Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish-Soviet War/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Polish-Soviet War

Self-nom. A fairly unknow war that determined the fate or our civilisation. I believe this is one of my best works so far - a detailed and (hopefully) NPOV coverage of an entire war, with lead up to and the aftermath. No significant objections have been raised during the recent Peer Review and I believe the article is now ready for the final trial, the FAC comments. A note: this article has one serious flow I am well aware of: there is no map of the war itself (only a map of the country after the war in the aftermath section). I am no good with graphical editors, so I cannot make a nice map :( I would be happy to help anybody willing to make one by translating terms from this great Polish map [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose Very good treatment ineed, but nearly three times the recommended page size. Article size is very important given that the average attention span of people is 20 minutes and it takes the average person about that amount of time to read 30 to 35 KB of prose. So a person who needs a good primer on this topic would not likely finish reading this article. Nothing wrong with having a great deal of coverage on a topic, but having so much in one article is not optimal since it only serves the most dedicated readers. See Wikipedia:Summary style on how to fix this (involves summarizing some sections and moving the more detailed text to daughter articles). --mav 20:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am happy to adress most objections, but size is something I don't agree on. First, we have other FA which are also quite lenghty, for example Origins of the American Civil War (87kb), History of Russia (70kb), History of post-Soviet Russia (64kb). They were FAed (quite recently in case of Histories...), despite their lenght. Second, Wikipedia:Article size states that: there is presently no firm policy dictating any precise limit on article length. Third, this is of course MHO, but I don't believe that article size and people attention span is that important to Wiki articles. Our primary purpose is to inform, not attract, this is Wikipedia, not MTV. Some visitors will lead the lead only and don't care about the rest, be it 1kb or 100kb. Those who want a detailed treatment will read the rest - perhaps in one sitting, perhaps in a few. Consider, please, that if attention span was everything, nobody would read books :) Now, if you have an idea how to move some of the material into a subsections, I'd be happy to hear this, however, as a person who researched the topic and wrote the article (of course this means I am somewhat biased...) I think that such an action would lessen the overall value of the article - I did think what could be moved off, but I can't think what can be sacrificed and cut out of the present article and still leave it throughout. Fourth, note that there are already subsetions - i.e. the individual battle articles, which will eventually contain much more info then the war article itself (see Battle of Warsaw (1920) for a good example of this). Finally, I'll stress again: please tell me what can be moved off - or do it yourself :) I am all for improving this article, I just can't see any *specific* way of doing it now. Perhaps, as a creator, I just can't bear the though of destroying something I made. Please help me out with concrete suggestions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • And there were many articles that went through FAC without references before that was a criteria - including several that I objected to on that basis. That policy did not exist before, but now it does. I'd like to work toward a similar policy on article size in light of attention span (see Wikipedia:Summary style). We need to serve those people who want to read about an entire topic without getting exhausted. The comparison to books is specious given that this is not Wikibooks. As I said, there is no reason why Wikipedia can't have lots and lots of detail on a topic so long as it is organized in such a way that it serves a diverse readerbase. Readers need the ability to 'zoom in' on the amount of detail they need. So far this article does not allow for readers to zoom out to get a more general and less specific view of the entire topic (articles branching off from sections in this article can go into detail on the topic covered in that section). --mav 15:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Piotrus -- it's not just for people who have inadequate attention spans...some people are just looking for a high-level summary of a topic, not an in-depth treatment. That's one of the features of an encyclopedia — even though entire books could be written on a topic, an encyclopedia article allows you to go and quickly get the major facts. Certainly, please don't destroy any of the excellent work in this article, but I've seen some very cunning schemes for partitioning topics before. As the author and resident expert, you're in the best position to know what would make a good breakdown of this topic. However, as critical readers, we can tell you with a reasonable amount of confidence that the article , at 80k, is too long as it stands. — Matt Crypto 15:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I can't help agreeing with Matt fully. You don't have to have to have an attentions span problem to get overwhelmed by 80 k. I know there are no strict rules or guidelines, but I feel that around 30 k is the ideal length if not shorter. Good summaries is what wiki should be all about. There's always room for more specific articles to handle the excess text... Peter Isotalo 18:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, the voice of the majority has spoken. I created subs for causes and aftermaths, and moved the list of battles to a list article as well. Hopefully I have managed not to butcher the shortened sections (the article is smaller by 10kb now (70kb