Talk:Cultybraggan Camp/GA1

GA Review

Passed, well done Pahunkat, I would encourage you to nominate an interesting fact from the article to Did you know.--Llewee (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Pahunkat (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pahunkat, I will be reviewing this nomination. This is a very interesting and broadly well-written article. I will give a short list of points for how it could be improved further. Please use the Done template to indicate when each problem has been dealt with. Feel free to add any comments or questions below each point.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I did a number of spotchecks which were generally fine. In regards to this Canmore page, it may worth clarifying...--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canmore says it is unclear whether Italian prisoners were ever detained in the camp which contradicts the article.
Done Added new sources, these explicitly say Italian prisoners were the first ones.
Canmore also says the camp was emptied "circa May 1947" rather than exactly then.
Done Wrong source, fixed.

Copyright

There were no issues with the earwig check. The Canmore page mentioned in the previous section has the highest overlap but that seems to be because of a quote that appears in the article.

Other subjects

Could more information about what was on the land prior to the 1940s be included with the sentence about James V of Scotland? "Cultybraggan Farm" suggests that it was farmland but that could be said more explicitly.
Hard to find more on the land history before the camp, I'll keep looking tomorrow. I'm actually AGFing the James V part as I am unable to fully understand the source, it was added here by another user who looks experienced - let me know if that's inappropriate and I can remove it.
Unfortunately unable to find anything else. For what its worth, I moved the section about Cultybraggan Farm to be with the James V part.
Google translate had limited success with the James V source. However, based on what it did manage to translate, the content is clearly about food so I would be inclined to take it on trust.--Llewee (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"by the refugee members of 249 Company Pioneer Corps." - Could you briefly mention who the refugees were? Presumably, they were from one of the countries occupied by Germany?
Done
The Scotsman article includes more information about camp life which could be added — "The men had the option of joining choir, orchestra, learning English as well as a number of other activities".
Warrants a new paragraph, will get to drafting this tomorrow.
Done
I think this sentence (Compounds had access to facilities...) probably fits better in the paragraph about conditions. I am not sure if there is really enough information about conditions to warrant it's own paragraph.--Llewee

(talk) 11:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, merged. Pahunkat (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"who are looking to use it as a long-term data storage facility" — Given the age of the source I think it would be better to change "looking to" to the past tense, something like "intended".
Done

Hi Llewee, thanks for reviewing the article. I've implemented some of the suggested changes above, the other two require a bit more research but I should have it sorted by tomorrow. Pahunkat (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, please see my comments above - I've addressed what I can. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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.