I noticed that a number of individuals involved in the current Eastern European mailing list Arbcom were also involved in the of the FAC for Soviet invasion of Poland.
1. (a) Lots of passive text, additive terms (“also”) and word to avoid (“many”, “some”, “several”, “despite”. “actually”, …). There is an overuse of blockquote text, no shortage of double wiki-linking and a generally improper use of brackets. and text placed in quotes for emphasis not quotation. A heavy copy-edit is needed.
I did a heavy copy edit to address all this. Most of it survived the back and forth of reversions. As far as the block quotes go, some superfluous ones had been added on after the FAC and I removed them, but please restore the Subtelny block quote that you have removed. That is a crucial quote because it expresses the Belarusian and Ukrainian experience, which is needed in the article. I've no idea if you have a point of view yourself, but in order for the POV to be balanced that block quote must remain. By the way, block quotes are within policy and are not removable for the purposes of a Featured Article Review just because they are block quotes. qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
1. (b) There is little to no information on the opposing forces and their composition. Expansion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and German Invasion of Poland would be helpful.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
1. (d) POV issues.
Ex: ”despite their change of overlord, Ukrainian nationalists continued to aim for an independent, undivided Ukrainian state”
How is that POV? It's a statement of fact. qp10qp (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
2. (a) Lead in need of general copy-edit.
Done. And shortened. qp10qp (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all the grammatical issues in the lead. Please see if my edits have been detrimental to the content.
There are still citation issues in the lead.
Note 6 has a couple of citation tags. There are a number of places where citations could be added and I will see about trying to do that myself.
Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego citation needs to have pages numbers added, placed into template and moved to bibliography.
Polish and Russian language resources require similar work. I can't do it myself because I don't speak the languages --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. (b) The Aftermath section is disproportionately long, compared to the remainder of the article.
It's in three sections, though, isn't it? I can't see a problem. The aftermath of the invasion is an important aspect of it. qp10qp (talk)
2. (c) Citations structure is inconsistent. Citation of a number of primary documents (WP:PSTS). Likewise, I question whether the employment of a number of non-English sources is appropriate or necessary given there appears to be no shortage of English sources.
Again, I think you are overlooking how many of the non-English sources are doubled up with English sources. Sometimes there is another reference tag alongside. But sources may overlap in the sense that what references one sentence may also reference some that follow or went before in the passage, or even a whole paragraph. For example, the cite to Sanford on the Fourth Partition of Poland is tagged to that term but applies to the rest of the information about it. So the information does not depend on the Polish source given at the end of the sentence before. There is no stylish way to umbilically reference every word of an article. As for foreign language sources, they should not be favoured over English language ones but they are permissible, and most of the sources for the article are in English. I think if you read the English language sources cited you will find little that they do not cover. qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Too many images and most contain descriptions that are far too long. No alt text. Sections are led with left justified images.
Removed some images due to bunching. I'm not sure if the choice of images is what the principle editors are looking for, so please review. Basic alt text added. No more left justification section starts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of other issues may be valid, but the POV issue is being over-considered. The example given is completely accurate; we should not censor or tone down historical fact. The only change needed in the example given might be to 'despite the change of regime' or 'government'. Buckshot06(prof) 15:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed some WTA and the overlord issue; I am not a native speaker (and the text went through several native speakers copyedits prior to becoming FA). More of course are always welcome.
What's wrong with lead?
I count three uses of (reliable) primary sources; PSTS allows the use of primary sources (it only discourages them). I think they are used correctly here; although if they can be improved by adding secondary sources to them that of course should be done. Same holds for non-English sources: they are acceptable, but if somebody can improve them by adding English sources, please do. Do note that some facts, sometimes, are simply not mentioned in English sources and one has to reply on non-English historiography or other scholarly literature.
Aftermath is about as long as the military campaign section and slightly longer than background. The invasion had very important consequences; I don't see the lenght of the aftermath as an issue.
I never could figure out the FA image rules. I hope somebody can take few minutes and fix the image issues. I don't recall a rule about caption's lenght, though...?
