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.

---

Not promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Underground State[edit]

Nominator(s): --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural renomination, as the last one did not generated the minimum of three reviewer comments needed; only one reviewer commented with a support. So, Round 2. I hope we won't have to do a Round 3. Round 1 archive is here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on references I'll provide more detailed comments later, but for starters here are some comments on the references used:
  • The full publishing details for Garliński aren't listed until the second time its referenced
    • It's the first page range that cited. Perhaps I should move the full cites to a separate section? What would it be called? I usually don't do it, but for some reason, this article is different. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a good approach. You could call the new section something like 'Bibliography' or 'References'.
        • Fixed by reordering. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keegan (2002) wasn't published by 'Psychology Press'
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Warszawa' should be 'Warsaw'
    • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to 'Peter D. Stachura (4 March 2004)' needs work - this appears to be a chapter in the book written by someone else, I'm not sure why the exact date is being used for the publishing details, and you haven't provided the location where the book was published
    • Fixed. Re: what is provide or not: blame http://reftag.appspot.com ; I've asked the author to change the default settings to something more resembling our standards long time ago, to no avail. That said, I consider publishing location pure informational garbage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alterman and Dallas are also referenced to an exact date for some reason.
    • So....? Is too much information actually against some rule? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's highly unconventional and not useful. It's also not done for all the books you reference.
  • Most of the references need the location at which they were published added
    • I may eventually waste my time on that, but I'll try to avoid dealing with that as long as I can. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a standard part of referencing books. Many books are published in slightly different editions for American and British-English markets, and this lets readers know exactly which edition has been referenced as the page numbers may differ between editions.
        • I thought ISBNs covered that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full publishing details for Biskupski et al. are provided twice, but without the location of publishing either time
  • 'The Polish Government-in-Exile's Home Delegature' is a dead link
    • Fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes The Polish Underground State and The Home Army (1939–45) a reliable source?
    • Historical organization: London Branch of the Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Association, if non-academic. But the author himself is more reliable, likely notable, professor a Polish university, and an author of at least one book on a related topic (review, some bio). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I might be missing something, but that book review is of a book by a different author.
        • Hmmm, weird. Ok, so about Marek Ney-Krwawicz, he is also reliable, and likely notable, PhD in a historical institute with several books. Bio is here: [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, why is Wielkie polowanie: Prześladowania akowców w Polsce Ludowej a reliable source?
    • Reliable newspaper (Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). The author seems a reliable journalist, with many articles coming up, often historical / documentary in nature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full publishing details for the Historical dictionary of Poland is provided three times
  • Was 1945: the war that never ended published in 2005 or 2006?
    • Both, I believe - two different editions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publishing details for Wachowicz are pretty sketchy
    • Expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sixty million Frenchmen can't be wrong: why we love France but not the French p. 89 doesn't support all of what's cited to it. Judging from it's title, it's not a very serious history book either, and so not a good source.
    • Judging the book by the title is hardly good practice. At least one of the authors has an article on French wikipedia: [2]. English bio blurb here: [3]. I found reviews of another book of theirs, and this one is cited in over a dozen others ([4]). Seems reliable to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be better to find a serious book on this topic rather than reference a jokey work which is unlikely to reflect the most recent scholarship. Goodness knows enough has been written on the French resistance.
        • While I'd agree usually, I still dispute calling this "jokey work". Giving something an amusing title does not make one work less worthy of respect (There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom , for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to Encyklopedia PWN lack publishing details Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering it is an online encyclopedia, what else would you like to see? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard fields in the Cite:web template filled out (eg, date of access, who published the website, and the date it was published) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now at least. This article has a lot to recommend it, but it's rather incomplete.

• The main things which seem to be missing are:
  • Did the Polish Government make any plans to continue resistance if the country was conquered? If not, this should be noted and explained. Likewise, if there were pre-war plans, it should be noted whether they were actually instituted and how effective they were.
    • I assume both of your questions refer to pre-1939 history. I have never heard anything about pre-war plans for resistance. However, correct me if I am wrong, saying so would be ORis. If you or anybody else would have any source that would say so, let me know. Do note that Service for Poland's Victory, the first Polish resistance organization, founded when the fighting was still going on, is mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is heavily focused on institutional structures and high-level political decisions. There's very little material on the involvement of ordinary Poles in the Underground State, what its day to day activities were or the effectiveness of these activities.
