Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Westerplatte

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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

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

Battle of Westerplatte edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Image review—pass

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

Comment

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

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

Support Comments edit

  • The lead seems a little short - remember that it should be a summary of the article, and nothing in the background and little in the aftermath and remembrance sections are mentioned
  • "60 hectares (600,000 m2" - shouldn't the metric figure be used first? Also, wouldn't km2 be more appropriate for the size?
  • Include Hitler's first name on the first use (and maybe introduce him as "the German dictator" or similar)
  • Don't use ranks after the individual has been introduced (e.g., Sucharski, not Major Sucharski)
  • Relatedly, Franciszek Dąbrowski is overlinked
  • "the flaming wagons created a perfect field of fire" - I don't understand this. Do you mean the flames backlit the German soldiers?
  • Did any fighting take place here during the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1945?
  • Is it relevant that contemporary sources misidentified Sucharski? I'd assume no, but figured it might be worth asking. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:: reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy and Gog the Mild: Thank you, I missed the above. Fixes and comments:
Lead has been expanded, please let me know if anything else you think is significant and you'd like to see it there.
I don't see a problem with hectares being fist, and I changed m2 to km2.
I reduced the overuse of ranks. And overlinking of the mentioned term and few others.
Backlit sounds good, added clarification.
"Did any fighting take place here during the Vistula–Oder Offensive in 1945?" Yes, I've added something to the aftermath. I'd appreciate advise on whether the Polish term "76 dywizja gwardii" (roughly, the Soviet 76th Guards Division) can refer to the 76th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)?
"Is it relevant that contemporary sources misidentified Sucharski?" I am not entirely sure which part of the current text you refer to when asking this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On hectares, wasn't Poland on the metric system? Generally we favor the unit of measure of the country at the time.
Hectares are metric, 1000 sq meters to be precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 76th Guards Rifle Division as well, which is probably the correct unit. Parsecboy (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the last point, the relevant line is " Contemporary English-language publications (such as Life and the Pictorial History of the War) misidentified the Polish commander as a Major "Koscianski"". Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a modern Pole, while of course we use metric system, hectares are also often used in Poland, even today, to discuss land acreage. Thanks for the unit ID, will use it. I think the Koscianski item is relevant in case someone uses an old publication and asks about the possible error? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • Use title case, even for subtitles. Including translated titles.
    • Missed #35
  • Publication info for books is only the year, not a full date.
    • Missed #8, 21, 22, 35–38
  • Be consistent with date formats, both for publication dates and retrieval or achived dates
  • Be consistent about formatting author's names. Some are last, first; others are first then last.
  • Be consistent about providing publisher locations or not for books.
  • Cannot verify the Polish-language sources, but the English-language ones are high quality RS
  • Checked most of the English sources' ISBNs. All reference the correct edition, except Zaloga's Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg is an Osprey book with incorrect publisher info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Ref c/e done. Could you take a look and see if I missed anything? I standardized date formats to use 1 January 2017 for publications but did not change the automatic code generated retrieval/archive dates, I hope this is fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Date format should be consistent throughout, so the access date format needs to match the rest of the article.
Some of the Polish titles need to be translated.
Is there any particular reason why you retained the all caps in #52?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I translated all of them? Also, the title is half caps, so I just retained the half caps in translation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See #6, 10, 32, 44
MOS:CONFORMTITLE says that you should put the translated title should conform to the usage in the rest of the title, so title case.
According to MOS:CAPTITLE all translated titles should be in title case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 and Piotrus: - I have to disagree respectfully with you on one of the English-language sources. IMDB is cited at one point, and it's largely user-generated and is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Hog Farm Bacon 17:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: IMDb is used just as a ref to confirm that the movie exists, nothing more. I think for such use IMDb is sufficient.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Er, no. It is a user-generated source and never reliable as a citation. If the film is notable and WP:DUE for inclusion, you should be able to find a review of it or some news item relating to it. (t · c) buidhe 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Shrug. Sure, no problem, better ref added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Thank you very much Sturmvogel 66 I've changed everything except your last comment (I first want to discuss that with the nominator). Anything else? Since WP:CITEHOW doesn't say anything about access dates in books I assume they should be deleted? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thank you for stepping up and doing the work for the nominator. Right, books don't need access dates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah it's fine, sometimes we have to help each other out. BTW Sturm I've been cleaning a little bit up and have addressed your last comment. Do you believe it's now ready? Let me know if I screwed something up or forgot a spot. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your quick response. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

