- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
This is my second nomination of this article. Currently listed as GA, I strongly believe it meets and exceeds the FA criteria: it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. While edits of a copy-editing nature are made occasionally, there has been no substantial disagreement about the article's content for a very long time, and vandalism is similarly low. I believe readers will find that it follows Wikipedia's style guidelines very closely, including a well-considered structure and extremely careful sourcing throughout. It includes numerous freely-licensed images, and its length reflects the breadth and depth of information about C-SPAN available in third-party sources over its thirty-plus years in existence. During this article's first nomination period, I received quality suggestions from User:KConWiki, User:Ruhrfisch, and User:Awardgive, all of which was incorporated or addressed in one way or another.
It is also important to mention here that, as the primary contributor to this article, I am also a consultant to C-SPAN. I have been involved with this article for a couple of years, however I have made no direct edits since late 2011; these days I refrain from all direct edits to the mainspace when I have a financial COI, following Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. I realize that this may introduce added complexity to this process; when editors ask that changes be made, I feel I should not be the one to implement them. For this reason, I would like to suggest that reviewing editors be willing to make changes that are agreed upon. However, I also can find additional assistance to implement changes if necessary. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to the process.
- Nominator(s): WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I have a question/comment regarding COI editing on the talk page.) – Quadell (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
The citations are inconsistently, and in some cases correctly, formatted. Please audit them for the following representative sample.
- Books are missing publication location, which is a standard part of a citation in my experience. The location has been provided for newspapers where it isn't a part of the title, so the location should be provided for books.
- FN3 uses "Last, First" format yet FN 4 uses "First Last" order. I believe its because some citations are using
|author= and others are using |first= and |last=. Also note that if you want to link an authors name, there is |authorlink=. In any case, using |author= or |coauthor= instead of the |first1= |last1= |first2= and |last2= scheme emits different metadata in the citations as well.
- FN 8 uses "The University of Michigan". Unlike that pretentious institution in Columbus, Ohio, most universities do not include the definitive article in their name, and even the statutes that establish OSU do so inconsistently. Also on FN 143, "The Johns Hopkins University Press" should also have the definite article removed as well to match FN 136.
- FN 12 repeats a link to "University of Oklahoma Press" that also appears in FN 9. Per WP:OVERLINK, only the first footnote should include the link and the subsequent ones should not. This also occurs with newspaper titles and other things, so you'll need to audit all of the footnotes for this.
- FN 14 italicizes "Fox News Network", which is a publisher. A work or publication they produce would be the title of a specific TV program. Also, FN 26 styles it as "FOX News Network", but in that case the ALL CAPS should be reduced because "Fox" is not an acronym/initialism.
- Also on FN 26, but I would drop the "foxnews.com" as the name of the website. It's a stylistic choice, but I don't see the utility of such redunancy, especially when you're resorting to the domain name to provide a website title. This also applies to things like "college.columbia.edu" on FN 7 or even "c-span.org" on FN 1. Where the domain name and the publisher are clearly the same, or variations on the same, the publisher can stand alone.
- Skipping ahead to FN 120, "baltimoresun.com" should be dropped, and "The Baltimore Sun" should be the italicized work. There are other cases where the name of a publication has been used as the publisher and the domain name of its website has been used as the work, and these should all be changed.
- FN 133: "C - SPAN Launches New C - SPAN Digital Bus and C - SPAN Local Content Vehicle" should have the spacing in the acronym silently changed to conform to the rest of the article.
- FN 133 links to a PDF. Really, you should include
|format=PDF so that people are aware the item links to a PDF. Not all browsers can, or will, display the little PDF icon with the link.
The above is just a sample of issues and all 143 footnotes need to be audited for these concerns. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Imzadi, can you point me to a concise list of citation criteria you're working from? WP:CITE is overbroad for this purpose, while WP:FACR only specifies "consistent citations" and even says: "The use of citation templates is not required." Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as the WP:PERFECT article, are there certain formatting issues you consider more important than others? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is based on past experience, experience doing citations for papers for college (in APA, MLA and Chicago citation styles), the various reviews I've been through that have set a general expectation for consistently formatting things. You should notice that several of my comments are specifically on the issue of consistency. Why are some authors listed "Last, First" and others are "First Last"? Why are some newspaper/publication names in italics as per standard practices, but others are not? Why are the names of some publishers, which are not traditionally italicized, rendered in italics and others are not? Why does one title have "C - SPAN" while the rest of the article, including all of the other footnotes, uses the unspaced version of the acronym? FAs are expected to be polished and consistently formatted, and that's the basis for my comments. Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that does make sense. The inconsistency owes, I think, to the long development period of the article; besides involvement from other editors, I wasn't watching this aspect as closely as the content itself. Per discussion with Quadell on the other page, I'd like to prepare all of these updates at once and then implement. I'll start working on that tomorrow. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, Imzadi. I've been working my way through the references and I have a couple of questions for you:
- First, about the inconsistency between author names appearing as "First Last" or "Last, First". It turns out all cite news and cite web references use |author=, which produces "First Last"; it's only cite book that uses |last= |first=, which is obviously where our "Last, First"s come from. So, at least they are generally consistent within type of reference. Far fewer books are cited than the others; it would be relatively easy to convert cite book to |author=—in fact, a few books already do—and therefore make everything "First Last". Does that work?
- Relatedly, for at least two of the books there are no "authors", only editors. Based on the |editor1-last= |editor1-first= parameters these editors names will appear "Last, First". Another option: using |author= and appending something like (ed.). What do you think?
- Second, about WP:OVERLINKing in references. I haven't heard of this guideline being applied to citation templates before, and in fact I think it might make it harder for readers to navigate Wikipedia. In general, readers do not read a reflist in order, but will look at specific references when they jump down while reading the article. And when they see The Washington Post they are unlikely to know that The Washington Post appeared thirty references earlier. Meanwhile, determining the first place a source is used may not last as sources are replaced or relocated. Lastly, at the risk of being told WP:OSE, plenty of FAs old (see here) and new (see here) link the same way. Is it OK if we let this one go?
- That's all I've got for now, let me know what you think about the above and I'll let you know if I have any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply:
- I would suggest using
|last= and |first= parameters consistently across all reference types. Because of the metadata in use, appending "(ed.)." to the |author= distorts things, and the templates emit more accurate meta data when the first/last are entered separately.
- I've been told in my past FACs to avoid overlinking because it dilutes the usefulness of the items that are linked. When it comes to references, we want to steer our readers to the external link to the source instead of the wikilink to an article on the publisher. However, we also want to provide ready access to those other articles so readers have additional information to basis their personal opinions of the sources used. To balance those competing ideas, I've found it's best to link just once in the references section and not in every footnote.
- Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another quick question for you, Imzadi: if I put in the time to perfect the citations according to your suggestions, will you support it for FA? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—I've now formed an opinion on the status of this nomination. At this time, I oppose promotion and suggest it be withdrawn. The FAC instructions state that "nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly." (emphasis mine) I understand temporary real-life restrictions on editing capacity; however this nominator has a COI and came here without a co-nominator or a pre-determined plan to handle editing the article. If the nominator can't or won't edit the article he or she nominated, even when the appropriate guideline allows non-controversial edits, and doesn't have plans in place to handle such a thing (and it's extremely rare to have an article go through FAC without requiring some editing), then that nominator has no business being here. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can imagine, I'm disappointed to hear this. Moreso, I'm disappointed to hear that your opposition has nothing to do with the article's content, so far as you've said. I understand why you view my pledge to follow the "bright line" as incompatible with the requirements of FAC, however I have offered a workable solution and am committed to following through any actions needed as part of this FAC. In terms of a co-nominator, Awardgive has said he's willing to act in basically the same capacity as you're asking for. And while I do believe you're holding this article to a higher standard than other FAs have been held to, I am very much willing to put in the work if it will accomplish the goal of making this article one of the very best on Wikipedia. Will you withdraw your "oppose" if I can fix the citations? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up my own comment here, I first want to say to Imzadi, I'm sorry if I come off as cranky about this. I recognize your aim here is to ensure that FAs are as good as they can be. That really is my goal as well. Quadell shared some worthwhile thoughts about this back on his user page, linked here. I may well withdraw this nomination on procedural grounds, but I need a little more time to think on it. Whatever the case, thanks for considering it and I hope you will again—whether soon or again down the road. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is a sticky situation. I honestly want to see every article improved and promoted wherever possible. There's just been too much discussion over how to fix what are really minor items instead of just fixing them though. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support— I think this article is well-written, well-sourced and balanced. If there are edits having to do with formatting of references, I would hate to see that be a reason for declining FA status, especially given that WWB2 has bent over backwards to avoid article-space editing so as to stay in line with COI guidelines. I have gone over this article several times and made a variety of tweaks. I have also been a regular C-SPAN viewer for over twenty years, and have read a number of books and articles on the topic, and I think that this article captures the various aspects of C-SPAN's heritage, activities, and approaches well. KConWiki (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- With no activity for almost three weeks this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Trevdna (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About two months ago, I listed this article for FA candidacy. Many concerns were raised, specifically in regards to the article's POV and overcitation. Both have come a long way since then, and I believe it's ready for another shot at the FAC. I feel that it is one of the very highest quality articles available on Wikipedia, even surpassing many current FAs in terms of readability, context, abundance of citations, and neutrality on a controversial topic. Additionally, it is about a figure that's very important in the history of modern religious thought, and in American history, and as such, would be a great addition to have as an FA on Wikipedia.