    • True, but I see it a the usual split between society/culture articles and the government/state articles. For culture and society, see Polish culture during World War II, linked from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The end result of the split in practice here is that it's unclear what the Underground State actually did and who worked for it. These are key issues to cover.
        • The Civilian section was supposed to address that. Are you sure it does not give a good enough picture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the Underground State's leaders seem to have had to start from scratch, how did they go about building up their organisation within Poland?
    • I have not run into any detailed accounts, and if they exist, they likely encompass the level of detail that belongs in the articles on individual organization or leaders. Again, a comparison to articles about states does not remind me of any that go into such details (United States article, for example, does not go into any detail of what Founding Fathers did, beyond few generalities and dates). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the German and Soviet response to the Underground State? When did they become aware of its existence, and did they take steps to counter it? How effective where these actions, and did they change over time? Did the occupation forces attempt to counter the Underground State's political messages and activities with their own propaganda, or did they focus only on arresting and killing its members?
    • Hmmm, they were obviously hostile, but the details of the conflict belong again in other articles, mostly on Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish resistance in World War II, again linked from the article. While I could repeat and easily reference some generalities from those articles, I don't think they would add much, rather than move the focus away from the article. I am, of course, open to counterarguments. PS. I am not aware of sources on the evolution of German and Soviet attitudes to the Underground state, and I can image such sub-articles should eventually be created. That said, it would be mostly a history of anti-partisan operations, at least from the German side. The closest we have ATM is Anti-partisan_operations_in_World_War_II#Against_the_Polish_partisans that I wrote a while back. For Soviets, there was a little more, which should be covered in the cursed soldiers article, through again there is some scope for expansion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that you can write an article about an underground organisation without explaining the responses to it by the occupation forces, as this was obviously a major constraint on the Underground State's activities (and would have led to the imprisonment and death of many of its members).
        • I guess we can add a summary of the anti-resistance and anti-culture operations to a new section. Will take a look at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the Government in Exile communicate with the Underground State, and how effective was this?
    • Thanks, the courier network was not mentioned. It was a major oversight, now fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How did couriers travel between Poland and Allied territory? Also, given that German radio direction finding units were pretty good, how did the Underground State go about communicating through this means? (I've read that radio operators in the French Resistance had a life expectancy of about six months after they started broadcasting due to the efficiency of the Gestapo radio direction finding teams; I presume that the Polish radio operators faced similar - if not greater - challenges).
        • Excellent points to cover in a dedicated article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that "Both the extreme left (the communists) and the extreme right (the nationalists) saw themselves in opposition to the Underground State." and at other points briefly notes the Underground State's responses to these movements. However, what the communists and nationalists actually wanted and did and their popular support is never discussed.
    • I'd again consider those to be somewhat off topic. They were not part of the Underground State, so they should not be discussed here in detail. Roughly, right-wingers wanted "Greater Poland for Poles", and communists, the "Polish Soviet Republic". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the article notes that the Underground State adopted policies in response to those proposed by the far right and Communists, and that these organisations were in competition with the Underground State, I think that it's important to the narrative to know what it is that they were proposing and the level of support they enjoyed.
        • I expanded on the communist proposals. I am unaware of any signficiant and serious far-right proposals discussed in the relevant literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the "Western betrayal" viewpoint is discussed in the article at present (most notably, in the second paragraph of the lead where it's presented as fact). I'm not an expert on this topic, and I do agree that the lack of support of Poland by Churchill and Roosevelt was disgraceful, but I'm pretty sure that there are other views.
    • I am not sure what they would be, and how relevant to the article. I believe the Western betrayal is mentioned in a neutral fashion. If other related POVs are brought to my attention, I'd be happy to consider their inclusion of argue against them, but first, we must speak in some generalities. The only reasonable counterargument I am familiar with is realpolitik, but it is really just a justification for the betrayal, neither of which is really disputable, and the justification itself seems off topic here (again, is most likely discussed in the Western betrayal article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Abandoned by the Western Allies" links only to the Western Betrayal article, which presents only one perspective.
        • Again: what other perspective is there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can any images (maps, photos, etc) be added to break up the text? Organisation charts would be helpful.
