Talk:Salon Kitty/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is a first overview over the article on Salon Kitty, a brothel in Berlin used by the Nazis to spy on diplomats and other high-rank figures. I will need to hit the books in the library to check on the references you give, but this is what I can say so far:

I have a big problem with the first image you use. You claim to be using it through fair use, but you do not give where the picture comes from. I am guessing it's from the Tinto Brass movie, but if it is, that should be noted and someone with the expertise on image rights should decide wether it falls under fair use. Please check this.
- Fixed. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a markup about the article suffering from mainly relying on one source, which is the book by Roland. You give him as a single reference with a very broad page range citing it for several things. There is no way for the reader to find what is written where on those five pages. Also, from the stories you cite from him, I would doubt him being a reliable source. Sounds more like sensationalism to me, but I will read into it.
- Paul Roland is an educated historian and has published more than 40 books. His works have into more than 15 languages including Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek and Hebrew. Based on this, I don't doubt his reliability. Regarding the "one source" problem, I largely disagree - using only two or three sources would be heavily relying on one source, but nine is not (IMO). Also, as I explained right below, I didn't use the exact words Roland did in his book per WP:COPYVIO. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is definitely a problem is that you use what is written by Roland unchallenged. The sentence The women who entertained members of the Nazi elite, however, were respected ladies of Berlin's high society who volunteered to serve the Fatherland in the most unusual capacity. is a preposterous statement in any sense. If Roland wrote it like that, I would highly doubt his validity. If anything, you should write with more distance to the source, something like:

According to Roland, the women who engaged with the Nazi elite were "respected ladies", who volunteered and did not receive payment.

Or something like that...

Of course I didn't use the exact wording Roland used as that would be a WP:COPYVIO violation. If you think my decided wording is poor, then that is what you should say. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #8 is certainly not a reliable source, since it is a blog.
- Quite right, replaced it with Frayling, Christopher (2005). Ken Adam: The Art of Production Design. London: Farber & Farber. p. 207. ISBN 0-571-23109-8. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for ref #2. And you seem to rely on it quite heavily for many of your points. You're gonna need to find a better source for that.
- Removed source entirely. It was not used anywhere in the article where there wasn't already a source, so did not add much. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Reference #9 comes from the BBC, a reliable source, it does not feature the information you give on its first episode. You do give the link to the episode on YouTube, but you should cite that better. Information how to do so can be found here.
- Describing the episode is like describing the plot of a movie, and movie plots don't need referferences per WP:MOVIEPLOTS. I only added the BBC source to prove that such an episode existed. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now, once I am in the library, I will try and check the books. In general, I will say that this article walks in difficult territory. This is the stuff of urban legends. It is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to recite this sort of gossip, but to get to the bottom of factual information in the topic. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I must disagree with you, I believe it's factually correct now that I've acted upon your points and I never doubted Roland's reliability in the first place (given the reasons above). Let me know if there is anything else Zwerg Nase. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zwerg Nase, you say you wish to go to the library to check up on the book used, which seems like a good idea, but is there any chance you could do so before the 5 July? Because that's when I go on vacation! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change in plans! Turns out I'm actually going on vacation already tomorrow. My suggestion therefore is you assume good faith in the sources used and pass the article. Then, if you while at the library, find there are too many errors, start a reassessment. I think it nicely meets the GA-criteria with my latest improvement. Regardless of what, I won't be back on Wikipedia until the 12 July. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not go to the library primarily to check upon your sources, I do assume good faith here. What I wanted to do (and did) was read up on the topic myself to see if everything was in order and if something important was left out. As you can see, I have added some things and two sources. I also trimmed down the sentence about the alledged voluntariness of the girls, which I found to be a preposterous notion. I don't think the section looses anything the way it is phrased now. I also added a photo of the house how it looks today. Since I consider everything to be in order now, the article passes. Congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]