(A note about the sourcing: Yes, I know that there are LOTS of citations on this article, but they are purposefully included next to statements that could be controversial to one side or the other so that they are not easily challenged by any passing POV warrior. There might still be a few that could be pruned down, I admit, but for the most part, they are where they are for a reason.)
(Also, a note on reaching NPOV: Joseph Smith was and is a very controversial person. Even if the POV of the article does not match your own personal POV on Smith and his life, I invite you to use this as the criteria to evaluate the article: "Raul's Razor – An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." -Raul654.)
Thanks in advance for your time in reading and evaluating the article. Other editors and I have put in some good hours on this article, and we look forward to your comments (and hopefully support!)
Trevdna (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to thank you for working on and nominating an article on such a complex and controversial figure. These are the most important articles to get right, and I commend you on your work.
Here are some of the article's strengths. It is remarkably complete: there are no places that seem glossed over, or where I feel important information has been neglected. It is admirably thorough in its sourcing: the reader has absolutely no question where the article's assertions come from (and I don't think it's over-cited, at least not in a major way); and further, I don't find any close-paraphrasing problems when combing through the sources. It's reasonably well organized: I don't see the need for major changes to the content of various subsections or supersections. And it is surprisingly NPOV, given the polarizing topic: there may be tweaks to improve the neutrality, but I don't see the sort of systemic issues one might expect.
But the article does have some unfortunate weaknesses. It really needs a thorough copy-editing. I see that it has been given three peer reviews, three GAN reviews, and two previous unsuccessful FACs, but there are still problems in nearly every section where the text is awkward, unclear, or worded in unfortunate ways. Related to this, many of the notes are poorly or inconsistently formatted, and some of the images are missing necessary information. I'll do what I can to help, but it will probably require the efforts of other reviewers willing to really dig in. I'll go section by section.
- Images
Many of the image issues were resolved in the last FAC, but these issues remain:
- The image description page of File:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg says that it was made by an anonymous relative of a Commons user in 2008. It's contradictory to publish a picture anonymously and release it under a license that requires attribution; since we can't attribute the author, we can't fulfill the terms of the license. To be honest, it's a low-quality recent imaginative rendering; I don't see it as particularly encyclopedic.
- A caption should only end in a full-stop if it is a complete sentence. "A painting of Smith, drawn by Bathsheba W. Smith, around 1843" is not a complete sentence, for instance.
(All other images are legitimately free, with all required information present.)
- Notes and references
I don't think it's a problem to have so many notes and references in an article like this, but they do need to be formatted correctly. Here are a few of the many minor problems I found.
- Some notes end in full-stops and some do not (e.g., compare 38 with 39).
- Multiple citations are usually separated with a semicolon and space, but there are frequent errors (e.g., 84, 239, and many others).
- A year range like 1824–5 (note 6) is non-standard; the MoS says to use 1824–25 for year ranges. Further, page ranges such as "pp. 557–9" or "pp. 150–51" are inconsistent and potentially ambiguous; the full "pp. 557–559" or "pp. 150–151" is preferable.
- In a non-consecutive page range, a space is needed after the comma. So the Bushman cite in note 54 is correct, but the Brodie cite in the same note is incorrect.
- Miscellaneous MoS-errors and typos are just more frequent in the notes. (Note 57 is missing a comma, notes 63 has an extra parenthesis, note 74 has a spurious comma, a full stop is missing after the date in note 183, etc. etc.)
Please go over the notes with a fine-toothed comb to check for consistency and typos.
- Lead
- The lead is quite good, probably the best written part of the article. I made some copy edits with these edits; feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of these changes.
- Normally, quotes need direct citations. "Latter Day Saints" and "Mormons" aren't really direct quotes... are the quotation marks needed? "Center place" and "two personages" do need direct cites, if you use Smith's wording.
- Most of the links in the lead are rather insightful, but the Book of Mormon article is linked to three times in the lead.
- Early years
- In "Joseph Smith, Jr.", Jr. is a parenthetic (like "Ohio" in "Cincinnati, Ohio" or "1980" in "June 1, 1980"), so it needs a comma after it.
- I'm not familiar with the phrase "took a mortgage". Should it be "took out", or "took on", or some other verb entirely?
- You introduce the description of the First Vision with the claim that (per Smith) it was "from God the Father and the Son". But nothing in the description of the vision mentions the Son, or the fact that he claimed to see two figures.
- Redundancy: "...an ability to use seer stones for locating lost items and buried treasure, using a seer stone..."
- You mention "money digging", but don't explain it. I'm not familiar with the term (Kanye West notwithstanding).
- The sentence beginning "In 1823, Smith said..." should be broken up.
- You say that "Smith had left his treasure hunting company", but no such company had been previously mentioned.
- Founding a church
- Redundancy: "...until mid-June 1828, until Harris began..."
- In my opinion, Reformed Egyptian is important enough to be mentioned by name, not just linked to via "some characters".
- The conjunction "but" should separate contrasting statements. "The Book of Mormon brought Smith regional notoriety, but also strong opposition..." is odd. You should find a way to reword that expresses your intended meaning.
- When you describe Smith and Cowdery fleeing a mob, you say "Probably referring to this period of flight, Smith later told of a visitation..." but the description of the visitation and ordaining doesn't seem to have anything to do with flight from a mob, so it just seems confusing in the text.
- The phrase "brough to trial as a disorderly person" sounds peculiar to me. Is that the actual charge? If not, it should probably be reworded to whatever is most accurate.
- "Early on, Smith began receiving opposition from Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, and other church members, who claimed to receive competing revelations undermining Smith's authority." Is "opposition" accurate? The note supports that they thought of themselves as "independent" and could "correct" Smith... If "opposition" is a fair assessment, keep it, but only if it's the best term.
- It's hard to be NPOV about revelations, but I think "announced a revelation" would be more NPOV than "dictated a revelation". (I get that you're referring to dictation, but it just sounds like he directed it, which is one POV.)
- Life in Ohio
- As above, saying "Smith gave a revelation" supports the POV that Smith, not God, gave it.
- The phrase "a Federal agent to the Indian tribes" sounds odd to me. Is that the title the sources use? Wikipedia seems unfamiliar with the phrase "federal agent to" as part of a title.
- When you say "the Latter Day Saints in Kirtland suffered intense pressure from debt collectors and severe price volatility", it sounds like the saints themselves suffered price volatility, which would mean the price of saints went up and down a lot. Would something like this be accurate? "...the Latter Day Saints in Kirtland endured severe price volatility and suffered intense pressure from debt collectors."
- You say that Smith "received a revelation that God had 'much treasure in this city'". The wording "God had" sounds odd. What did Smith's revelation announce? That God had treasure there, or that God said there was much treasure there, or that God had placed much treasure there, or what?
- When the article says "among these five groups was a quorum of twelve apostles", "apostles" links to Apostle (Christian), which really doesn't explain what is meant here at all. The article never really describes what it means for these members to be called "apostles", and the term isn't capitalized here or clearly linked. It's next mentioned in "Life in Missouri", when the text says Young was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (now capitalized), and then later it says some "apostles" were sent to Europe, but the reader doesn't know if this is an official designation or not, or what it means.
- Life in Missouri
- In the discussion of the war, the citizens were worried that the Mormons would take over the town if they were allowed to vote. (The notes for the Ohio section also show the concern that Mormons could gain control of the town if allowed to vote.) But the text never really says that the Mormons wanted to vote; it certainly never described any organized attempt by Mormons to gain influence through general elections. Did such an attempt actually occur? Do the sources describe Smith (or some other leader) encouraging Mormons to vote, so as to enact religious goals? If so, that could be a significant omission.