(Polish) Represje 1939-41 Aresztowani na Kresach Wschodnich (Repressions 1939–41. Arrested on the Eastern Borderlands.) Ośrodek Karta. Retrieved 15 November 2006.
(Polish) Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa w dniu 22 września 1939 r. w okolicach miejscowości Sopoćkinie generała brygady Wojska Polskiego Józefa Olszyny-Wilczyńskiego i jego adiutanta kapitana Mieczysława Strzemskiego przez żołnierzy b. Związku Radzieckiego. (S 6/02/Zk) - dead link reliable?
(Polish) Szack. Encyklopedia Interia. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
(Russian) Отчёт Украинского и Белорусского фронтов Красной Армии Мельтюхов, с. 367. Retrieved 17 July 2007 - dead link
(Polish) obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich (Prison camps for Polish soldiers). Encyklopedia PWN. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
(Polish) Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. (Humanist Education in the Army.) 1/2005. Publishing House of the Polish Army). Retrieved 28 November 2006. - dead link
The online encyclopedia entries (ex: Encyklopedia Interia), are short on substance. I'm not sure 3 line entries are appropriate as sources, but that's just my view.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you number these so it's easy to refer to them? (Quickly, what's wrong with Encyclopedia PWN?)radek (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Why a foreign language ref and not an english one? Both the Olszyna-Wilczyński Józef Konstanty and obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich PWN refs are rather slim on material but are used in broader form citations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Olszyna source is not a dead link .radek (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore the Leinwald source does not appear to be self-published.radek (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The material appears to be on a personal website.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I shortened some of the captions and removed the most obvious double wiki links. The rest of the wiki links that may appear as "doubles" are not - for example there is a difference between Ukraine, Western Ukraine, Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainians. So having each of these linked separately to different articles is not an instance of double wikilinks.
Can you point to any other POV problems? Gave it a quick read over and don't see any.
Also, I re read the lead couple of times and did a slight copy edit. I don't see what else is wrong with it.
Last FAC review was two years ago - before any ArbComs case and completely unrelated to them.radek (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
On words to avoid:
"Despite" occurs once in the article where I believe it is used correctly: Despite a tactical Polish victory on 28 September at the Battle of Szack, the outcome of the larger conflict was never in doubt
"Some" is not one of the words to avoid, and in fact, the guideline itself uses "some" quite frequently 
Ditto for "many".radek (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've looked through the FAC criteria and image policy and I see nothing about how many images are "too many". In fact, compared to some other FAs this article does not appear to have that many images at all.radek (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
*2. (a) Lead in need of general copy-edit. I've given it a copy edit and removed material that unduly elaborated on the basic gist of it. It's now an appropriate length again, I think. qp10qp (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been addressing most of the concerns this evening, which has taken ages, but I've been flatly reverted. Sigh. Giving up for the moment. qp10qp (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of attempting to edit any article which in any way covers Polish history!Varsovian (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Qp10qp I have reverted you because unfortunately you have also changed the meaning of some parts article. Such changes should be discussed first. Loosmark (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the meanings need changing to remove accumulations of POV since the FAC. That's part of the point of the exercise. In the process of reverting you have also restored all the unwieldiness, re-lengthened, re-added block quotes, restored bad grammar and wordiness, and reinstated POV. For example you have changed back the section title "Byelorussia and Ukraine" to "Territories of Second Polish Republic annexed by Soviet Union", which is both more POV and bad English. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The reference relating to Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiege need to be improved. There are multiple sections in the pdf report composed by different authors. The page numbers and relevant author of each reference should be inputted rather than only referencing the document as a whole. I can't do it myself because I do not speak Polish--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have some concern with the number of times the Sanford reference is used. The spread of pp. 20-24 is used over 20 times, I suspect that greater focus is possible here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "greater focus"? Sanford is the best source. qp10qp (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that each citation covers the 20-24 page spread. If some only utilize for instance 21 than that should be the page cited. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, because these pages need to be read as a whole. I'm not aware of a policy that says a range of four pages is too large. The point of citations is for readers to check information: to do so in context they need to read more than one page, and I suspect this is what people do, to save them repeatedly checking the same reference as they read through an article. By the way, on eight occasions that citation is reinforced by another one from a different source.qp10qp (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again still have a hard time believing that the spread is necessary for context on 20 citations. I'll leave it at that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, Wikipedia already requires more minute referencing of information than in academia. To expect us to go even further and break up a four-page range into separate single page citations strikes me as actually unhelpful. The way academics check a source is to go to the page number and read several pages or more around it to get the whole picture. This actually saves time, because they don't have to then look everything up anew as they come to re-uses of the same source. The distribution of references around the article, most of which I decided myself when helping prepare the article for its FAC, is, I hope, reasonably sophisticated. Although the article is densely referenced, and everything is sourced, there's no attempt to place tags every few words in the article out of pedantry. It's assumed that when reading a source a reader will see what it covers in a whole passage. Single-page citation is of course used for specific figures, quotations, terms, etc. qp10qp (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
While I believe that referencing a single page is better than five, I think page ranges are perfectly acceptable - both in academia and on Wikipedia. Further refinements are welcome, but I think they are above and beyond even FA requirements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I take no issue with concepts but figures are another story, They should be page specific. If someone is willing to send me a pdf scan of the four pages I am even willing to do it myself, but it needs to be done--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Roberts (1992) references need specific pages numbers. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*The Orlik-Rückemann footnotes have no relating bibliography equivalent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Labattblueboy, you are starting to add more things. You've put a load of citation requests on the article today. Could you give some idea when you are going to stop, because it's dispiriting to address your concerns, have no acknowlegement of it, only to find a whole lot more (hours) of work requested. qp10qp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Delist due to referencing and POV sources, needs a great deal of work even after all that it's undergone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a valid delist. Please state what your specific referencing concerns are and what you consider POV sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that qp10qp addressed a lot of issues soon after this FAR was listed. For the record, while I accept there may be a small part of the article that got POVed due to some POV pushing since FAing I've missed (and if this is the case, please be specific which part is it), I think the article uses very good sources (again, thanks to some very careful proofreading and verifying by qp10qp back when). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
qp10qp made progress but there is still a lot left to do, and a large number of outstanding issues. I have attempted to do some of the work myself, but I am unable to do any of the foreign language sourcing and verification because I do not speak Russian, German or Polish. The level of support to return the article to FA doesn't seem to be there.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please specify what work remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
1(a) Lots of work remaining in a a number of sections, including WTA, passive text and other general grammar issues. 1(b) There is no information regarding the opposing troops. Not their manpower and equipment dispositions, defensive/offensive plans. The military campaign section appears to be a bit short in my view. 1(c)Outstanding citation tags, lots of primary sources, foreign language citation issues (ex: citations for Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego contain no page numbers), Sanford citation for p. 20-24, is overused and could be more specific, particularly regarding figures. 3 alt text not present on all images, Jeńcy1.jpg sourcing remains unresolved. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed unreferenced text. I don't see "lots of primary sources"; Dom Wydawniczy doesn't list pages because it's a pdf article, and we don't list article's pages (AFAIK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dom Wydawniczy is a 156 page report that has been converted into a pdf. IMO each citation requires page #s, how else does one verify the sourcing? I also noticed the Roberts citations require page #s. The 3 Avalon project citations, the Telegram: His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin - Dept of State 8/25/39, the Soviet Note of April 25, 1943, È.Â. Ñòàëèí 30 íîÿáðÿ 1939 ãîäà Òîì 14, ñòð. 343-345, Report On The Foreign Policy Of The Government are all primary - I think that qualifies as numerous.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I forgot how large that one was. I went over it and added page numbers for it, and improved related ref info. I think that 4 or 5 primary sources in about 100 are fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Extreme Polish nationalist POV being put forward in this article
I oppose to the nomination of this article as featured, because this article is written comletely from Polish nationalist POV.
