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg → NowCommons with uploader claiming the author gave permission for PD. Image:Okragly Stol 1989.jpg → source added, author found ([1] - Polish) and the photos were not marked with his copyright until 1990s. [:Image:Lechwalesa.jpg]] → has a copyright tag, but I'd agree it's unlikely the correct one. I am sure there are better (freeer) images of Wałesa out there, feel free to remove it (it's not vital) and/or replace it. Image:Tadeusz Mazowiecki1.jpg → added rationale. Uff, that was a lot of copyright paranoia to address. PolishPD arguments are OT here, bottom line is that I assume good faith and dislike copyright paranoia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some examples of "heroic" writing:
    • Solidarity's survival meant a break in the hard-line stance of the communist Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR), and was an unprecedented event not only for the People's Republic of Poland ... but for the whole of the Eastern bloc. → survival? unprecedented?
    • Solidarity's influence led to the Revolutions of 1989 ... and to the spread of anti-communist ideas and movements throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc... → the only cause was Solidarity?
    • he was a bellwether of change, and became an important symbol—and supporter—of changes to come
    • ...characterized by long queues and empty shelves.
    • ...Wałęsa scored a public-relations victory.
    • ...the talks would radically alter the shape of the Polish government and society.
    • Its activists were dogged by the Security Service (SB), but managed to strike back
    • By December 28, 1981, strikes had ceased, and Solidarity appeared crippled. → crippled?
      • Heroic style - the aricle passed academic peer review, I believe the above phrases are acceptable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing: Way too many one-two-three line pragraphs (especially at the end). Very choppy style, sometimes hard to follow what's happening because sentences are packed with facts, dates, names. For example, "In September 1990, Wałęsa declared that Gazeta Wyborcza had no right to use the Solidarity logo." - how is this relevant, notable, important?
    • The article has been copyedited, and editors commenting on the need to improve style had agreed it's sufficient. By all means, feel free to further work on it if you feel it's not up to your stadnards.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Most of the controversial facts are from an article written by a Marxist writer... Also, can you put all the cite templates in one line and not make every parameter start on a new line?
    • The aricle passed academic peer review, I believe the above references are acceptable. 'Most controversial facts' is POV. While I am not fan of marxism, being a historian with a marxist views does not make one unreliable - marxism (or socialism), are not automatically disqualifying like let's say stalinism, nazism or extreme nationalism. Colin Barker was an academic, sociologist and historian, working at a Western university for 35 years - I believe his publications are quite reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While being a marxist is not a sin, especially in the academic community, it should be stressed that, actually, Renata's argument supports NPOV nature of the article and encourages the promotion. If the most controversial facts in the article on an anti-communist movement are supported by a marxist, it certainly implies that it is not written in favor of the movement. On the other hand, I believe that we do not depreciate it either (no one was concerned about it). --Beaumont (@) 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General: most attention is devoted to 1 year period - 1980-81. While strikes are fun, I don't think Solidarity is remembered because of them....Renata 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's your POV. That section takes 16 out of 60kb, so I'd dispute that 'most attention' is devoted to it. The strikes of 80-81 were crucial, as mentioned in various refs, and again, the article passed academic peer review, and the reviewer had no problems with devoting ~20% of space to that period.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am disturbed by Piotr's insertion of his comments between Renata's arguments, so that it's difficult to distinguish who speaks what. As a result, much of Renata's argument is lost to new readers of this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Julo 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  substantiation: Good research, comprehensive citations. According illustrations, in spite of some other comments here, I accept them. Julo 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Much work and improvement has occurred. I now support. Rlevse 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasons stated at previous nomination as the problems raised there were not addressed, and per Renata's reasons (except for the copyright ones. We have enough wannabe copyright experts and I do not want to join their chorus which I find quite annoying). The article still looks like an eulogy and, most importantly, a POV fork of the entire History of Poland for the period of early-70s to end-80s. Take for instance the Popieluszko incident: his photo and two paragraphs around it seem like belong to the History of Poland general article rather than an article about one of Polish trade unions. There is nothing Solidarity specific in Popieluszko's murder, in the outcry it caused. There is nothing Solidarity specific in authors' lengthy paragraph about Gorby reforms and their effect. And the article is full of such examples. Solidarity specific stuff belongs to the Solidarity