- It seems odd to say Smith stayed "in Liberty jail". Should it be "in Liberty Jail"? Or perhaps "in the Liberty jail"?
- "Many Latter Day Saints now considered Smith a fallen prophet". Well, not now. You must mean "then", or "by this time", or something.
- The article says Smith "assured them he still had the heavenly keys", but no such keys had been previously mentioned. (It's not even clear if these are metaphorical keys or not.)
- Life in Nauvoo
- "The charter... granted Nauvoo habeas corpus power–which saved Smith's life by allowing him to fend off extradition to Missouri." This is not clear at all. First off, how did this save Smith's life? He had not been given the death penalty, though he was imprisoned in Missouri and escaped, but why does the article state unambiguously that he would have been killed? Second, the Habeas corpus article describes it as "a writ (court order) that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court", which is clearly not what Smith wanted. The Habeas corpus in the United States article (which is probably a better article to link to) says "The privilege of habeas corpus is not a right against unlawful arrest, but rather a right to be released from imprisonment after such arrest." So how is that relevant to Smith, who was trying to not be arrested and brought to Missouri?
- The article says Nauvoo "promised an unusually liberal guarantee of religious freedom." Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here, but wouldn't it have been unusual (if not illegal) in 1839 for a U.S. city to outlaw certain religions?
- Why the quotation marks around "Lieutenant General" and "Major General"?
- This is a very strong statement: "In 1841, Smith began revealing the doctrine of plural marriage to a few of his closest male associates, including Bennett, who began using it as a license for free love." It seems to the modern reader that "plural marriage" is very different from "free love". ("Free love" usually refers to sex outside of any commitment, plural marriage or otherwise.) Are you sure that's a fair description? Also, the metaphorical phrasing "using it as a license for" sounds casual and borderline sarcastic.
- Is the direct quote "lurid exposés of life in Nauvoo" from Bennett himself, or from one of the authors cited? If that's what Bennett called them, you should reword as "Bennett wrote what he called..." If that's what a later author called them, then the cited author should be made explicit in the note.
- Similarly, who is quoted in "spiritual wifery"?
- Would Mormons describe the early Nauvoo years as "a period of doctrinal innovation"? Or just a period of the revelation of previously hidden doctrines?
- "Zion also became less a refuge from an impending tribulation than a great building project." Zion had not previously been described as a refuge from impending tribulation.
- When the article says "Smith petitioned Congress", does that mean the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, the Illinois House, or the Illinois Senate? (A link could make this clear.)
- I haven't read Bushman. Is "beyond other governmental control" unambiguously accurate?
- Death
- Did the Nauvoo Expositor really appeal to "the political views of the county's anti-Mormons"? Or just of the county's non-Mormons?
- The phrase "bring the countryside down on the Mormons" sounds casual and unspecific.
- A footnote reveals "Smith denied he had more than one wife". This is rather important to the text, I would assume, and should be included in the body.
- This potentially contentious statement needs a cite. "Similarly, within Mormonism, Smith was memorialized first and foremost as a prophet, to the point of eclipsing his human virtues and defects."
I'm going to stop now. Please note that I have only proofread and commented on "Life", the first of five supersections of the article. All of the issues I've raised need to be dealt with, and someone needs to go through in a similar way and copy-edit the rest of the article, looking for ambiguous phrases or contradictions. If that is done, and all new issues are dealt with, I would be delighted to support. But at this point, I've spent more hours reviewing this than what I usually spend on two or three nominees, and I'm going to leave it to others. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Just, wow. Thank you so much for your work on this. I will work as much and as quickly as I can on this, but it might take a few days to get to everything you've brought up. I definitely appreciate your work on this. As you can probably tell, it's been very hard to get this article right, so that every sentence is 1) NPOV and acceptable to all parties, 2) supported by the applicable scholarly research, and 3) well-written. I (and other interested editors) will certainly get to work on this just as quickly as my (our) schedule(s) allows.
- Having said that, it's been somewhat difficult to generate interest in having unbiased 3rd parties come through and copyedit the article. Do you know of any community resources that would be willing to pick up where you left off on copyediting the remaining four supersections? (Admittedly, the "Life" is the longest and most arduous of the 5 - I suspect you've probably done just under half the article at this point.) Or should I (we) just hope that some other friendly FACer comes along and gets the rest? Trevdna (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you attempted to get the article peer reviewed back in August, but it didn't get any feedback. Have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? Alternatively, you could get lucky here... but if not, I'd recommend them. – Quadell (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I'll work on that if this FAC doesn't succeed. Trevdna (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Death. "unassuming women"?? Do you mean "unsuspecting"??
- "would bring the countryside down on the Mormons". Needs to be rephrased, though i am not sure of what is needed. It seems unencyclopaedic to me. What is meant?
- "Smith, who feared another mob attack, supported the action," yet in the next para "Smith mobilized the Nauvoo Legion…" If he controlled the Legion, he could not merely have "supported" the action, as the previous para indicated. I don't think the verbs in these two paras can both be appropriate. One needs to be changed, or an explanation is missing.
- "and excluding human qualities". Clumsy wording. Perhaps "downplaying his [something]" I say "something" because i don't really know what is meant by "human qualities" - his weaknesses? That isn't consistent with the sense of the phrase. His virtues? That would be POV in this context. Can you explain what is meant here?
- Legacy. "prophet" is wikipinked about the fourth time it is used in the body text of the article. Please check what would be the first appropriate occurrence to link.
- "called of God". I have not seen this expression before. Does it mean "called by God"?
- "the product of his Yankee environment". This needs unpacking. I have no idea what this means. How is the source saying his myth making (i assume this refers to his visions and religion) are the product of a Yankee environment? Millions of Americans grew up in that environment, but few of them ended up living such extraordinary lives, so those words on their own are inadequate.
- "who died mysteriously a month after his brothers" This phrase leads us to believe that all the brothers are dead, but the very next phrase introduces a fourth. Needs to be reworded. Perhaps "a month after Joseph and Hyrum" or even simply "after his two brothers".
- I am not sure that an unborn child can have a claim in the present tense?
- "who had based his claim on a forged letter of appointment". Is that not a rather strong claim that needs more than one citation? Or is this absolutely and universally accepted?
- "which now has about 250,000 members" contains a clumsy repetition of "now", and in any case i think the MOS says to avoid talking about "now" in articles. As compromise, suggest you leave the "now" in the preceding parentheses, and change this to "which in 20xx had about 250,000 members". hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to oppose this if there's no information added regarding Smith's plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from several sources, including in large portion from Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (1825)--to which I'd refer you to the following sources: (1) Persuitte, David. Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. (2nd Edition – Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2000), 130, 155–172; Abanes, Richard. One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003), 68; and can refer you to additional sources. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- This has been open almost a month without approaching consensus to promote and, in any case, the nominator doesn't appear to have been around for a couple of weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, two weeks waiting time is required before nominating this or another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sriram speak up 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been largely improved after passing a GAN and have gone through a copyedit. Sriram speak up 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written, well-researched, well-organised, and comprehensive article that I assert almost complies with the FA criteria. A few issues:
- CRITERIA 3 (MAJOR): The image of the DVD cover (File:Gemini DVD Cover.jpg) needs more "meat on the bone" in its non-free use rationale--(1) it should have an author or copyright owner listed, I do not believe "Third party" is sufficient and that some attribution to its creator or the studio/production entity that owns the copyright needs to be mentioned; (2) "n.a." is NOT acceptable for the statements of NFCC#1 and NFCC#2; and (3) "Just a CD cover" is not a suitable explanation of the intended "Minimal use" per NFCC#3. The entire point of providing a non-free use rationale is to provide a non-free use rationale. "n.a." and non-answer answers defeats the purpose. Please address.
-
- STYLE (MINOR): In the "Inspiration" section, footnote 8 is located after "Saran recalled" and not after the quote. Logically, it should be after the quote.
-
- STYLE (MINOR): In the "Inspiration" section, part of the "Character map" is redundant given the mention of the first two items in the paragraph above, and the rest should be prosified (as a better alternative to including a list), per WP:LIST - "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs."
