Talk:Cezary Ketling-Szemley/GA1

GA Review

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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Marcelus (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm happy to take this one on for review. Apologies that it took so long for somebody to get around to reviewing this. Per my usual reviewing style, I will give section-by-section comments, followed by a broad check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Prewar period

• "mutually exclusive information" What does this mean? It's unclear.
• "not wanting to write "born in the USSR"" If he was born in Lviv in 1915, how would he have been born in the USSR?
• "Czarno na Białym" This should be in Italics, if it's a periodical.
• "it's possible that his patron was Count Jan Szembek" Start a new sentence here. It currently reads like two sentences combined into one.
• No need to link twice to the Alliance of Democrats in the same section. Remove the second link.

  Fixed all, ass for Lviv it was a Soviet-imposed policy after the war to give USSR for the cities annexed by Soviets after 1945.

  Ok, if you have a source for that, I think an explanatory footnote would be helpful to add, as it may be confusing to the lay reader. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified, although consider specifying the footnote that you're citing, so "Grabski 2007, p. 428n27."

Conspiracy and the establishment of PLAN

• "the independence conspiracy" What is this? You bring it up like it's common nomenclature, but it's unclear what it even is.
• "very early on" Very early on in what? The war? The conspiracy? It also reads a little odd considering this section of the sentence starts with "later".
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• There's a lot in this section that isn't directly about Szemley and would be better utilised in a dedicated article about the PLAN. Some examples:
  • Everything after "as an organization of leftist patriotic youth" seems like it would be relevant to an article on the PLAN, but doesn't seem to have any direct connection to Szemley. You could cut or at least trim most of this sentence.
  • "However, most of the scouts of the 23rd squad left the PLAN at the end of 1939 [...]" How is any of this relevant to Szemley?
  • "(among them were, later shrouded in legend, Tadeusz Zawadzki " Zośka," Jan Bytnar "Rudy" and Aleksy Dawidowski "Alek")" Would make sense to mention this in an article about the PLAN, but in a biography about Szemley, this reads as trivia.
  • "The PLAN commander was Jerzy Drewnowski" Again, makes sense to mention in an article about the PLAN, but entirely irrelevant to Szemley's biography.
  • "The PLAN's activities were wide-ranging, the precursor actions to so-called minor sabotage were of great significance, including the spreading of anti-German stickers." Was Szemley involved in any of this? Or was his activities within the PLAN limited to editing Biuletyn Polski?
  • "The repression also affected the Jewish people, [...]" Again, vital to know this about the PLAN, but what does any of this have to do with Szemley? The only part of this bit that I think is relevant to Szemley's biography is that "PLAN founders and most members were arrested", as it explains why Szemley took over the reorganisation of the PLAN.
  • "Apart from the name and a general democratic left-wing profile, [...]" Again, all of this would be relevant to an article on the PLAN, but in an article about Szemley, this should be greatly reduced to only the most relevant information.
  • There's another link here to the Alliance of Democrats. Remove this link.
  • "Wacław Barcikowski became the chairman, Stanisław Janusz was the military commander." Why is this relevant to Szemley's biography?
  • "PLAN II published the magazine Rzeczpospolita (lit. 'Commonwealth') from January 1941 [...]" Did Szemley have anything to do with this publication?

