# Talk:The Volunteer (book)

Flemming's review does not need a dedicated subsection, it is just one of many reviews available to us. Remember WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
:It is the only academic review here, probably the only one that should be included. It was not given a separate sub-section, it was placed in the existing Critica reception section. Writing something untrue does not make it true. Furthermore, the version that you restored contains untruthful statements about the review.--Bob not snob (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

[1] is not APLRS, and the content from there is factually incorrect. Pilecki's story was published already in Fighting Auschwitz, before 1989.--Bob not snob (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is being used for recent events (opening up of Soviet archives etc). You may think that it's "factually incorrect" but that's original research. The text you removed does not assert that this was the first time that Pilecki's story was published. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Author of the publication, i.e. Caroline Moorehead has published a lot of non-fiction and qualify as an expert. No, it is arguably consistent with APLRS. At least that is what I think. But I may be wrong because who knows what this sourcing restriction suppose to mean exactly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have published a review of the book in a RS journal here. Perhaps someone would like to use it to expand this article? It would be better than if I did so myself, per COI and like.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Volunteer (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
can review Eddie891  Talk Work  22:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I expanded some citations somewhat. Suggest replacing citations to the publisher (i.e. penguin or harpercollins) with links to the actual book reviews which would be of much more use by providing full context. Eddie891  Talk Work  02:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to quote "a band of Polish resisters who had repeatedly..." in the lede, it should be mentioned in the body. Also where did that quote come from? It should be cited
suggest adding at least a sentence about the book's reception to the lede
"The new material about the Polish army officer and partisan reached Fairweather in 2011" I'm not sure from this sentence what "the new material" actually is, and "reached Fairweather" implies that he didn't actually do the research, but it somehow just came to him. Could you rephrase, or clarify what this is aiming at?
' in the former Austrian, and later Polish" the combination of "former Austrian" and "Polish" has me a little confused. Is it "former polish" too? Whose army barracks was it at the time?
The sentences starting with "Following his escape" should be cited if the rest of the story is going to be.
I've tagged a spot with {{by whom}}, could this be resolved?
how exactly did it "came to light in the 1960s"? that's kinda vague
"did the Polish state archives become accessible" what relevance does this have?
" the Vermont-based author" based on the preceding text, a reader might assume this is still referring to Pileki's son.
can you add a section about the writing and publication of the book? Based on the lede, I'd expect there to be content in the article along those lines, but it's entirely absent. Also, the historical background section is great but I'm left with no idea what content the book itself holds and what it doesn't. A source like this establishes that there is more to say about the book's writing.
Suggest reading WP:RECEPTION for some suggestions on how to vary the reception section's prose style. This is more of an above GA concern, but it feels like the section to me relies too much quoting.
If it's unclear whether Pileki volunteered or was pressured into being arrested, it shouldn't be presented as fact in the "historical background" section that he volunteered
While of course not all reviews need to be included, I'm seeing a few on a quick search that could be added, including one in the Journal of Military History . Do you have access to these? Also, do Bascomb or Moorhead's reviews have critical assessment of the book?
Just some thoughts, may have some more later. Don't' feel obligated on any of these points, happy to discuss further. Eddie891  Talk Work  14:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll try to get back to this within a day or two! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891 I have copyedited the article to try to address most and hopefully all of the issues raised, please let me know if any still remain. I couldn't find the review in the Journal of Milhist, could you link it, as well as any other reviews you think are worth adding? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus, search "The Volunteer: One Man, an Underground Army, and the Secret Mission to Destroy Auschwitz" at wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org and the Journal of Military History review should be near the top, along with a couple others that you may find useful. Also, I'd suggest mentioning the publishers of the book somewhere in the article. Eddie891  Talk Work  15:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891 Thank you, just letting you know I was able to access some of the sources and I've expanded the article. I think the article is up to date with regards to any significant coverage, but do say if I missed anything. Thanks for letting me know so much new coverage was published in the year or so since I looked into this (and to think that initially someone raised the concern on whether the book is notable at all...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)