-
- QUESTION: Some readers only look at the infobox, and the data should be clear for the larger reading audience. Is there a reason (beyond that it's explained in the article body) why you don't have a US$ or GBP equivalent, or a number equivalent used by the rest of the world for the relatively unknown "Crore" in the infobox. Crore is unused in the West, and not used by about 5/6ths of the world. While I recognize WP:ENGVAR, this usage is a head-scratcher for most non-South Asian readers. Comparatively, British weights in "stone" in infoboxes are generally translated into pounds and km, or a measurement in "stone" is avoided. Crore should be avoided here, or better explained for universal readability.
- QUESTION: Film was released in 2002, it's now 2013. Are the US$ figures offered in the article in current 2013 dollars or unadjusted 2002 dollars, because there is an purchasing power/inflation conversion factor of about 130%, per [10] and [11]. If they are 2002 dollars, or there is any adjustment to be made, please considering noting that.
-
I will be glad to support this when these few things are addressed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT My concerns have been satisfied--
except one which is minor and subjective (i.e. doesn't impact the greater application of FA criteria). As I stated above, this is a well-written, well-researched, well-organised, and comprehensive article, and in my estimation complies with the FA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there are sources out there to support either of the claims. While his name has been credited in the film to prove his appearance as guest, the claim that it was his last film is a fact. His filmography doesn't list any films after this. I believe it qualifies as WP:OBVIOUS, unless can be proven otherwise. -- Sriram speak up 10:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I have sourced that statement in the lead, although the source does not mention his appearance as special, but just says it is his last onscreen appearance. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "The film received a U/A certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification". Since I cannot find a source for this statement, can't u photograph the censor certificate and use it here as a source? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Sriram Vikram: See the box office section of the featured article Sholay, that could help settle any inflation/currency issue in Gemini. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Soham
[edit]After I went through the development section of the article in response to a request for comment I found few claims which were unsourced like After the successes of Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both starring Ajith in the lead, Saran announced his third film with Ajith. The film, which was to be produced by A. Purnachandra Rao for Lakshmi Productions, was titled Erumugham ("Upward mobility"). As with most of his films, Erumugham was also a gangster film. Laila and Richa Pallod were to play the female leads. The song recording began on 16 March 2001, while shooting was to start in middle of June and continue through July and August 2001.
Soham 16:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This source has been used to fill in the void. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry. Do you mean to say every single sentence need to be sourced? Since a few sentences are from the same source, I have made the citation at the end. Is that a crime? -- Sriram speak up 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes if the claims are such. In this case the sentences which are not backed by sources should be removed. Soham 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as each claim comes from different sources, I have cited them then and there. There are no claims left unsourced, even to the extent that almost each sentence ends with a ref. Just this once instance, since I felt using the same ref again and again could hinder the reading pleasure, I added them at the end. No offense intended. -- Sriram speak up 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next up BO collections should be in million and not crore per WP:VNE. I would have changed them myself but it would make the article unstable. Soham 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will do soon. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should box office collections be in millions? There was just a discussion about using Ind Eng. Indians don't use millions. Sholay, a Fa, uses crores. Am I missing something here? -- Sriram speak up 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an Indian site, is used by billions across the world and so that Non-India don't trip on the word crore and to keep the article region-neutral, i.e. it can be understood by everyone across the globe. The policy I quoted is WP:VNE or Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, WP:MOS I believe is one of the principal pillars a FA should have. In this case it violates the MOS. Sriram, stay calm mate, your last few replies exude a hint of anger. Soham 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to. But if I did, I apologize. I just checked out current FAs Sholay and Taare Zameen Par. In the boxoffice section of TZP, every time currency is in INR, crores has been used. In Sholay they have used both crores and millions. I was just asking for a neutral judgement. Since crores ha been used in majority, I too put it that way. -- Sriram speak up 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the correct thing to do is add [1] in those places after each sentence to make sure they are not labelled as unsourced. Soham 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing the films BO collection in 2002 was ₹200 million (US$2.4 million) right? Even after inflation ₹4.21 billion (US$50 million) seems exaggerated. Even CE could not collect that much! Soham 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have used the INRConvert template. If the equivalent collections is exaggerated, then there is something wrong with the template. Is there any other way possible to convert them without using the template? -- Sriram speak up 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- INRConvert as far as I know does not calculate inflation, it simply converts the given amount preferably in million/billion/zillion/trillion to USD using conversion rate of the time. I will take a look at that. Plus I think you got it wrong 20 crore in 2002 will in no freakin' or flippin' way translate to 421 crore in 2013. Soham 09:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the figures are now correct. Bit too much of notes though. Soham 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple instances of wikilinks within quotations, which is not encouraged.
- The wikilinks are used in not quoted text as far as possible. But when there are no other instances of that word appear, I was left with no choice but to add them within the quotes. If there are any policy discussing the matter, can you direct me there? -- Sriram speak up 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here: Wikipedia:Mos#Linking. They are not forbidden. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above link says "as much as possible". There are exactly two instances of wikilinking within quotes. I can do away with 'Malayali' but not with 'Sethu'. In this regard, I'm left with no option. I believe it should be there. -- Sriram speak up 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better if the sources for budget and gross were in the box office section instead of, or in addition to, the infobox.
- I have used existing FAs as reference. So, Taare Zameen Par has references within infobox. Moreover here, the sources in infobox and box office section are different. -- Sriram speak up 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any sources in box office section for those figures. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref no.2 titled 'April bring cheers..' s the source. Sources have been provided a couple sentences later since a few more info are taken from that source. -- Sriram speak up 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the basis for the inflation adjustment of these figures? A footnote or source is needed. I also do not think that inflation adjusted figure belong in the infobox at all.
- The INRConvert template created them. Can't find any info regarding how they work. Could you help me find it? -- Sriram speak up 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here: Template:INRConvert The year is optional. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note...I agree the inflation adjustment isn't necessary for the infobox. Perhaps for the infobox you can format it as INR to USD(2002) rather than conveying something inaccurate that inflation adjusted figures to 2013 rupees and dollars would express. When I mentioned the inflation adjustment above in my comments, my intention was for the later explanation in the article body where the issue of box office revenues/total revenues were mentioned at length.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I agree. It doesn't look good in the infobox. I'll look into it. -- Sriram speak up 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the film grossed more than 20 crore (equivalent to 421 crore or US$6.4 million in 2013). " What? 20 crores in 2002 is equivalent to 421 crores in 2013? Are you dreaming? What source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an ongoing trouble for us editors, regarding any statement here related to money. We are trying our best to fix it. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
- In INR it would be close to ₹40 crore (US$4.8 million) or 393913908.87. Soham 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, in the article converting the amount to million solved the problem. The conversion algorithm of INR Convert might have experienced problems due to the use of crore. I ask the associated editors to add the following line along with converting all the figures to million.
₹200 million (equivalent to ₹760 million or US$9.1 million in 2023) Wiki-markup:{{INRConvert|200|m|year=2002}}
Soham 09:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- With no activity for a couple of weeks, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, pls wait a minimum of two weeks before renominating it, or nominating another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has just achieved good article status on October 24, 2013 through a long but immensely insightful review process and therefore I believe it's now in a good enough state to be considered as a Featured Article candidate. Treblinka is the core subject of the history of the Holocaust, and Poland in the 20th century as well, and thus deserves more focused attention and discussion, specified for FA. Poeticbent talk 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than update the status of my previous concerns, since it's been a little while, and there's been a lot of work done, I've collapsed what remains of that section, shuffled it off to Talk, and started anew as though this was a novel review. Unfortunately, I still must oppose promotion at this time. This article's closer, but it's not there yet. Unlike my prior reviews, I'm going to try to comment on prose issues as well, and will break this up by section:
- Not strictly actionable, but material cited in the article's body is not required to be cited in the lead. The idea is that the lead is purely a summary or abstract of the following article. Opinions seem mixed here at FAC about whether FA articles must or simply may take that approach; I prefer it, but I wouldn't oppose on those grounds alone.
- Stats are controversial. Please consider it my personal quirk.
- That said, I'm not sure the lead is the best summary of the article. There are terms introduced in the lead that aren't linked (extermination camp) or even used (Final Solution) in the body. The lead's treatment of the deaths at Treblinka I is more detailed than the corresponding section in the body, in terms of the reasons for the high death rate. Likewise, the Treblinka death toll figures in the lead are more a second section of debate about the actual numbers, rather than a summary of the section about the numbers; to wit, the two figures cited in the lead don't actually appear in that section of the body at all.
- Done. Treblinka I section expanded.