1) Nowhere in this article background is given for the occupation of Western Belarus by Poland in 1921. In 1921 according to Riga treaty made between (sic!!!!) Poland and Soviet Russia, without Belarus participating, Poland annexed the territory of Western Belarus "in compensation" for Soviet Polish War.
2) Nowhere in this article information is given about Polonization, colonization of native Belarusian population by Poland. Namely about eradication of Belarusian language, about closure of Belarusian schools, newspapers, about arrests of Belarusian senators in Polish Sejm, about establishment of concentration camps in Belarus by Poles, about Jewish pogroms by Poles in Belarus, about falsifications of population census and denial of ciizenship to non-Poles.
3) I haven't found in this article any information about which side (Polish, Soviet) was supported by local population.
4) Belarusian POV, as well as Lithuanian and Ukrainian POV's would be reunification of their territories with what was occupied by Poland in 1921.
5) In background no information is given about prior participation of Poland together with Nazi Germany in occupation of Czechoslovakia and making of non-agreession agreement with Germany, proposing help to Nazi in war with Russia, and not making non-agression agreement with Soviet Union.
Suggestions: This nomination should be notified to Ukrinian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Russian noticeboards for wide discussion. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO, none of this is applicable. It might be for the article on the Polish–Soviet War, but not in this case. To be honest, I think the article provides a rather good backgrounder on the subject, but as I said that's just my opinion. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Delist (but hold off any action until at least 2009-12-25 as editorial response promised): Quality of research (Primaries, Tertiaries, Unverifiable material due to lack of essential bibliographic data, Citation from inappropriately low quality sources when HQRS are available and listed in the references). Some awkward language. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
^ a b c "Kampania wrześniowa 1939 [September Campaign 1939]" (in Polish). PWN Encyklopedia. Retrieved 16 July 2007.
Plus title capitalisation: ^ "bozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich [Prison camps for Polish soldiers]" (in Polish). Encyklopedia PWN. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
^ a b "Szack". Encyklopedia Interia. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
Osmańczyk, Edmund Jan (2003). Mango, Anthony. ed. Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN0415939216.
I don't consider the usage of tertiary sources a major issue; at least compared to others; same goes for primary sources, per my comments above. That said, if we could eventually replace them, I am all for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 317". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 371". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 372". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "Telegram: His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin - Dept of State 8/25/39". Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "Soviet Note of April 25, 1943". 25 April 1943. Retrieved 19 December 2005.
Degras, Jane Tabrisky (1953). Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy. Volume I: 1917–1941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henderson (1939). Documents concerning German-Polish relations and the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939. Great Britain Foreign Office.
House, Edward; Seymour, Charles (1921). What Really Happened at Paris. Scribner.
Osmańczyk, Edmund Jan (2003). Mango, Anthony. ed. Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN0415939216.
Bad Name Formatting, title not Ital, no publisher, no publication location: ^ M.I.Mel'tyuhov. Stalin's lost chance. The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe 1939–1941, p.132. Мельтюхов М.И. Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939–1941 (Документы, факты, суждения). — М.: Вече, 2000.
Dunnigan, James F. (2004). The World War II Bookshelf: Fifty Must-Read Books. New York: Citadel Press. ISBN0806526092.
Double ref, and the author seems actually notable: . Yes, the title is eyebrow raising, but I wouldn't consider replacing this work a high priority (it is cited only once). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In this context a low grade work: Kenéz, Peter (2006). A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (2nd ed. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-052186437-4.
I replied in more detail now. I may not have time to reply more for a few days; if I can I will try to catch up next week. Please feel encouraged to report those issues to WP:PWNB; others may be able to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Piotrus and a group of Polish editors being punted off by ARBCOM will change the balance of power here YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete unless an independent copy-edit is conducted. I've done the opening paragraphs. The images are all too small; the maps are ridiculously so. How on earth are they readable at that size? Tony(talk) 09:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume Tony means Delist. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.