# Talk:Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz

I don't have strong feelings here, just noting it was removed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

"31st July 1940" 31 July
"on July 14. On July 16" repetitive.
"The victims of those events were Polish citizens, both ethnic Poles as well as Polish Jews," you already said that?
"fatalities were gentile Poles.[1]:212" that ref there for a good reason?  Can just be linked when it's covered in the main body.
"during the German invasion of Poland" during "their" invasion to avoid repeating German.
Ah, the lead called the initial perp a "bandit" but the main body calls him a "burglar".  I would stick with the latter.
"interpreter).[4][8][5]:18–19 Shortly" ref order.
"ethnicity.[4][5]:19 [1]:71[8]" likewise.
"possibly - accounts vary - regular" en-dashes.
"another.[6]:95[5]:20–21[9]:176–179[11] " order.
"he stomped" stamped rather than stomped.
"Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan was photographed, and that photograph..." maybe "A photograph of Rabbi... one of several" to avoid the current repetition.
Forgive my ignorance, what is meant by "the Dayan"?
"Poland.[12]:37, 40[13]:107[10]" order.
" shot.[6]:95[12]:57[10] Two" order.
"Olkusz in 1961. In 1982, at" repeitive.
"Since the war ended, the local..." avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
"while they were ethnic Poles" I think you already made that clear.
" (2012)[19][16] and again" order.
"Polish WWII history" World War II.
What is USHMM?
"of this to the Wikipedia article on" this is navel-gazing.
Non-English sources should be tagged with language=.
Consistent date format required in refs.
Check ref titles for spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Nice seeing you again. Mostly done. Few comments:
"stomped upon" vs "stamped upon" - aren't both correct? Also ping User:Nihil novi.
re the Dayan. Good question, I didn't know myself and just copied this from some source. Beth_din#Officers_of_a_beth_din suggests its a religious/legal title. I am honestly not sure what is the best way to word this. Maybe change "Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan" to "Dayan and Rabbi Moshe Hagerman" and  link Dayan to the link above?
re "Polish WWII history" World War II. -> I changed it to "with regards to history of Poland during World War II"
USHMM -> linked (USHMM)
this is navel-gazing -> well, they did specifically mention this article... what's the harm?
hope I fixed all the dates and dashes. Is there a script for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The verb "to stomp" is a variant of the verb "to stamp". "To stomp" is to "to trample heavily", "to severely beat someone physically or figuratively", or "to crush grapes with one's feet to make wine".
As usual with synonyms (words that are close in meaning), "stomp" and "stamp" tend to be used in somewhat different contexts – each occupies its own "ecological niche".
To my ear, in many contexts, "stomp" is the more colloquial expression.
I could offer a more informed opinion about the use of "stomp" vs. "stamp" in the article, if the article were accessible to inspection.
Best,
Nihil novi (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It's no big deal.  In BritEng, stomp is a little colloquial, stamp is more neutral in tone.  But it's horses for courses.  So, I'll leave it to the nom to decide, and I'll promote in the mean time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)