CommentsOpposeSupport by PM edit

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

Lead and infobox
  • suggest "Beginning on 1 September 1939, the German Wehrmacht and Danzig police assaulted the WST."
  • suggest "that the Polish garrison might hold out for several hours"
  • suggest "The Polish government is planning to open a dedicated museum on the site in 2026, which will be open to the public."
  • for the infobox caption, suggest "The German battleship Schleswig-Holstein firing her guns on September 5, 1939"
Body
  • suggest "In 1939, Westerplatte was a peninsula in the Bay of Danzig, now the Bay of Gdańsk."
  • "In addition, the Polish and French governments"
  • "According to anotherone source"
  • suggest dispensing with the parentheses, ie "only several small guardhouses" and "and were supported by a network of field fortifications, including trenches, barricades and barbed wire."
  • coup d'etat is in Merriam-Webster, so no need to italicise per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC
  • comma after "Mieczysław Słaby [pl]"
  • the link you need is Armata 75 mm wz.02/26
  • the 81 mm mortar you are looking for is the Polish license-made Brandt Mle 27/31
    • In response to your query on my talk page, I suggest just using [[Brandt Mle 27/31|81 mm mortars]] and dropping the Polish interwiki link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "centered on the six guardhouses" per above
  • suggest "The plan called for Westerplattethe depot"
  • for marine shock-troop company, link company (military)
  • the description of the atack forces needs work. Suggest "On board was a Marinestosstruppkompanie (marine shock-troop company) of 225 men under Lieutenant Wilhelm Henningsen. <say where the land force was located>, the Germans had an SS Heimwehr Danzig force of 1,500 men under Police General Friedrich-Georg Eberhardt. In overall command was Captain Gustav Kleikamp, aboard Schleswig-Holstein. Initially the marines were ordered to attack on the morning of 26 August 1939, and on that day the battleship moved further upstream. Sucharski put the garrison of the depot on heightened alert. Shortly before the German disembarkation, the orders were rescinded."
  • "to capture Westerplattethe depot"
  • "On the early morning of 1 September 1939, the Schleswig-Holstein" the definite article isn't used in front of ship names
  • link broadside
  • "at the Polish garrisonpositions" do we know where the shells landed?
  • "Eight minutes later Lieutenant Wilhelm Henningsen's marines from the Schleswig-Holstein advanced" but weren't they on the ship? Where/how did they land?
  • "the artillery-breached brick wall" where?
  • where did the Schutzpolizei come from, they are not listed earlier?
  • "Lt. Leon Pająk opened intense howitzer fire", but the gun was a field gun, not a howitzer. Suggest "The field gun, commanded by Pająk, opened intense fire..."
  • "the other side of Westerplatte" what side?
  • "The Germans triedassaulted the depot again"
  • for mines, link Anti-personnel mine
  • "By noon, when the Germans retreated, Henningsen had been gravely wounded."
  • suggest "taking outdestroying the Polish mortars"
  • "Outpost Five" where was that? This raises the need for a better description of the layout of the defences, per some comments below as well
  • "On 4 September, a German torpedo boat, the T196"
  • "The Poles' Wał post" what and where was this?
  • "Now only the Fort position" what position was this?
  • "the T196 and the Schleswig-Holstein"
  • "one fatality"
  • "Danzig SS" is this the Heimwehr? If so, be consistent
  • "and Wehrmacht" but the naval troops were part of the Wehrmacht. Do you mean German Army troops? If so, which ones were they?
  • "toward the land bridge" where?
  • where were the various outposts?
  • "The Schleswig-Holstein took part in the bombardments"
  • "General Eberhardt"
  • suggest "let Sucharski keep his ceremonial szabla (Polish saber) in captivity,[6]:447 but it was confiscated later."
  • "Contemporary English-language publications, such as Life and the Pictorial History of the War, misidentified"
  • "Sucharski surrendered the post to Captain Kleikamp, and the German"
  • "Over 3,000 Germans, including soldiers and support formations such as the Danzig police,..."
  • "sSergeant Kazimierz Rasiński"
  • link radio code
  • "On 19 September Hitler came to visit GdańskDanzig" contemporary names should be used
  • the Aftermath section has too many short paras
  • say that I. C. B. Dear is a historian
  • Luftwaffe is in Merriam-Webster, and does not need to be italicised
  • "notably preventing the Schleswig-Holstein"
  • "beginning on 1 September 1939"
  • the link for "subsequent" is rather Easter-Eggy
  • "Westerplatte is a common venue for remembrance ceremonies relating to World War II, usually held on 1 September."
  • "was attended by Prime Minister Tusk"
  • "was the removal of the Soviet T-34 tank from the cemetery to a museum in another town in 2007."

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

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

Comments Support by Hog Farm edit

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

  • ". In addition, Polish and French discussed the need for a preventive war against Germany" - This reads funny to me. Maybe either the Polish and French, or probably Polish and French leaders (if that's accurate)
  • Did the League ever find out about the Polish improvements? It sounds like the field fortifications would be in violation of the League of Nations rules, but the trenches and barbed wire would surely be harder to hide
  • Free City of Danzig is overlinked in the background
  • One of these redlinks with an interwiki link I'm not sure about: There is an enwiki article 81 mm mortar. The Polish article is in much better shape, and details the specific Polish model used, which there isn't on enwiki, but the English article is more useful to those who don't speak Polish, which it's safe to say is most of our readers.