Comment: all of this is relevant to the biography of Szemley because it shows his entire milieu, his methods of opeation, and the shifting character of the PLAN. PLAN II was basically single-handly (at least according to some sources) organised and managed by Szemley; he basically hijacked the already established name for his new organisation.Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I really must disagree that all of this is directly relevant to Szemley's biography. It may be directly relevant to the PLAN and tangentially related to Szemley, but such lengthy asides in the middle of a biography distract from the focus on the subject. Please do look at it again and see if there's anything you think might be worth trimming. I'm happy to seek a third opinion if you really insist on keeping all of this, but I do think it presents a problem with this article passing criteria 3b ("It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed a bit; in my opinion names of commanders and collaborators are important for Szemley biography. Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on board. I still think there's some more trimming that could be done, but this looks a lot better and much more focused on Szemley's biography, so I won't push it any further. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [6] Verified. As you're citing one of the footnotes here, consider formatting your citation as "Fogelzang-Adler 2009, p. 185n6." Explicitly indicating that you're citing a footnote makes verification easier.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
  • If you're going to use the phrase "so-called", you should probably put "minor sabotage" in quotation marks.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verifies the second sentence, that the founding date of the PLAN II is disputed. First sentence is a bit iffy. It appears like you're saying the PLAN II was founded by Szemley alone, but the source lists Czemley as sixth in a list of eight leading members. Consider using "co-founded" instead of "set up". (Also the citation should have the page numbers as 192-193, as this information is split over these two pages)
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified almost everything here, in the quote from Bogdan Hillebrandt. But I can't find anything about "a general democratic left-wing profile", as you've written here.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified, still don't think this is relevant to Szemley's biography though.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified, although I think the page range is wrong, it should be p. 195-196.

In the Home Army

• "Szemley's contacts with the ŻZW" As this is the first reference to the ŻZW in the body of the article, what it is should be clarified here.
• "led by the Jerzy Makowiecki "Malicki" [...]" I think the details about Malicki could be trimmed a bit, just to keep the focus on Szemley.
• You introduce some acronyms here and provide links for them, but don't clarify the actual names that the acronyms stand for. So for example, where you have introduced the ŻOB, you should have it written as "Jewish Combat Organization (ŻOB)".
• ""I consider Arpad to be a complete psychopath"" When did Szemley start going by the pseudonym "Arpad"? As it stands, it's not clear that Malicki is referring to Szemley here.

Comment: Makowiecki links to Alliance of Democrats it's important to show why Szemley was part of his cell; as for Arpad I think it's obvious from the context, also this nickname is mentioned in the body and in the infobox. Fixed the rest. Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but none of what you says about Makowiecki actually shows clearly "why Szemley was part of his cell". Either be more explicit about that, or consider trimming down some of the details about Makowiecki. And I don't think "Arpad" is obvious from the context, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up. This is the first (and only) time it is used in the body, so it should be made clear that it is Szemley. Consider using square brackets to clarify this, so something like "I consider Arpad [Szemley] to be a complete psychopath". --Grnrchst (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what can be removed here Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified, although again, consider specifying the footnote that you're citing, so "Grabski 2007, p. 428n27."

Death sentence

• "enemies" Who were these "enemies"? Members of the AK? Nazis?

  they were Polish aligned with the AK Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• No need to provide a quote signature for Bernard Zakrzewski, as you've already introduced the quote as being attributed to him.

  Fixed Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [18] Verified, although again, consider specifying the footnote that you're citing, so "Grabski 2007, p. 429n31."

Establishment of cooperation

• Duplicate link to the Home Army, should be removed.
• "Continuing relationship Szemley" Huh? What does "continuing relationship" mean?
• "revisionist resistance movement" What does "revisionist" mean in this context?

  It refers to Revisionist Zionism. Fixed Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified first two instances. For the third, I couldn't find any indication that this account was given to Lazar in 1963, is this somewhere else or am I missing it? I'm also not seeing anything to verify "Undoubtedly, however, the accounts of aid to Jews in hiding undertaken by PLAN II are most likely true." Right now, this last bit reads to me like a novel interpretation or original research. In particular, the use of the word "Undoubtedly", in wikivoice, seems to be an assertion. Honestly, as doubts about the truth of this never appeared to have been raised before this, consider just cutting this sentence.

Execution of Lolek Skosowski and Arek Wajntraub and other joint combat actions

• Woah this is a long section header. Consider trimming it to something shorter.
• Trim some of the bits about the PLAN actions that aren't directly relevant to Szemley's biography.
• "assassination attempt on German informers" Is it necessary to mention all of the informants by name? Are any of them independently notable?
• Again, trim some of the sentences about the assassination that aren't directly relevant to Szemley's biography.