    • Pictures we can do, I'll add a free image or two of relevant bios. Charts would be great, but I am not aware of the free ones. Would need to find a source, and than even more difficult, an editor with skills to convert them into a free one. (I am still happy about getting File:Armia krajowa 1.png done). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's easy to make org charts with Microsoft Word if you have it.
        • If it's easy, I can find materials, how about you find somebody who can make the chart? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I also have the more specific comments about the article as it currently stands:
  • "that remained loyal to the Polish Government in Exile in London" - is 'remained' needed?
    • Probably noted. Changed to were. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Definition and historiography' section is actually mainly about post-war historiography and should be placed at the end of the article
    • Ok. Also added remembrance paragraph and adjusted the title accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eforts to explore this topic were regarded as both illegal and dangerous" - who 'regarded' them as such, and was this actually illegal and dangerous? (I presume so, and if this is the case you could just state it)
    • I no longer have the ref I used in the writing of this para. I don't think it was illegal per se, but there was a lot in the communist regimes that was not explicitly illegal that was in fact quite dangerous (after all, the Stalin's constitutions for the USSR and the Eastern Bloc are still, technically, among the most liberal in the world...). I rewarded the sentence, hope it is better now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me
  • "The communist state promoted the view that marginalized the non-communist resistance movement" - this is slightly awkwardly worded
    • As an ESL, I'd appreciate a more clear suggestion here/ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "The communist state downplayed the importance of the non-communist resistance movements" or similar?
        • Thanks, changed to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 7 is cites no less than 40 pages. Please provide a more precise reference.
    • Now 87. I was under the impression that for journals, we do not need to cite exact pages. Am I wrong? In any case, if you look more closely, this full ref cites both the journal page range, and the exact pages (two) used for this particular cite.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I missed that.
  • "the issue of its uniqueness" - what issue is this?
    • That no country or nation has ever created a similar institution, ever. Feel free to suggest how this could be clarified further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please specify this in the article - that's much clearer (and more interesting) than the current wording.
        • Will do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that you say that defining what the Underground State was constituted a challenge for historians, were there different definitions to that used by Salmonowicz?
    • Likely, but I don't recall them, although I am sure we can find some relatively easily on Google Books. Still, as Salmonowicz went to the effort to discuss the problem, I think his definition is the most reliable. Readers interested in the issue can find an extended discussion in his cited book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a time when the Polish defeat in the German invasion of Poland appeared inevitable" - the USSR had also invaded by 27 September
    • Added the link, sees helpful, particularly in the context where we discuss Soviet occupation zone few paras down. I hope you'll agree with me that we don't need to link the Slovak invasion of Poland (1939)... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1942, most of the conflicts between politicians in occupied Poland and those in exile had been positively resolved" - what's meant by 'positively resolved' in this context? What these conflicts were also isn't described in the article.
    • Reworded to differences.. settled. They seemed minor, mostly technicalities, plus IIRC some differences between who were were the dominant figures (and their pre-war alignments) in exile and in occupied Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1943 and March 1944, the Polish Secret State announced its long-term plan, which was partly designed to undercut the attractiveness of some of the communists' proposals." - what were the communists' proposals? Also, how much popular support did the Secret State have compared to that of the communists?
    • I cannot find a source on the communist proposal, but again I'd argue even if we had it, it is something to be discussed in the Polish Workers' Party article, not here. Support wise, I'd say significant, but I don't recall a comparison source. Not that you could expect a very reliable poll from that time period, anyway. Perhaps this would help (notes the marginal support for commies pre-war, and the small role of their resistnace during the war), but where would you like to add this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the '1944–1945: Decline and dissolution' section repeat some of the material in the last paragraph of the '1941–1943: Growth' section. Moreover, the narrative jumps about in these paragraphs; I'd suggest spiting them out into a new section and re-arranging their content so it flows better.
    • I am having trouble with that, although I see your point. By any chance, could you try to carry out the split yourself? Perhaps a fresh perspective on this is needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The occasional use of 'Secret State' in the text is confusing; please standardise this to 'Underground State'
    • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "With the establishment of the TRJN, the government-in-exile stopped being recognized by the Western Allies (France withdrew its recognition on 29 June, followed by United Kingdom and the United States on 5 July), who decided to support the Soviet-backed and increasingly communist TRJN body." really need five supporting references? This actually makes it hard to determine what this is sourced to.
    • Probably tidbits (like dates) are from one source only. Is this a serious problem for MoS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a serious problem for WP:V as it means that readers can't actually trace from where things have been sourced.