total), which let me stress is less then at least two FA I mention above). Please take a look at the new sections to make sure I have not left out anything you found interesting previously. I will try to shorten the main body now, but atm I have no idea how. More suggestions appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Nice start but more summarizing and spinning off of detail is needed. --mav 22:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Do tell me what would you like me to summarize now? Causes and aftermath were fairly simple, but what remains now is only the main part - campaign details - and it already has several subarticles (battle articles). I don't really see how I can shorten this further without losing vital info. At 70k I think it is not too big, really, there are several other FAs bigger then that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • Not that I want to seem lazy and overly critical, but that's very hard to do without quite intimate knowledge of the subject. The only concrete suggestion I can give you right now is to make the sub-sections into paragraphs. I'm going to give the article a proper examination this weekend and see if I can help out. Peter Isotalo 12:54, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with mav. Peter Isotalo 01:35, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've gone through most of the much shortened version (44k) and copy-edited quite a lot of it, though there's a handful of sentences that I simply can't unravel and was forced to leave with a comment. I hadn't really noticed it before, but the article is pretty obviously slanted in favor of the Poles. I wouldn't go so far as calling it nationalistic, but for example, there are too many Polish paintings of war scenes. At least one more Russian propaganda poster would be nice for balance (eventhough it clearly was a big embarassment for the Bolsheviks). Peter Isotalo 20:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two points:
      1. Yes, I think it's too long at 80KB; I'm not a stickler for 32K, but I do think 50KB is a reasonable maximum in almost all cases. So I would too prefer splitting stuff out. But please, please don't lose any info in the process. I'd like to see as many FAs on the war as can be written.
      2. But didn't we promote The Cantos? And it was the same length, actually a little longer, right? I didn't oppose there, although I was tempted to, so I won't here. But I have to ask, what's the difference? I think this topic is easily more important. Everyking 09:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I know I certainly wouldn't have supported it :-), but this is my first attempt at judging an FAC candidate. This article looks great, though, and it could only get better if it were shortened properly. Right now it's just a chore to plow through. Peter Isotalo 14:57, Mar 28, 2005
  • Can someone fix the mangled sentence, "In the coming months, Denikin would pay dearly for t"? — Matt Crypto 10:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Tnx for the note, fixed "...Denikin would pay dearly for his refusal to compromise on this issue."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, as with Wladyslaw Sikorski, I've come across several spelling mistakes in the article. Before nominating an article, it's a good idea to do some basic checks on the article, such as passing it through a spell checker. — Matt Crypto 10:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, agree with mav and Peter; trying to read this article in its entirety is exhausting. The thorough treatment is great, but I think some of it would be better off moved to separate articles. — Matt Crypto 10:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the objections to the size are badly misguided. It's important for such an essential article to be comprehensive. If people are worried about readers getting bored, perhaps a short Overview section of the article, summarizing the article as a whole, would be a good thing to include. Otherwise, I very much support this article for featured status and think Everyking's point is well taken. Wikipedia is not paper. One more thing. Objections to size seem suddenly to be ubiquitous on this page. I think there ought to be a discussion about whether size is really something we should count as a valid objection. Hydriotaphia 01:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it is a valid objection given all the points already expressed about readability. A summary can be comprehensive without being too long. It just takes skill to weed out the most essential information that should be included at this level vs what would be better to have in a daughter article that covers a sub-topic in more detail. Doing that work is a great service to the reader. As has already been stated, an encyclopedia needs to mention the most important aspects of a topic. Since Wikipedia is not divided into different types of encyclopedia (ones that go into great detail, others that go into a moderate level of detail, and those that only offer concise articles), we must be all three in one. This can be done through Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 03:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It isn't that I think your position isn't arguably correct. It's that you're assuming it's right, and that it is (or at least should be) accepted by everybody. Readability is certainly an important value, I agree with you there. But you are assuming that what you consider to be an excessively long article is somehow objectively unreadable. Unreadability is not a brute fact. You are defining unreadability by the "average attention span of 20 minutes" (I don't know where you get this factoid from), and then taking the further analytical step of saying that this average attention span should define what is unreadable for the purposes of Wikipedia featured articles. It's not obvious that these leaps are sound ones; it is, let me again emphasize, something to be discussed.