  I think all of these is relevant to Szemley's biography, as I said earlier PLAN II was basically "his" organisation and he was spiritus movens behind cooperation with ŻZW. What's more, according to him, he personally took part on assasination attempt on Skosowski and others. I also think it's valuable to mention all of them by the name.Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I think you've made a better case for keeping this context than the parts in the early section. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Great Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [30] Verified most of first, second and third instances, although much of this information is in the previous page. This citation should really say "Grabski 2007, p. 431-432." Couple things there are issues with: the source never says that the SS man was killed near Nalewski street; the "anti-German action" that you don't give any information about was carried out by Szemley's men to capture weaponry (consider adding this detail).
• Consider linking to Feldgendarmerie for the German gendarmes.
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified most of the fourth instance. But where does the source say that this action was carried out "according to Szemley on his initiative"?
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified fifth instance.

Ghetto uprising

• "the fighting ghetto" Hrm? Should this say "the ghetto uprising" or does "fighting ghetto" mean something I'm missing?
• "group of" Should say "a group of".
• "deconspiration" What does this mean? It's not a word I'm familiar with.
• Again, no need to provide a quote signature for Cezary Szemley-Ketling, as you've already introduced the quote as being attributed to him.
• "Another group was helped out by PLAN II member Tadeusz Malinowski to 13 Grzybowska Street through sewers." Is this relevant to Szemley's biography?

  Deconspiration is a calque from Polish, meaning the surrender of a secret organization or person acting secretly. If you can suggest some English wording with a similar meaning I would appreciate it. All PLAN II actions are relevant to Szemley's biography.Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've done a good job finding alternatives for this word. Although I think "as a result of exposing," should probably read "as a result of its exposure,". It's still not clear to me how Malinowski's action is directly related to Szemley's biography. I don't think "it's a PLAN II action, so it's all relevant" is a good enough explanation. (On second read, this sentence is also a bit oddly structured. It should probably read "Another group was helped out through the sewers by PLAN II member Tadeusz Malinowski to 13 Grzybowska Street") --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, Malinowski was Szemley's subordinate. Marcelus (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [34] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Where does the source give the date of "22 April or later"?
• Spotcheck: [35] Verified.

Polish People's Army

• PAL should be in brackets, not part of the link.

  Fixed Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

After the war

• "he was removed from the United People's Party" Any information as to why?

  No clear information. Probably purges during the Stalinist period, when uncertain comrades were removed, especially with a history in the wartime underground (even communist). Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

• This section should be moved below the references section, per MOS:REFERENCES.
• Make sure the citations are as complete as they can be. For example, I notice that the publisher for Libionka & Weinbaum 2011 isn't provided. Also none of the citations have ISSN, OCLC or DOI tags, which would be very helpful for verification if they are available. Additionally, if there are links available to online versions of these sources, they should be provided.

  Fixed if possibleMarcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

• "anti-German conspiracy" What is this? This isn't terminology I'm familiar with. Perhaps it should link to Polish resistance movement in World War II?
• "before Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" Should say "before the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising".
• "deconspiration" Again, what does this word mean?
• "( ŻZW)" Remove the space after the opening bracket.
• "Polish People's Army PAL" Again, "PAL" should be in brackets.
• "puppet government" This is very loaded language. Should be changed to "Soviet-backed" or something similar.