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

  • "aboard the Schleswig-Holstein" - This appears in several places throughout the article. With ship's names, it okay to say "the battleship Foo", but it's always "Foo", not "the Foo"
  • " and Lt. Leon Pająk" - If you're going to abbreviate ranks, introduce the abbreviation after the full form of the first time the rank is mentioned
  • "fatalty" - Check you're spelling
  • "Sucharski surrendered the post to Captain Kleikamp, the Germans stood at attention as the Polish garrison marched out at 11:30. - I feel like this should be a semicolon, not a comma
  • You cite IMDB in the Remembrance section. It is not a reliable source whatsoever.
  • "The Polish 75 mm field gun became one of Germany's first war trophies of World War II, displayed on a column at Flensburg - But earlier, you said it was destroyed. Maybe "disabled" would be a better word for when you say it was knocked out of combat in the battle section.

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

    • @Hog Farm: All issues fixed (by me or others, thank you). re: "Did the League ever find out about the Polish improvements? It sounds like the field fortifications would be in violation of the League of Nations rules, but the trenches and barbed wire would surely be harder to hide" Everything I found about this issue is in the article already, the sources don't seem to say anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Supporting for A-Class, although I'd have more at a FAC, especially in level of detail about defenses/attack direction. Hog Farm Bacon 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias edit

  • The map says "Location within Poland, 1939 borders", but assuming that Poland is the bit in cream, it is not "within Poland".
  • "..established the Polish Military Transit Depot (Wojskowa Składnica Tranzytowa (WST) on the.." This needs another closing bracket: ")".
  • "Reportedly Kleikamp had been assured by the Danzig Police that "Westerplatte would be taken in 10 minutes."" According to who? Include this information inline.
  • "On the early morning of 1 September 1939, Schleswig-Holstein suddenly fired a broadside at the Polish garrison." Remove "suddenly".
  • "..as due to the battleships proximity.." This should be "battleship's proximity".
  • "..after advancing about 200 m.." Use the {{convert}} template to provide a conversion for this. Also, the article previously provided a measurement in yards (metres), so make sure to be consistent.
  • "However, soon after crossing the artillery-breached brick wall at the border, after advancing about 200 m and engaging the Polish Prom outpost, the Germans ran into an ambush." This might be better written as "However, after crossing the artillery-breached brick wall at the border, advancing about 660 feet (200 m), and engaging the Polish Prom outpost, the Germans ran into an ambush."
  • "..firing 28 rounds, knocking out several machine-gun nests atop warehouses across the harbor canal.." Get rid of this comma and replace it with "and".
  • "..were approximately 50 Germans and eight Poles.." Per MOS:NUMNOTES this needs to be "fifty" and "eight" or "50" and "8".
  • "..Henningsen has been gravely wounded." Change "has" to "had", and "severely" might be better than "gravely".
  • "On the first day's combat, the Polish side had sustained four killed and several wounded.[6]:446 The German marines had lost 16 killed and some 120 wounded." Again per MOS:NUMNOTES match all of these in either digits or words. Merge this single sentence paragraph into the paragraph that comes before it.
  • "..by 60 Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers dropped.." Is there a way to avoid this WP:SEAOFBLUE?
  • "..26.5 tons.." and "..with a 500 kg bomb.." Can conversions be provided?
  • "..made a surprise attack from the sea side." Can we remove "from the sea side"? I don't think anyone is likely to get confused and think that two ships attacked from land...
  • "The train failed to reach the oil cistern; instead.." I found this a bit confusion, as it was the first mention of an oil cistern that I could see. Maybe rephrase as "The train failed to reach its target, an oil cistern; instead.."
  • Use {{lang}} for foreign-language terms per MOS:LANG (note there are exceptions for a few things, such as proper nouns, or terms that have become common in English).
  • "This had likely taken place following the 2 September air raids." This opinion needs inline attribution: who suggested this?
  • "Still, it did tie up substantial German forces for much longer than anyone had expected, notably preventing.." The language here seems a bit casual, how about "It tied up substantial German forces for much longer than anyone had expected, preventing.."
  • "..Song about the Soldiers of Westerplatte [pl] ("A Song of the Soldiers of Westerplatte").." Why does this appear to be an English translation of an English translation? Am I missing something?
  • "..a Polish Thermopylae." Wouldn't it be better as "..a Polish Battle of Thermopylae".?
  • "..25-meter-tall.." Provide a conversion.
  • Why does the article red link to Monument to the Defenders of the Coast, but the image is captioned with a link to Westerplatte Monument, which says it is "also known as the Monument of the Coast Defenders", and so presumably the same thing?

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

Queries edit

  • Good day mates,
I have some questions here. Since this one is from July can we have another look where we are going here:
  • Buidhe what is the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
    • I neither support nor oppose the article, I haven't looked at it deeply enough to say. (t · c) buidhe 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true but you've made this sentence "Yes, I think there should be some way to concisely state that it is often called the first battle but the designation is disputed." which wasn't answered and I just wanted to know whether or not it was important? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sturmvogel 66 what is the status here does this ARC pass the source review?
  • There's nothing terribly complicated about the remaining things that need to be done, but it's not ready yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peacemaker67 what's the status in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?
  • Harrias what's the status here in your own section? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes?

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

  • Looks like Parsecboy was here also involved. PB what's the status there? Are you happy with Piotrus's changes in your own section? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think so, but I'd like to see Peacemaker sign off as well. Thanks for the ping, CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Nate PM has decided to support it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Westerplatte&oldid=996848863"