Let me summarize and restate: you are stating one arguably correct position about what Wikipedia should be like; your position, while reasonable, is neither obviously true nor an official requirement for featured articles (see Wikipedia:What is a featured article); therefore it should not yet be considered a cognizable ground for criticism. In the near future, when I have time, I shall try to set up a page where this topic can be discussed. Until then, however, I hope we can agree that your objection is not yet recognized as a valid one. Hydriotaphia 05:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you can't simply declare someone's objection to be invalid just because you disagree with it. — Matt Crypto 10:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's really unfair; that's exactly what I'm not saying. I'm saying—perhaps erroneously—that unless something is an officially accepted criterion for a featured article, it shouldn't be recognized as a valid ground for objection. Perhaps I'm wrong; Piotr's comment below has made me unsure whether I'm right. However, I'll share with you something that Taxman has added at a relevant talk page:
"[T]he criteria are all an editor has to go on in writing a featured quality article. They are there to show the agreed upon standards. People can have lots of opinions about what they would want FA's to be, but an editor cannot know what they are or meet them if they are not in the criteria. - Taxman 14:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)"
Good point, again. Now you have me thinking if I was right to disagree with you in the first place. I knew about the *recommmended* size, but note the difference between *recommended* and *objectionable*. And on a further note, everybody has the right to object, but not every objections is valid. If the size is only a recommendation, can one object during FAC based solely on a fact that article does not follow all recommendations, although it meets all of the obligatory criteria? Perhaps a vote on the size issue would be best to clear this once and for all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recommendations tend to be there for a reason and there's been good argumentation in favour of following those recommendation. Why not just try to reach consensus instead? Peter Isotalo 22:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have misrepresented what you're saying. I still disagree with you, though, about the "official criteria" — as far as I'm aware, the only restriction on objections is that they must be somehow "actionable". (Further discussion on this should probably go on the FAC talk page or the WIAFA talk page). — Matt Crypto 16:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No worries. Best, Hydriotaphia 16:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for putting that better then I could, Hydriotaphia. However I have - unfortunately - to disagree with you on one issue. Mav and the rest don't have to withdraw their object, nor can it be considered invalid solely on the grounds that it is not a formal category for FA. If they, after having read the entire article, still feel it needs to be shorten, they have a valid objection (not that we have to agree with it - but we have to recognize their rights to it). However, since they read it, I'd greatly appreciate pointers as to what *exactly* should be cut out now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pointers would be good. I'll work on that later now that you seem open to the idea. :) --mav 20:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Piotrus, Logologist and others did a great job on this article. It's not only readable and comprehensive, but it's also a great piece of prose. Both the style and the choice of facts mentioned are worth support for FA. The only thing that article lacks IMO are more photos and perhaps also maps. Halibutt 08:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Gently oppose If the article is simply split according to current section breaks and the current introduction becomes a single article this will improve readability. There are a number of reasons why shorter articles are better.
    • We can have an article and series on "turning points in invasions of europe". The battle of Warsaw then logically shares a place defeats of Ghengis Khan and Leonidas' great fight against the Persians etc. Sure that would make you happy :-)
    • Sometimes an article is just a small link in another article, e.g. the article on "agriculture in the Ukraine" could mention that farming was reduced by the Polish / Soviet war. Someone researching agricultural productivity and who has never heard of this can probably spare two minutes to read a brief summary. Even twenty minutes is too much to ask.
      • This is just a personal opionion, and a rather strange example. And besides, lead is the summary. Article is, well, an article. I strongly opposed to the idea that we should dumb down our article by cutting out vital information, so that some people are not *bored*. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper. In a paper encyclopedia, splitting up articles makes it difficult to find one from another. By using navigation boxes for a series, we can actually make it very easy.