- I know the last bits of the lead are presented chronologically, but especially in a summary section, the transitions are jarring. We go from the creation of a monument and the acquisition of land ... to war crimes trials ... to a museum. Frankly, the lead is probably light on its summary of the Treblinka trials section in general.
- Tall is a meaningless description here. How tall? Although, frankly, that's the sort of thing you can save for the body; in the lead, as a summary, it can probably just be a monument. Or a tower. Or something like that that isn't subjectively described.
- The background of other extermination camps is very hard to follow. The passage starts "Before Operation Reinhard..." without establishing any context for what that is (save following the link). Then it discusses mass execution pre-Wannsee, then the three Reinhold camps, then before Reinhard again (but after Wannsee), to discuss Chełmno; the transition from Chełmno to Majdanek and Auschwitz II-Birkenau makes it very hard to determine when they opened in relation to the article's topic camp.
- Done. The paragraph rebuilt from scratch.
- You give Chełmno's alternative name in parentheses, but it's not immediately obvious that's what "Kulmhof" is. You otherwise refer to it as Chełmno consistently; is there a need for the parenthetical, or can readers who are interested in what else that camp was called find the information in its own article?
- Done. Kulmhof reformatted using lang template.
- I know you're trying to avoid repeating "extermination camp" overmuch. I don't think that "killing facility" and especially "death factory" is the right way to do that.
- Who or what is Łopuszyński?
Did Treblinka, Masovian Voivodeship exist before the construction of the camp? Do sources mention much about the effects on the area residents of having this huge facility constructed there?
-
- Thanks. More can be seen at the actual village article.
- Treblinka was "conveniently placed". I'm not sure that's quite the wording to use here, either. I assume there was an intentional decision to construct the camp between the two large ghettos, rather than just having it there by happenstance, which this could be read to imply. Do the sources support that? If so, perhaps say it outright.
- Schoenbronn and Schmidt–Munstermann -- what were they? Other than "companies"? In fact, in the context, it's hard to be certain whether this means companies in the business or military sense. Are they potentially significant enough for redlinks (or stubs, at least)? Even just a quick descriptor (like "construction companies" ... if that's what they were, I don't actually know, personally) would help here.
- These are just names of companies listed at the source. I know nothing about them.
- Sturmbannführer is unlinked at first appearance. Shortly after, you do link SS-Sturmbannführer (which is a redirect to the former article).
- If Theodor van Eupen was the commandant the entire time, is he notable enough to meet inclusion standards? Should he get a redlink?
- You give the official title of Treblinka II as SS-Sonderkommando Treblinka. Was there a corresponding official title for Treblinka I?
- It was Arbeitslager Treblinka. See photo of official announcement at Theodor van Eupen
- Does Richard Thomalla have a title or anything? Without reading his article, he's just some guy who brought German-speaking prisoners to the camp.
- Done. Added "head of construction, SS-Hauptsturmführer Richard Thomalla"
- "This fence was later weaved..." I believe that should be "woven".
- Is the "new railway camp" part of Treblinka? I'm not sure from the text. If not, does it have a name (or perhaps even an article)? Or does it just mean the second part of the camp (that hasn't been mentioned yet)?
- Done. Added "new railway ramp within Camp 2"
- "...named Seidel Straße after the man who built it..." What does that mean? Is the man's name known?
- Done. Added Unterscharführer Kurt Seidel and more.
- Consider linking roe deer. Also, it doesn't need to be hyphenated.
- The list of rooms reads awkwardly. In part, that's because you're listing rooms by task, and then switch at the end to listing rooms by occupants. When I first read the sentence, I parsed "female cleaning" as a thing (cleaning of females?) rather than "female" as a modifier to "cleaning and kitchen staff". There's got to be a better way to write this that isn't a garden path sentence.
- ..."almost resembled a retaining wall, although it was not." This is very wordy. If something only resembles something else, it isn't actually that other thing, so the whole last clause is superfluous. I'm not sure that the "almost" is needed either. Actually, this whole section is a mess, including the clause about Stangl drawing the wall while in police custody. The wall looked like what the wall looked like. If all we've got is his word for it, we can say that, but this doesn't read correctly at all.
Also, Stangl's named here as commandant, but earlier, we were told Theodor van Eupen was the camp's only commandant.
- Ah, I see. Stangl was a Treblinka II commandant, and van Eupen was the only commandant of Treblinka I, right? Or was Stangl (and others like Eberl) in charge of the whole thing, with van Eupen in a subsidiary role? It took me all the way through the Operational command section to figure out some of this, and I still don't think I have a really comprehensive understanding of van Eupen's role (and he's not in that section, either). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, see also my note from above.
- There are more branch-woven fences here, but this time you indicate who did the work. Is that the same as the branches used on the perimeter fence, a couple paragraphs above?
- "It was cynically called Himmelstraße ("the Road to Heaven") by the SS, or der Schlauch ("the tube")." Hanging clause here, making it sound like the SS is "the tube". This sentence needs rebuilt.
- "...rails laid across the pits which were up to 30 metres long." Is that how long the rails were? Or the pits?
- The barracks for the upper camp workers was in the center section, behind the wall? That seems odd, but if that's what the sources say... What is "work area" referring to here?
- It might be self-evident, but I'll point out that here, nine paragraphs past the lead, is our first succinct definition of an extermination camp.
- "Ober Majdan" You're usually styling German in italics. Why is this different? What does it mean?
- Done. The meaning explained.
- The Kommando Blau are mentioned here, but it's not until the next section that we have any idea who they are. Perhaps these sections are not in the right order? I'm not sure, honestly.
- Done. Added 'managing' the platform.
- There appears to be an extraneous space between an end-of-sentence period and two reference tags here ([55][56] at the moment). Depending on your display, that can bump them down to the next line, where they are lonely.
- Further information tags are usually at the start of sections or subsections. I'm not sure if the MOS is firm on the topic, so I don't know if what you're doing here is actionable, but it looks weird to my eye.
- See above. Section "Killing process" is about a lot more than Grossaktion Warsaw (1942). Only the adjacent paragraph is related to that.
- Does Macedonia get a link? Was it Bulgarian-occupied? It's hard to tell the way this list is presented. Can the Serbian nature of Pirot, if that's important, be expressed in a way other than parenthetical adjective?
- Did the fake infirmary have the Red Cross sign (as in the previous section) or a Red Cross flag (as here)? Regardless, do we need that detail twice?
- The quote about the use of hair -- is there any reason this needs to be a direct quote (and one unattributed in the text, to boot)? This is just factual stuff with no opinions being expressed. It seems that could be put in your own words. That would also let us style U-boat without the single-quotes (although that's the sort of typographical change that our quoting policy typically tolerates anyway). Also, that means you'd avoid linking out of a quote here, which is not prohibited, but certainly discouraged.
- Done. Someone else put it in.
- "The transports slowed down only in winter." Surely this is about the rate of transports arriving, not the rate at which their passengers were killed. Doesn't this belong a couple paragraphs up?
- Maybe it's my American English sense, but I might say that something was disassembled (if it was taken apart), or that it was removed from something else, but I wouldn't say it was "disassembled from" anything -- especially if it's still in one piece!
- We're reading about the gas chambers for well over half the section before the article actually explains that the cause of death here is carbon monoxide poisoning. Before that, it was always just "fumes".
- Carbon monoxide is found in combustion fumes. Either way.
- "After the suffocation ended and the doors of the gas chambers were opened, the bodies of victims did not lie on the ground, but were standing and kneeling due to the severe overcrowding, with dead mothers embracing the lifeless bodies of their children." I'm not sure quite what's wrong with that sentence, if it's structural or a tone concern, but it doesn't read quite right to me.
- Done. Sonderkommando survivor added and i-linked.
- Does the Katyn Commission have an article anywhere? Does it deserve a redlink? Is there a way to introduce it without dropping its name in as a parenthetical aside? I'm not, despite how this review reads, wholly anti-parentheses, but uses like this read to me as clunky, rather than compelling, prose.
- "The instructions to utilize rails came from Herbert Floß..." It isn't clear what this refers to. Are these rails the grates in the next sentence?
- Did Jankiel Wiernik write before he survived the uprising? If not, the "later" bit is in error. Is there a direct quote worth using here, frankly? While you're certainly not going to get anyone to argue that what he was describing was anything other than horrible, I'm still not comfortable describing things as "horrible" in the encyclopedia's voice.
- "4 am till 6 pm" Times need non-breaking spaces. Till seems rather informal here.
- Done. Non-breaking spaces added.