article which is in a pity shape. Polish general history stuff belongs to the History of Poland article or one of its subarticles. I see no rationale in the article in its current form and I think having lots of inline refs and grammar cleaned up is no substitute for the encyclopedicity and NPOV. --Irpen 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the reasons you raised in the previous nomination I asked for the academic external peer review. The academic in question did not share your comments (and I particulary asked him to consider the points you raised than). Popiełuszko is relevant to the article, as explained, he was considered one of the 'Solidarity's priests'; his masses were were people voiced support for the organizations; his death made him a matryr of the organization. Gorby's reforms significantly undermined Polish governement and were an important factor in forcing it to negotiate with the opposition. Your claims about this article being a POV fork are unsupported by anybody - which of course does not make them invalid, but majority of the reviewrs, but I really think you should reconsider your POV here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reconsider that the alleged "eulogy" of an anti-communist movement that eventually led to the fall of the Party (and the socialist system in Poland) is supported by 22 references to a Marxist-Socialist). To some extent this is a nice illustration of WP:NPOV policy (Writing for the "enemy"). As for me, not a surprise that the peer review supports the text. Actually, I do not know of reliable sources that would question what is written in the article. --Beaumont (@) 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest discussing the question of whether the article is good enough for FA rather than Colin Barker's political stance and the number of academics who like the article. There is no list of political ideologies, whose adherents aren't reliable, as far as I know. If the NPOV-rule were to be interpreted in the sense that the authors of any sources are not allowed to have a POV, then only works by completely apathetic people would be allowed. That is complete nonsense. Further, if Marxists aren't allowed to be cited, then capitalist democrats, e.g., should not be be considered reliable either IMHO. If you are going to object based on NPOV violations please state in which way you feel the article is POV mentioning examples for this POV. McCarthyanist purges are surely not in line with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand an academic peer review does not mean that an article is at FA level and cannot be criticized. Why don't you answer people when they find faults in the article, rather than continouisly repeating the fact that some academic liked it, Piotrus? I hope this discussion will get back on topic.--Carabinieri 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed all objections - do correct me if there is something I missed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you did not. The article lacks encyclopedicity and neutrality as explained in my vote. Your keeping telling me that you addressed them or that my objections are of no merit or perpetual calls to restate them cannot help addressing the article's problems. --Irpen 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I addressed your objections by going over the article, trying to eliminate the problems you indicated. 14 support votes plus an academic reviewer agree that there are no longer viable concerns; you are of course free to disagree but I am afraid there is only so much that we could do other than delete the article to satisfy you, and that is not a community apparently wants to do. Feel free to take the article to WP:AfD at any time.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a vote. Comments including nothing more than the the words support or oppose should be politely ignore. If someone finds that part of the article does not conform with the FA guidelines than that makes a difference even if it's only one person.--Carabinieri 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • When a user objects, s/he is expected to provide specific reasons why. For support, while it is nice, it is not obligatory - it is assummed that a user have read the article and found it confirming to the FA stadnard. See also 'Supporting and objecting'. As I wrote above, I believe we have addressed all objections, safe for Irpen's single claim that the article 'lacks encyclopedicity (sic!) and neutrality'. We have been discussing this since last round of voting, I have yet to find an editor that will agree with his reasoning - and we have found plenty who apparently disagree.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As per Piotrus and Logologist. Visor 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This nomination is a wonderful example of how voting along national lines may promote any POV mess to featured status. I see unsubstantiated votes in such borderline cases as abuse of WP:FAC for tendentious purposes. This problem needs to be fixed as soon and as promptly as possible. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find it a wonderful example of how the article is opposed solely by (some, not all) editors from a particular country (or to be more specific, with connection to a particular country, i.e. that used to live or still live in Russia (Soviet Union in the past)). On the other hand, the article is supported by many editors who are not Polish, and others from that region. Case rested.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As I said in the previous nomination - the article meets all the FA criteria, it's comprehensive and well-written. Jacek Kendysz 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]