      • I agree, although there is quite a strong following that would oppose this (the people who supported deletion of navigational templates, mostly). While a box may be a good addition to the current subarticles, it does not solve the main problem, which is: what else do you suggest we cut out from the main article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • see below.
    • If an article is small it encourages future expansion.
      • Excuse me? Short articles are good cause they encourage expantion, but when they are expanded they are bad??? Or is this an April Fools Day comment? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • nope, when they are expanded, then they need to be split up :-) Seriously, the level of detail we might want in the end is quite high. Making more short to the point articles (15k-20k) leaves some space for expansion. Articles should be split when they get to about 25->40k excluding markup. Mozzerati 14:22, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
    as far as the articles you've listed which are too long, my suggestion would be that they should be listed for removal as featured articles until they are also split up. Possibly, for reasons of tact and intellectual honesty, some of the people objecting to the length of this article should do that rather than Piotrus. Mozzerati 11:34, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

What to split? Some examples

  • there's a whole bunch of stuff about Weygand and so on which could be summarised with "France provided a little military aid to Poland, but, despite myths to the contrary it made almost no difference".
  • make a completely separate time oriented military campaign page, keep outside politics out of that except where it directly changed a campaign choice, and even in that case, give a link.
  • on the main page, do not name any military officer commanding less than approx 100k men (or equivalent importance for other reason).
Mozzerati 14:22, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • support just; it's now almost reduced in size by a half and expansion should be done in more specific articles; well illustrated; good references. Still needs a navigation template, but I might do one myself if nobody else does. Mozzerati 17:43, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, thanks for your work on trimming this article down, but it is still too long, in my opinion (it's 70k at present). You've asked me "Please tell me EXACTLY what sections/parts/etc. you find unimportant enough to be moved to a subarticle?". Try not to think about it in terms of "importance", but rather in terms of "resolution", or "level of detail". It's all important, and it all should be included in the encyclopedia. The question is simply that of how do we structure its presentation to be of most use to as many readers as possible? Well, Piotrus is the expert, but my suggestion, based on the divisions in the TOC, is this: how about creating a Polish-Soviet War, campaign (1919) and Polish-Soviet War, campaign (1920) articles, since these are major sections in this article. They can be replaced by brief summaries that overview the campaign during these years. — Matt Crypto 13:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work on this Piotrus, and I appreciate that it can be a real PITA to go and radically alter articles that are a product of much hard work. After your sub-articling, I think the article is much more manageable (although if you can squeeze that navbox into the main article as well, it would be great). But, having said that (and aware that you'll hate me) I still think some sections are too long. If you're using summary style, and you have a "Main article: Polish-Soviet War in 1920" notice, you should be aiming for the summary in the main article to not exceed 3-4 paragraphs. Currently, in particular the "1920" section is too big (31 paragraphs!!). I would suggest that you trim this down, and the reader can get the full story in the sub-article, if they've got time. I would hate to fuel your frustration, but this is my honest opinion (and I could be wrong, of course). Again, thanks for your hard work on this and willingness to listen to others. — Matt Crypto 21:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Matt - a 3 paragraph long summary should act as the lead section at Polish-Soviet War in 1920. This article needs more than that (at least 6 paragraphs - if not 10). But I agree that 31 is a bit much. Oh, and could you strike out your 'Oppose' vote above? --mav 01:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I can go along with that. I'm happy to remove my opposition (and I'd support outright if the 1920 section was smaller) (Just had an edit conflict, and I'd struck out the "Oppose" right before you asked!). — Matt Crypto 01:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good job! :) The article is much more manageable now. Matt has some good points, but I don't agree with the scale of cutting that could further improve the article (FAs do not have to be perfect at promotion but feedback on further improvement is always good). In fact I think the 1920 section should have 3 to 4 subsections that are each a bit smaller than the current size of the 6 longish ones. Cutting it to 3 to 4 paragraphs would be too much since that is the size range that the lead section at Polish-Soviet War of 1920 should be and there is just too much detail to cover. --mav 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Polish-Soviet_War_archive1_35a2.html"