- Organization of the camp:
- What is Wachmänner and does it need a link?
- Where is Trawniki and does it need a link?
- Done. Added 'camp' Trawniki; i-linked above.
- "They were recruited of their own free will by Karl Streibel from the prisoner-of-war camps for the Soviet soldiers captured after the outbreak of war with the USSR." I haven't had time to spotcheck the sources here, especially since Citation 75 is popping a missing page number error, but I've got a concern here. To say these guards worked "of their own free will" is a pretty serious claim, and needs to be sources with appropriate measure; otherwise, there's a big difference between volunteerism and accepting the terms of the army that bailed you out of a POW camp. Given what task they were put to, that difference is significant.
- Done. Page added. Motives elaborated on at sister article.
- Are the color codes known for the three Sonderkommando squads whose color isn't inherent in their name?
- Non-actionable. Sources speak of 3 colors only, that's it.
- The last two sentences of the Sonderkommando paragraph don't seem to belong there at all.
- "Members of all work commandos" -- members of work teams or squads or whatever, but I don't think you can be a "member" of a "commando".
- "New labourers (only the strongest men) were selected" -- could this just say "Only the strongest men were selected"?
- You mention the Tarnungskommando camouflaging fences with tree branches here. This is the third time this process is mentioned, and the second section where this work detail is specifically named as doing this.
- "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised was synonymous with death." This seems unnecessarily poetic.
- Please make a suggestion.
- I've changed it to "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised would lead to execution". I was going to change it to "Showing up to work bloodied and bruised would lead to death", but that seemed, while less poetic, certainly just as dramatic. Even "would lead to execution" seems a tad dramatic, but I think it's the best we can do. Let me know what you think. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Treblinka prisoner uprising:
- "The revolt at Treblinka was preceded by a long period of secret preparations." That's the first sentence in this section. At this point, the reader only knows there was a revolt because it's mentioned in the lead. It's okay to start with a background here, but the order that facts are presented needs work. Subsections might help.
- Done. New introductory sentence added with citation.
- You mention Chorążycki's suicide, then his organizing committee.
- The plan was delayed because a captured rebel threw a grenade. But this paragraph says it was delayed by "a change in circumstances", then talks about the background of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, then tells us about the grenade, without ever making it explicit that the grenade was the "change in circumstances" in question. The flow of this series of sentences needs reworked.
- Fixed. All these factors are inextricably linked.
- If gassing didn't occur on Mondays, why don't we hear about that in the section on the gas chamber process?
- "silently unlocked" -- do sources say how?
- Done.
Sure. Please tell, what specifically would you like to see?
- You have p.m. with periods here, but pm with no periods earlier in the article. Needs to have a consistent style.
- A "tank of petrol" is not a building, but that's how the sentence reads.
- Do we need to call the German guards well-trained? Can we word this sentence without the parentheticals? Perhaps "fire from about 25 German guards and around 60 Ukrainian Trawnikis"?
- You discuss survivors, then revolts at other camps, then back to survivors in the next paragraph.
- One paragraph says 70 Jews survived, the next says 150?
- Who is Wirth? He's not linked or introduced by full name until the next section.
- Done. Links switched with proper intro.
- Who is Globocnik? His full name is given later than this mention of him, although it's
never not very clear who he is until the next section.
- The dismantling and destruction of the camp is fairly important. Should this have a section of its own?
- Non-actionable I suppose. Just one paragraph for now.
- "Lazaret" is capitalized in the caption, but not in its earlier prose mention.
- I'm really not happy with the order of these sections, as I'm sure you've already noticed by this point.
- Non-actionable... but we're getting there, see below.
- I'm also not sure what this section is about. By the name, I'd expect it to be about the people in charge of the camp, and the military command structure. But there's a lot of information here about deportation rates. Oh, and the information about the camp's effects on the local population that I couldn't find earlier!
- Done. The whole section rebuilt.
- Hans Hingst has his rank styled in English, but you've used German rank titles elsewhere.
- My earlier comment about Further information hatnotes aside, is this where it makes sense to hatnote the timeline?
- Done. Made into an i-link.
- "He was reportedly sent back to Berlin, closer to operational headquarters in the Hitler's Chancellery, where the main architect of the Holocaust, Heinrich Himmler, has just embarked on stepping up the pace of the program." This needs to be split up or rewritten somehow. Also, tense change at the end.
- "clean up Eberl's mess" -- this phrase seems rather informal, especially in the circumstances.
- Seidel Street was in German the last time it was mentioned.
- Do we know what the greeting announcement was?
- When did Stangl leave? Why?
- Franz's dismantling of the camp is given short shrift here. In general, as I think I commented earlier, that's a step of the timeline that seems largely glossed-over here.
- Why is the Treblinka song in this section? It seems like it belongs in a discussion of the experiences of the Sonderkommando.
- Relevant because of how it came about I suppose.
- "...as though the deaths at the camp were a joyful process rather than one of mourning." I don't think mourning is the right word here.
- Replaced with bereavement.
- If sources provide the lyrics in German, that's the sort of thing that would be nice to have in a footnote.
- Maybe this is an American language problem again, but use of the word wagon is strange here to me. Is that used here to mean train car?
- Changed to enclosed freight cars.
- What are the AK communiqués?
- "Its purpose as a secret guard post was confirmed by Globocnik..." -- We haven't heard about any such purpose, so this transition is jarring. For that matter, what was it secretly guarding?
- Clearly, they didn't destroy "all evidence of genocide" even if that's what they tried to do.
- I don't think the aside about the Black Road's name is needed, at least not in that form. Others may disagree with me here, though. Maybe call it the "so-called" Black Road, or something like that. Not sure.
- Franciszek Duszeńko do anything else to earn a redlink?
- The camp location had a custodian since 1960? We only hear about that after the fact. When was that established? By whom? Who was he?
- In 1960 the house was built on site for custodian Kiryluk from nearby Wólka Okrąglik. That's all we know.
- Anything more about the archaeological study?
- There's really very little here about efforts to reconstruct what actually happened at Treblinka. In the postwar years, this was a big deal in Western Europe. I don't see any mention of Steiner's 1966 work on Treblinka or the public debate that caused in France.
- Non-actionable. New article about Treblinka historiography would probably be needed for the many books listed among our 'References', including Steiner; I didn't read it. Here's a review.
- Is that an official name? The target article isn't even sure if it should be Treblinka Trials (that's the article title) or Treblinka trials (as it is in the lead there).
- "the United States and the Soviet Union had lost interest in prosecuting German war crimes with the onset of the Cold War" -- that claim needs a direct citation and perhaps attribution, as it is potentially incendiary (even if true)
- Done. A direct citation.
- SS isn't italicized here, as it often was previously. I haven't been paying close attention to if this is consistent throughout, but it needs to be.
- By now, we should already know Stangl's position.
- I think you can cut "of men, women, and children" as redundant.
- The material gain section feels out of place here. Perhaps discuss this in the section about the camp's leadership?
- Discussed already. The stealing has only been made public at trials.
- Globocnik's tally is, by my reading, the amount of valuables the camp had acquired from its victims at the time, not the amount anyone ran off with, but its position in the middle of the paragraph doesn't make that immediately obvious.
- I wonder if this sort of thing would be better as a standalone list article with a Further information link, but that's personal preference, I think.
- Non-actionable. Needed as our index of names, ranks, etc.
- Are the names in any order in each section?
- Ranks are sometimes given English translations but not always. Consider either doing it all the time, never, or on first appearance of each rank, but set a standard regardless.
- Done. Arranged per ranks, higher to lower, and within each rank the names are in alphabetical order.
- Super-nitpick of the day: the references for Erwin Lambert in the table are not in numerical order.
- Kurt Franz doesn't get dates served in the table?
- Theodor van Eupen isn't in the table at all?
- Josef Hirtreiter's description as "unloading ramp terror" is not NPOV.
- Done. Article created, i-linked and DYKed. Josef Hirtreiter was sentenced to life for smashing children's heads against the walls of boxcars at the unloading ramp. Just facts.
- What is the Waldkommando?
- "command of Ukrainian twelve guard unit" -- this does not make sense to me as written
- Our article on Ivan the Terrible says he was named Ivan Marchenko; should the table reflect that? Should his presumptive ethnicity be in the notes rather than with his rank?
- Hirtreiter's trial is covered in the other article, yes, but probably deserves more mention here than being buried in a footnote.
- Footnote F: I can't see this, because there's no direct citation to it here.