  • Did the AK have over 400,000 or over 500,000 members? The article says both at present.
    • Clarified that the first one is less precise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance of the link to Polish Resettlement Corps in the See also section?
    • Somewhat relevant to those members of the Underground State who ended up in the West after WWII. Mostly related to the Polish Armed Forces in the West so I didn't feel like it need more than a SA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Polish Secret State (Polish: Tajne państwo) was a term popularized by Jan Karski in his book Story of a Secret State, written and first published in the second half of 1944 in the United States." in note a is unreferenced.
    • Since I cannot find a ref for popularized, I am just going to change it for an example of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the purpose of the four external links? The first might not be a reliable source, the second is a dead link and the third and fourth also don't seem to be reliable sources
    • Removed all three. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Political representation' section seems a bit repetitive of material already in the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an attempt to present some information from a different angle. A little may be repetitive, but I believe it is useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Events taking place in 1943 significantly weakened the Polish government-in-exile. A rift developed between Poland and the Soviet Union, an increasingly important ally for the West, particularly after the revelation of the Katyn massacre in 1943 (on 13 April), followed by the breaking-off of diplomatic relations with Poland by the Soviets (on 21 April). The subsequent death (on 4 July) of the charismatic General Sikorski, succeeded by less influential Stanisław Mikołajczyk as the Prime Minister, and General Sosnkowski as the Commander-in-Chief, contributed to the decline." really need six references? This seems to be a fairly straight forward description of events, and could be cited to a single general work. Having seven references makes it almost impossible to determine from where each bit of this passage is actually sourced.
    • Probably each ref is needed for a different part. As we have two sentences here, I'll look into whether we can move some refs around in the near future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, does "A number of prominent leaders of the Underground State, including the Government Delegate, Jan Stanisław Jankowski and the last AK Commander-in-Chief, General Leopold Okulicki, who decided to reveal themselves and upon the Soviet invitation begun open negotiations with the communist authorities, were arrested and sentenced by the Soviets in Moscow in the infamous Trial of the Sixteen (arrests were carried out in March 1945, and the trial itself took place in June that year)." need five references? This also seems pretty straight forward.
  • Note b is confusing. Was or was not the AK the largest resistance movement? - the paragraph seems to conclude that it probably wasn't, but this isn't made clear. What's the purpose of mentioning the French resistance here?
    • There was a large discussion of it in the past on some other pages. Long story short, sources are contradictory, but what it boils down to is that it was the largest, till near the end of the war, when it was overtaken by the Yuhoslav. Soviets in the mid-war had a similar size. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ive spot checked some of the citations for accuracy and close paraphrasing (which is my standard practice where I have access to the sources), and while they're generally fine, I have the following comments:
  • Garliński, p. 220 doesn't support the statement that "Research into activities of the Underground State in the Soviet-annexed territories in the 1939–1941 period was particularly difficult" - it just says that not much had been written in English (on page 219) on the topic as of 1975
    • Slightly reworded, backed up with another ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While "Sikorski named General Kazimierz Sosnkowski the head of the ZWZ and Colonel Stefan Rowecki was appointed the commander of the ZWZ German occupation zone. Karaszewicz-Tokarzewski became the commander of the ZWZ Soviet zone, but was arrested in March 1940 by the Soviets when attempting to cross the new German-Soviet border." is supported by Garliński, p. 223, this reference also describes an earlier, and unsuccessful, zonal structure which was in place until January 1940 but doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article.
    • It lasted two months, was mostly on paper, and IMHO seems not even worth a footnote in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garliński, p. 223 doesn't appear to support the statement that "The Delegate's Office was divided into departments, initially 20" - please check the reference (page 226 mentions departments, but doesn't say how many there were)
    • Removed 20, correct page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garliński, p. 224 doesn't support "Those parties, known as the Big Four, were also represented in the Home Political Representation (KRP)" - this is actually on page 234, I think
    • Correct page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to "Both the extreme left (the communists) and the extreme right (the nationalists) saw themselves in opposition to the Underground State.", Garliński, p. 225 actually says that they did actually oppose "the Government Delegacy and the Home Army", which seems a bit stronger than the current wording
    • Any suggestion how to reword it? Seems fine to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to "Armia Krajowa supplied valuable intelligence information to the Allies; 43 percent of all reports received by British secret services from continental Europe in 1939–45 came from Polish sources", the news report doesn't attribute this intelligence to AK specifically or even mention the organisation.
