Wikipedia:Peer review/Armia Krajowa/archive1

The article about the second largest resistance organization during the WWII has recently been expanded and copyedit, now using a lot of inline citations. While I think it needs even more expantion before FAC, I wonder which sections you think should be expanded, what information may be missing and what other changes should be done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs not just expansion, but thorough NPOVing. Several edit wars has been recently looming and the article carries their consequences to this day with different pieces being POVed in different direction, as usually happends following the edit wars. Editors expect GA-ready articles when they browse peer-review request. This request is highly premature. --Irpen 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would seriously consider migrating the marginal questions to separate articles. I mean specifically "Relations with Lithuanians", but "Relations with Jews" could also better be explained in the text. Anyway, the part on Lithuania seems to be the most marginal and serve mostly pushing this or that POV. Currently the POV is skewed to the Lithuanian side, but the alternative would be to push it to the Polish side, which would not be a good option either. And the fact is that the Lithuanian question in AK's history was indeed marginal. Members of Armia Krajowa often terrorised, killed, beat Lithuanians and looted their property in Vilnius and Vilnius region in terms of sheer numbers mean... 27 casualties, not counting some Lithuanian collaborators killed in action. I know every death is a tragedy, but just compare the number to, say, 50,000 killed in Wola in 1944, or to the size of the AK altogether. Besides, the section is filled with quite controversial statements written in bad English - and presenting only one side of the story. I'd say migrate the section and mention that there was a conflict with Lithuanian collaborators in the text. //Halibutt 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15 2006 this and that happened.
  • Footnote #8 got messed up somewhere and isn't rendering correctly.
  • You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
  • Thanks, Andy t 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]