- [Mostly skipping the Citations list, at least for now]
- In general, I'm not fond of how much "extra" stuff (quotes, explanatory text, etc.) you have in the citations and references. The MOS allows for it, I suppose, so it's not actionable. But I don't have to like it.
- You sometimes, but don't always, give accessdates for print references you access online. Unlike purely web sources, those aren't strictly required (and I don't like them, personally); the idea is that while a web resource may change over time, a print source cannot (nor should a faithful online reproduction of a print source).
- Google Books often include separate dates for when a print source was digitized, so the occasional access date can't hurt either I guess.
- The Court of Assizes reference has a comma after the date instead of a parenthesis. I'm not sure this reference is entirely correctly cited, either, but I'll pass over that for now.
- Done. Reformatted as "sfn"
- Donat doesn't need a page number here, because you provide that in the corresponding Citation. And you've got an ISBN, so don't need an LOC; one ID is sufficient.
- Grossman could use an OCLC if available.
- Does Rückerl have an ISBN? Or an OCLC, that failing? Also, this is especially the sort of excerpt buried in the references that seems germane to the article.
- I just noticed that you're not consistent about publication locations. They're entirely optional, but you've either got to always use 'em or always lose 'em.
- Is choosing required? Some might be interesting I think.
- I still think that, in general, this article is overly reliant on fairly "soft" resources like the Diapositive and museum websites. I know the article relies heavily on Dam im imie̜ na wieki (Iz 56,5) also, but I'm having a hard time finding anything that discusses how well that work was received or whether it's thought to be a reliable historical analysis (or anything about the reputation of Edward Kopówka as a historian), but that may be localization bias.
- Done. New article about Dr. Edward Kopówka created; his book hailed as an encyclopedia. Check it out.
Calling this here for the night. I may try to get back to this review and finish out later. Regardless, I really can't support on prose grounds right now. The military history project does an excellent job with copyediting. If this article fails FAC (which I believe it will, and should), you may want to submit it to their A-Class process before coming back here. They're good at this sort of thing, and I'm very much not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And with that, I'm going to consider myself done with this review. This article still requires, if nothing else, yet another comprehensive copy edit. I suspect it's going to need some section-level formatting adjustment, too. And I've declined to give the bulk of the citations another round of scrutiny. I'm very sorry, because I know a lot of work has gone into this, and continues to do so, but with the amount of corrections needed here (more than I really should highlight in a FAC, to be honest), I'm just not going to be able to support promotion. I hope to see it go through a more formal peer review, and perhaps the MILHIST A-Class assessment; I look forward to seeing it again in future in a manner that would permit me to support it here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a bit confused. With the amount of effort you put into this review I would assume you don't want it, to be in vain. This is a collaborative project. There is no silver bullet to improving the article. No MILHIST organizational headquarters exist to come to the rescue unless you mean specific team members willing to help just like you. Meanwhile, other FAC reviewers help in mainspace because often it is easier to fix things rather than to elaborate on it. My main point is, once you declare your unwillingness to support promotion and to chip in with the editing, why bother wasting time adding the missing commas to your rationale? There's no need for that.
Poeticbent talk 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I oppose an article's promotion at FAC doesn't mean I don't want that article to be a FA; on the contrary, I want every article to be a FA, but they have to meet the criteria to do so. I don't think this does, and I think there are pretty substantive changes needed for it to do so. As a result, I think this article should fail this FA candidacy, receive the improvements it needs, consider going through a (slightly) less rigorous appraisal like the MILHIST A-Class review, and come back here as a better article more in line with the FA criteria so that it can pass. I hope that provides some insight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I also would like to thank you for your detailed and critical review. I would list more suggestions for improving the article myself, but I'm way too familiar with the article to offer any more critical commentary on it at this point. AmericanLemming (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your review Squeamish Ossifrage has become quite a DYK generator. Josef Hirtreiter, Paul Bredow, Willi Mentz, Max Möller (SS officer), Theodor van Eupen, Katyn Commission, Franciszek Duszeńko, Edward Kopówka are new, not to mention, numerous serious improvements to already existing articles and notable new ones featured at WP:DYKSTATS. — I have addressed every comment of yours often with great care, going beyond of what might have been expected of me. Sorry it took so long, but your semi-professional review required a great deal of attention. We're going to end up with something to be proud of, better than anything I've seen out there. That's good. Thanks again, Poeticbent talk 08:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review by Nikkimaria
[edit]- Several of the captions need editing for grammar
- File:3rd_SS_Division_Logo.svg is sourced to File:SS_Division_Totenkopf.png, which is missing a source
- The icon is of little significance to our article, nevertheless, I just added the source (i.e. The Dutch Auschwitz Committee) to File:SS Division Totenkopf.png – PB. Thanks
- File:Treblinka_II_aerial_photo_(1944).jpg: when/where was this first published?
- Description has just been expanded to include the National Archives Air Photo library Cartographic Division Record Group 373, and link to at least two authors who claimed to have first published it. Thanks – PB
- File:Treblinka_Cremation_Pit.jpg: how do we know that this corporation has authorized that licensing?
- Interesting. If you look at the upload description, it says that the source is http://www.gigatel.co.uk with author Llion Roberts (i.e. Gigatel Cyf. Ltd) but the file description box contains different link to http://www.diapositive.pl. However, we also have other photographs of that memorial if you think that the licensing isn't clear enough – PB
- File:Treblinka_graph_pt_1.png: data source(s)?
- The graph was produced by User:Volunteer Marek to illustrate the Timeline of Treblinka article, where data sources are referenced. Should we include them also in the file description? – PB
- done, ext. link added – PB
Oppose on prose, based on a preliminary reading of the article. Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- Is "murdered" the right term to use? I don't mean, is it justified, but is it the best, most encyclopedic and dispassionate term to use on this article's lead?
- [This is a tough one. Please make a suggestion. – The issue has already been noted in talk before now, but "murdered" is a legal term regardless of its connotations in popular culture. See definition of "murdered" by HG Legal Experts and the Department of Justice I don't know how to fix it. Would the phrase "put to death in gas chambers" sound better? Thanks in advance – PB]
-
- Changed to "died in the gas chambers". Thanks, AmericanLemming – PB]
- I realize I'm late to this discussion, but my understanding is that the camp's surviving command staff, like Stangl and Franz, were later charged and convicted of hundreds of thousands of counts of murder. (See for example [14] and [15]) The secondary sources I reviewed while composing the Auschwitz article, both popular and scholarly, routinely referred to the killings as murders. "Murdered" is the correct, dispassionate term for a deliberate and unlawful killing (which both courts and common conscience find this to be), and I'd argue against removing it; "killed" isn't wrong, but it is less precise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise for "death factory".
- [same as above. Please make a suggestion – PB]
-
- I don't think you need to be overly concerned. I stand by the overall quality of the article's prose, having copy-edited it both during the GA review and during the FAC, as well as making 325 edits to the article myself. I admit that there might be some remaining issues here and there, but by and large the article is an objective account of what happened written in plain English. It isn't sensationalist, nor does it push any one POV. In my opinion, PoeticBent has done an excellent job improving the article. Rather than bemoaning the word choice in general, I think it would be much more constructive for you to point out specific examples of what you consider to be in need of improvement. I appreciate your willingness to review the article critically, but I also don't think the prose is as bad as you make it out to be. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead improved. Hope it's OK now. Thanks, John – PB
- "A towering monument..." These three seem to be pushing NPOV for the lead of an article on such a sensitive topic. It's important to set a really neutral, dispassionate tone in the lead, and let the facts and the quotes stand for themselves.
- done, word "towering" replaced with "tall". Please note, there are numerous smaller memorial stones and plaques in there. This is only to signify that fact – PB
- The overall structure of the first paragraph of the lead is tortuous. It needs, in my opinion, to be rewritten. The casualty estimates should be presented as a simple range. It should be sufficient to cite the range in the body, without doing so here in the lead.