    • The article seems no longer free for me. Anyway, I found a more reliable source here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That also doesn't specify that the AK was the source of the intelligence (it uses the term 'Polish intelligence services').
        • I rewarded it per source. At that point I am not prepared to argue it was AK, I still need to read and write more articles on the history of Polish intelligence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The program was criticized by the nationalist factions, for being too socialist, and not "Christian" enough" - the source (Kersten (1991), pp. 51-52) appears to state that the nationalists' main criticism of the program was that it was too 'red'. This passage in the reference also appears to say that they were concerned that it would also be a step away from the borders of "Great Poland". Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you suggest expansion? Feel free to do so if you wish; I am not sure what would be too undue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source provides an emphasis which is missing from the article as well as an additional criticism Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very extensive review of sources. I'll be replying above as I find time to address the issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are so many separate points here, can we cross out the ones that have been addressed? Feel free to cross out my replies to those as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Can I assume that everything has been addressed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. I still don't think that this article provides a comprehensive history of the Underground State per my above comments. Have you addressed the above issues with the references? You haven't struck the ones which you've followed up on, and references 77 and 78 still don't support the statement that this intelligence came from the AK as I noted above. The inconsistencies with how the references are presented also remains an issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all should be addressed but Garlinski, whose article I'll access soon again. Can you confirm that this is all that remains now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid maintaining my oppose vote. There's still very little material on the German and Soviet occupation authorities response to the Underground State, some relatively simple material is still cited to too many references for readers to be able to determine what sources were actually used, and the article is still heavily weighted towards discussing the political structure of the state and not what it actually did, and failed to do, on the ground (to the extent to which this is covered its stated that the state was active in various areas, but it's never explained whether this was effective and how these tasks were carried out given the extreme nature of the German occupation regime). Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Supportive comments (I'm on wiki-break and have trouble responding in time, hence an early support; in general the article deserves positive assessment and most of my suggestions are minor anyway).
  • Full Garliński citation should appear the first time his work is used, not the last time. Switching to a different citation system (for instance separating in-line citations from references) might be a good idea, but if that's not an option, why not move the full citation to the first time it is used (currently No. 2).
    • Fixed.
  • Red links. I created a stub for Main Political Council, but there are some more red links that need some love.
    • Per WP:RED, red links are perfectly acceptable. Not that I don't stub many, but even FAs are permitted to have red links. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first chapter (1939–1940: Formation) seems a little too detailed. You can safely disregard this comment as I'm not sure myself what should be done with it, but I get an impression that the main focus gets lost somewhere. I would expect less info on who was appointed to what office and more on what is "underground education, social security and justice". I know this sounds vague, it's but an impression.
    • I think I agree with you, but IIRC, this is what the sources focus on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the article is focused on the political side of things but would IMHO benefit from more real-life examples. Say, a para on how the underground courts operated, a para on various underground schools, universities and whatnot, a para on how the publishing scene operated and so on. I know those are already explained in separate articles, but these were all important aspects of the Secret State and explaining them would tell the reader how the state actually operated day-to-day.
    • Hmmm, I am not sure if such expansion would not dilute the focus of the article. If we go into that level of detail, we would need a lot of sections; it would involve a major rewrite, expanding the article significantly. I am not totally against that, but I am not sure I have time and will for such a rewrite now, particularly as I am - again - not totally convinced this is necessary (I think the article is focused and comprehensive as it is). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the last para of 1944–1945: Decline and dissolution to (or duplicate it in) the lead section. //Halibutt 12:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: expansion. IMHO what I mentioned above is precisely what made the Polish Secret State different from other resistance organisations and projects of the epoch. Instead of loosely-related groups of guys with guns, in Poland we had a fully-grown state, complete with public defenders defending accused Gestapo agents in courts of law (instead of just shooting them), with a well-established social welfare system with subsidies for artists, with hundreds of high schools and universities issuing diplomas and valid education certificates... So, in my honest opinion these are not trivia, these are basic facts, basic in the sense that they are precisely what made the Polish Secret State exceptional. //Halibutt 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: I reviewed this during the last ACR. As there have been some changes since then, I have gone over it again, looking mainly at prose. I have the following suggestions. Apologies for the long list, but I hope you will find it useful. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if an English version of "File:Armia krajowa 1.png" couldn't be created. I see that there is currently a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for the maps in Battle of Bautzen (1945). Would it be possible to list this one as well?
