Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II

Archives (Index)

2014/May 2014/June 2019/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Victor falk (talk · contribs) 05:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking this on! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• This is the first article I nominate to GA-review, please tell me if I miss anything. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What about those taken prisoner by the British/Allies in the Middle East. Also those who refused to join the Free French in Britain and were repatriated back to France.? Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect this point, but we're talking about close on two million people in prisoner of war camps in Germany. That's what the scholarship covers and it's that which is covered by reliable sources establishing notability. Everything else, a tiny fraction by comparison, is generally only mentioned as a footnote to a general history of the campaign. Yes, French soldiers were probably taken prisoner from Indochina to Britain, North Africa to the Middle East. But they pale into insignificance when compared with the 2 million in Germany and this is why all the titles on the bibliography talk about French prisoners but only deal with the German-held ones. So I see your point, but I can't really do anything about it. It just isn't out there. Brigade Piron (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Sweeney: Yesterday I was editing Free_France#Syria_and_East_Africa, and as it mentioned how only 5000 out of 40000 chose to join Free France while the rest wanted to be rapatriated, my immediate spontaneous/instinctive reaction was to wish for something like [[French WWII POWs#Vichy prisoners]] to target in this article. However, as @Brigade Piron: notes, some probably existed but their numbers are vanishlingly small and the result of special circumstances, such as beeing spies, obvious traitors & collaborators and suchlike that does not fall in what is considered a POW by international conventions; For the allies, rank and file Vichy troops were always offered a choice of repatriation, no questions asked, and their incarceration as POWs always a temporary affair. I can think that more conventional perhaps such existed as Axis and especially Japanese ones after the coup in March 1945 eliminated any fiction of Vichy rule in Indochina, but sources about that might be very elusive to find; and anyway, probably more within the scope of the "POWs held by the Japanese" wikipedia article. At the most, a short sentence summarising the above might be added somewhere, to dispell the same curiosity from readers that you've shown. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk: Reviewer seems to be active on Wikipedia but has not done anything to this review in almost 2 weeks. If no progress is made within the next 3 days (72 hours), I will close the review.--Dom497 (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: I'm here & will be for the rest of the week at least. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for future use, when you add a ping without any text, it will not go through. The template is a little picky as you need to add the ping AND some sort of text after it all in one edit for it to work.--Dom497 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk:, still no start on the review :(? Brigade Piron (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my laptop screen went black on me a couple of weeks ago, I've had to dig up my old one, which is a 2003 model I think. I've come to appreciate the joys of old-school surfing, little things like the wikipedia searchbox not auto-filling anymore and the browser freezing for whimsical reasons like opening too many tabs ("too many" being more than low double digits in its infinite wisdom guided by its prudent, conservative and inexuberant temperament). You might imagine the wonders it has done to increase my productivity to stratospheric levels. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk:, anything new? I'm going to be inactive in Wikipedia in a few weeks for a bit, so it would be great if the GA could be wrapped up fairly soon. Are there any other issues you want to highlight? Brigade Piron (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   I extensively copyedited any minor issues when doing the B-class assessment. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   No such issues. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   It does. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   I would say that if anything if would be a slight excess at some places, for instance I don't think that "In September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany following the German invasion of Poland" needs one, and that most of the others in the French_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II#Background could be skipped. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your concerns, but I think it's worth keeping them - it means that the article decays much more slowly because it is easier to distinguish sourced material from any future unsourced insertions. I think it's consistent with WP:WHYCITE too. Brigade Piron (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with being better safe than sorry, but I think that having less citations in a background section (I can see about 3 or 4 that are superfluous of the current 7) makes it clearer for readers/editors when transitioning from the largely uncited lede (as it should be per wp:lede) to the real meat of the article after the background section that from now on material is/should be cited more extensively. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Even so - the lead should not be cited generally (per guidance on MOS), and the background is the "article" proper, even if perhaps not the central bit of it. I just feel that if you take for granted, say, that WWII begun in September 1939, you're basically making assumptions about the amount that people (a) know as background and (b) trust Wikipedia's uncited content. Take a random article like Battle of Blenheim or the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix about who I know literally nothing - what is obvious to the specialists who wrote those articles is not obvious to me and, as such, I'm grateful for more citations than less so I can work out what content is definite 100% "real", and what is potentially questionable. If we move down this path, we also leave the way open for more, less-safe judgments about what is so obvious it doesn't need citing! Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It just feels weird when the next sentence ("The Anglo-French ... stood off along the border) is uncited, I'd expect that to be something to be sourced; I think it should be consolidated with the next one so that it read "Jackson p. 112-119" and put at the end of the first paragraph. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with end-paragraph cites are that text which wasn't in the original source can then be added in and falsely appear referenced. I'm very happy to find a citation for the "The Anglo-French..." if you'd like? Brigade Piron (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced to leave things as they are. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   No, it doesn't introduce any new scholarly concepts relating to French prisoners of war. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The circumstances under which they became prisonners, the conditions during their captivity, and their treatment and the views on them post-war are extensively covered. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   It gives a broad overview of the topic in a very detailed manner while remaining at 4125 words/35k. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes it describes extensively the plight of French prisoners without emphasising atrocities. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There was a dispute, but involved parties have laid the matter to rest and the article has been stable since. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Yes they are.

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

   Yes, all are highly relevant and illustrative. Captions include pipelinks to appropriate articles. A navbox to the French POW category on wikicommons is provided. I'm particularly fond of File:Roscheiderhof-hausMolz-2009-4.jpg and File:St Paul as a prisoner of war.jpg as good examples of broadening the view on a subject through images in an article. There is room for more such pictures in the second half of the article. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Overall hits all the major aspects of the topic in a concise and well-presented manner that is pleasant to read. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You can formally pass it by following the instructions here. Thanks for your help again! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)