  Puppet government is fine description of the PKWN relations with Soviets; fixed all else.Marcelus (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok then, do you have any sources that describe it specifically as a puppet government? Because nowhere in this article or in the article about the PKWN is it described as such. I must insist on this, as wording like this can potentially compromise the neutrality of the article (criteria 4). --Grnrchst (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Provisional Government of National Unity which evolved from PKWN is called exactly that; it's not really anything controversial Marcelus (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified, although as before, consider specifying the footnote you're citing, so: Grabski 2007, p. 427n26.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Not all of the prose is clear or concise, and there's currently quite a few grammatical errors. These are noted above. Issues with clarity in particular hold the article back some.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Only one issue with section placement.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Mostly good on policy, but citations should be made as complete as they can be.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Everything has been provided with an inline citation where necessary.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I'm assuming good faith on the offline Polish language sources. I managed to verify the information provided from the one online source. If there are links to online versions of the cited sources, please provide them, and I'd be happy to go over and verify them in spotchecks. Verified most of information in two of the cited sources, although there appear to be some cases where the text here doesn't align with the source, these should be addressed. All issues addressed.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   All of the sources are in Polish and most are offline. I found no examples of close paraphrasing of the online sources. I will assume good faith on the others, unless links to online versions can be provided.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Covers the subject from cradle to grave. It's largely focused on his wartime career, but provides a good amount of information on his early and later life.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There are some glaring issues with the article veering off into talking about tangential subjects, particularly in the section on the PLAN. I strongly suggest trimming stuff that isn't directly relevant to Szemley's biography and forking off information about the PLAN into its own dedicated article. I still think there could be some trimming done, but it is a lot better now and focused enough on the subject that this isn't a blocker any more.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutral for the most part, with key attention made to highlight differences in scholarly opinion without giving weight to one or the other. Only issue is problematic use of the term "puppet government" in the lead, which is easily fixed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable since is creation in May 2023, with no reversions or major changes since then.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images are provided. Consider providing a fair use image of Cezary Ketling-Szemley for the infobox. I know photographs of him exist, as there's one provided in the online source [5].

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   While this article is well-written and researched for the most part, there are some glaring issues that are preventing me from passing this article in its current state. Major issues include problems with unclear prose and grammatical errors, losing focus and providing too much tangential information, aside from other minor issues. I'm happy to put this review on hold while changes are made, as I think this article could get over the line and meet the criteria with some dedicated effort, but it just isn't there right now. Ping me once you have responded to my comments, and I'll be more than willing to give this another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Ok, thanks for looking at all this. There are still things that I must insist you take a look at, as I think they present an issue for this article passing GA criteria 3B. I don't think anything related to the PLAN is necessarily relevant to Szemley's biography, nor do I think simply highlighting his connection to the PLAN is a good explanation for keeping all of this tangential information. If you want there to be an article about the PLAN, then consider making that article. But this article isn't about the PLAN, it's about Szemley. Even if he was a central figure in it, I don't think everything about it is directly relevant to a biography about him as an individual. If we arrive at an impasse on this, I'm happy to seek a third opinion, but I still think this would fail GA criteria 3B. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I made further adjustments, sadly I cannot add a picture, it's protected by copyrights Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this! There's still some things I still think need doing: the sections at the bottom need to be rearrange, per the Manual of Style on notes and references; I'm not convinced that "puppet government" isn't a potentially controversial, non-neutral statement, unless a reliable source for such a description can be provided; consider checking to see if you can provide an image for the infobox based on non-free content criteria (this would be uploaded directly to Wikipedia as fair use); I also need to check some of the sources you added links to, this is on me though, I'll be sure to give them a look over soon. Thanks again, I think we're almost there. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Done my spotchecks. There's some things that need addressing with these. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "consider specifying the footnote"? Marcelus (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So when you're citing a footnote in a certain page, you cite the page number followed by the footnote number, with an "n" in between. I gave examples for how this would look, like "Grabski 2007, p. 428n27", which would be citing footnote 27 in page 428. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Have you made any progress on addressing these final comments? This review has been open for a month now and I really need to close it soon. I'd rather close it with a passing grade, but I need to make sure it meets the criteria 2c and 4 before I do. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have made the suggested corrections, sorry it took so long Marcelus (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Happy to pass this now. Excellent work :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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.