    • If those pan out, I'll ask for this one, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, this could be a little tighter: "The first elements of the Underground State were put in place in the final days ". Perhaps consider: "The first elements of the Underground State were established in the final days..."
  • in the lead, I suggest reordering the sentences in the second paragraph of the lead. Specifically the first and the second should probably be swapped around and joined with a co-ordinating conjuction;
  • in the lead, this could be tighter: "war, many involved with the Underground State were prosecuted...". Perhaps try: "war, many Underground State members were prosecuted...";
  • in the lead, this seems potentially POV: "Abandoned by the Western Allies, finding it impossible ". I suggest rewording slightly, " Believing themselves to have been abandoned by the Western Allies, finding it impossible...";
    • I think that would be weaseling. The Underground State was abandoned by the Western Allies, that's a simple fact and rather hard to dispute. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I'll leave it up to you to decide. I strongly recommend trying to reword it somehow before taking it to FAC, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "Underground State (the estimates for membership in Armia Krajowa alone are often given at approaching half a million people), and they". I suggest adding the information in brackets into a proper footnote, as it is probably a bit too much detail for the lead. Alternatively, as it it appears to be covered in the 1944-45 section, it is probably not needed in the lead at all);
    • I think that's an eye-drawing statistic, and would be inclined to leave it. It's... fact-candy :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, "and its culture (see Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, The Holocaust in Poland and Soviet repressions of Polish citizens)". As above, I suggest adding the "see Nazi crimes..." bit into a footnote as it is probably too much for the lead. Again, as it is covered in the 1944-45 section, it may not be required in the lead;
  • in the History section, this is probably a bit repetitive: "The creation of SZP is seen as the first building block of the Underground State." (it is already been said in that paragraph: "The Underground State traces its origins to the Service for Poland's Victory (Służba Zwycięstwu Polski, SZP) organization";
  • inconsistent presentation: " the Polish Government in Exile" v. "the Polish government in exile, envisioned";
  • in the 1939-1940 section, the wikilink for "Commander-in-Chief" should probably be moved to the earliest mention;
  • there is a missing open bracket here: "The communists, in their increasingly radical What We Fight For declarations from March and November 1943), were proposing ";
  • "which they equaled to slavery". This might sound better as: "which they equated to slavery";
  • this is inconsistent: "in their increasingly radical What We Fight For declarations " v. "Underground State's declaration "What the Polish Nation is Fighting For" declared..." (why is one in italics and the other not?);
  • in the 1941-43 section, the wikilink for "socialist" should probably be moved to its first mention;
  • in 1941-43 section, inconsistent spelling: "nationalization" v. "nationalisation";
  • in the 1941-1943 section, overlink "nationalization" and "nationalisation" are both linked;
  • in the 1941-1943 section, irregular capitalisation: "unsuccessful Warsaw Uprising part of the Operation". Probably should just be lower case "operation";
  • in the 1944-1945 section, inconsistent capitalisation: "as the Prime Minister..." v. "in the prime minister's role";
  • in the 1944-1945 section, "few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk that attempted". Might sound smoother as: "the few independent politicians like Mikołajczyk who attempted..."
  • in the Structure/civilian section, this is inconsistent: "The government in exile, based..." v. "The government-in-exile, located..."
  • in the Structure/civilian section, "located first in France and later in the United Kingdom, was represented " probably should be moved into the previous sentence. This would reduce the repetition of "based in London" and would make it clearer, IMO;
  • in the Notes section: "Several sources note that Polish Armia Krajowa was the largest resistance..." Probably doesn't need the "Polish" as it doesn't sound grammatically correct and would be recognised without it. I suggest: "Several sources note that the Armia Krajowa was the largest resistance";
  • per the example in WP:LAYOUT, I believe that the See also section should be placed above the Notes section. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, is someone in a position to action these comments? If so, I'd be more than happy to do another quick read with a view to supporting; if you disagree with my comments, please just say so and we can discuss. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, this slipped through my watchlist. Will try to address most issues soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done all but the ones I commented upon above. Thanks for your suggestions, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added my support. It might pay to see if Nick is in a position to take a look to see if all of his concerns have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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