- The estimated number of the victims of gassing is controversial. Whenever casualties are mentioned (a military term, more less) without supporting reference, people tend to get nervous. Usually, inline citations prevent this sort of knee-jerk reaction. To de-clutter the lead, I reformatted all anchors using "sfn" templates. Please be specific about what sentences in the lead could be rewritten. Thanks in advance, – PB
- That's a fair request. It really needs a complete rewrite, both for NPOV and for flow. --John (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewritten already, check it out – PB
Background
- Changed to "facility" (another popular phrase) – PB
Sources
- Gone with the wind – PB
Engvar
Are we in American or British English here? I see examples of both. --John (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe we're in British English. When I copy-edited the article for GA status, it seemed that it was more British English than American English, so I tried to change all the spelling to British English and all of the date formats into DMY. However, seeing as I'm not terribly familiar with British English, some dates may not be formatted correctly. Sometime this week I'll look up some of the stylistic variations, particularly with regard to date formatting, and see if I can't fix the inconsistencies. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reread the article and found 13 instances of American spelling and/or vocabulary, which I have now fixed. Should you happen to find any more examples, feel free to point them out or fix them yourself, whichever you should prefer. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
It seems that this FAC has stalled somewhat, so I'd thought I'd offer some input of my own. Note that these comments are unresolved issues from my copyedit of this article for GA status; they were (rightly) deemed too picky for a GA review and thus left alone. Anyway, here we are at FAC and it seems that they might be appropriate in this situation. This is only the second time I've contributed at FAC, so I don't know whether or not addressing my concerns is necessary to fulfill the FA criteria; what I do know is that addressing them would make the article better.
Anyway, these comments are meant to give the nominator some ideas on how to further improve the article while the other reviewers get around to finishing their review of the article's prose. I will continue to watch this review page and the article itself. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit, I did just copy these comments from the GA review. Anyway, I'll reread the article tomorrow and see which comments are still applicable and if I have any new ones. I've got an organic chemistry midterm tomorrow morning, so I won't be able to get back to you until tomorrow afternoon, roughly 24 hours from this timestamp. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've now reread the article and copy-edited it again (as you can see by looking at the article's history). Additionally, I've collapsed most of my remaining GA comments, as they were either addressed or non-actionable. I apologize for not following the GA review quite as closely as I should have before posting these recommendations at FAC; I got rather busy with my studies. Anyway, the good news is you don't very many issues left from the GA review to address. The bad news is I found a few more issues during my latest copy-edit. Again, I don't know if addressing my concerns is necessary for FA status, but I do think taking them into consideration would further improve the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations left over from GA Review
First third
- "A widely feared overseer was Untersturmführer Franz Schwarz" I know it originally said "another widely feared overseer", implying that Eupen was a feared overseer. I don't opposed the original wording so long as you explain why Eupen was a feared overseer.
- Again, this looks like an already resolved point from our GA review. The revised sentence now reads: "A widely feared overseer was Untersturmführer Franz Schwarz, who would execute prisoners with a pickaxe or a hammer.[37]" The source spoke about Eupen as a feared overseer without explaining why and how exactly, quote (p. 74): "The camp commandant who ruled the entire time Treblinka I was in operation was Theodor van Eupen, known for his terrible brutality, and under him was Franz Schwarz..." (Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik 2011) – PB
- "Additionally, trees were cut and the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process" How was the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process? I know you talk about it later, but this sentence leaves the uniformed reader (like me) rather confused for a while.
- It looks like you might have copied your comments from the GA review. Please make sure that your old suggestions are still relevant today. The revised sentence reads: "Additionally, trees were cut and the perimeter adjusted to fit the killing process and cremation introduced later.[34]" I thought this was behind us – PB
- Well, I've looked at it again, and I still stand by this comment. Perhaps you could say something like "trees were cut and the perimeter enlarged to increase the size of the camp and facilitate a higher volume of victims" or something to that effect. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the buffer zone (aerial photo) constructed in 1943 – PB
- "associated with the mass burial of corpses only in 1943, when the Polish victims of the Soviet Katyn massacre" When in 1943 was the Katyn massacre unearthed?
- "Therefore, the orders to exhume corpses already buried at Treblinka and burn them instead came directly from the Nazi leadership." The mid-level Nazi leadership? The high-level Nazi leadership? Who exactly gave the orders?
- I assume, the high-level leadership (see above). Thanks – PB
Killing process
- "This killing process differed significantly from the method used at Auschwitz and Majdanek, where the poisonous gas Zyklon B was utilized." Any reason why Treblinka used carbon monoxide and not Zyklon B?
- I'm not sure. Just stating the facts – PB
Organization of the camp
- "Their big triangles made it impossible for new arrivals to blend in" The big triangles of the Desinfektionskommandos? Also, how would have new arrivals been able to blend in anyway, even without the big triangles?
- "sorted the belongings of victims who had been already "processed"" Obviously "processed" means "killed", but it might be unclear to some readers.
- " who separated quality items" Do you mean that they separated the high quality items from the low quality items?
- "The Camp 1 Wohnlager residential compound contained barracks for 700 Sonderkommandos, bringing their grand total to roughly one thousand at any given time" This sentence confuses me. Are you trying to say that the barracks was severely overcrowded?
- "There was a bruise rule in effect" Put in place by the camp leadership, I suppose? Was it a formal rule or just a habitual practice of the guards?
- "he would be called "clepsydra" (water clock) in the camp language" Why "water clock"? And what was the "camp language"? German? Yiddish? Hebrew? And who would call him "water clock"? The guards or the other prisoners?
Treblinka prisoner uprising
As a general comment, the first two paragraphs of "Treblinka prisoner uprising" are in need of much improvement. I think it's got all the necessary information; it's just not presented in a particularly coherent matter. As a second general comment, if they killed off all of the Sonderkommandos every few days, how did Lejcher managed to stick around for three months and plan the uprising?
- "He launched the uprising on a hot summer day when a group of Germans and some forty Ukrainians drove off to the Bug River for a swim.[79] He was remembered differently by survivors as either Dr. Lecher [sic],[77] or Dr. Leichert.[81] Lajcher was killed in the revolt." I suggest moving the first and the third sentences into the next paragraph; I think they fit better there.
- "the door to the arsenal near the train tracks was silently unlocked" Do we know who unlocked the door? If we don't, I think it's worth mentioning that.
- "They splashed gasoline in some buildings" Did they splash gasoline in or on the buildings? I think you want "on" here.
- "Chorążycki committed suicide on April 19 when faced with imminent capture" So if the Germans figured out that there was a plot, why didn't they kill everyone else who they thought was involved, too?
- They would have, given more time to investigate. This is why Berek Lajcher launched the uprising immediately following the ambush and suicide of his predecessor. Please take a look if our own info still needs to be adjusted – PB
- But if Chorążycki committed suicide on April 19 and the uprising took place on August 2, how can you say Lacher launched the uprising immediately? The uprising took place slightly over two months after Chorążycki committed suicide. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching that. I got confused. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was underway and the Jewish partisans from the capital who were transported to Treblinka were ready and willing to fight to death. One new arrival killed Max Biala, another partisan detonated a grenade at the undressing area causing the SS and guards to go into panic. The partisans simply refused to go to the gas chambers. They were being machine-gunned thus making the Road to Heaven temporarily blocked. The plot was not discovered, but when all things put together, there was no time to wait any longer – PB
- Please give me a couple of hours. I have to rewrite that thing, but I'm goint out now – PB
- That's fine. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did what I could, please take a look. Unfortunately, some of the facts mentioned above are not properly dated at the sources, and therefore could not be used. Thanks again – PB
Alright, my three last remaining issues with this section are somewhat related, I think.
- 1. Since the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising lasted from 19 April 1943 until 16 May 1943, why did that postpone the 15 June 1943 uprising? Did it take the Germans that long to round up the surviving members of the resistance and send them to Treblinka? Our Wikipedia article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising says "sporadic resistance continued and the last skirmish took place on 5 June 1943 between Germans and a holdout group of armed Jews without connections to the resistance organizations".
- 2. Also, Chorążycki committed suicide the same day that the uprising began. I think that's worth noting.
- 3. Thirdly, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article also says "On 19 April 1943, the first day of the most significant period of the resistance, 7,000 Jews were transported from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka extermination camp,[49] where, purportedly, they developed again into resistance groups, and then helped to plan and execute the revolt and mass escape of 2 August 1943." Do you have any source to confirm the second half of the sentence? (starting with "purportedly...)? It may be unverifiable. Anyway, what do you think about adding the ""On 19 April 1943, 7,000 Jews were transported from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka extermination camp" part to this section? It seems to be backed up by a reliable citation.
- I'm beginning to feel like a detective searching for the answers. The second part of the sentence in wiki is not supported by any source at all. The date 19 April 1943 is listed by HolocaustResearchProject.org as the exact date of the last transport from Warsaw with no mention of any claim that the deportees "developed again into resistance groups" at Treblinka. Pure original research. I think the opposite was true. The deportation of 7,000 Jews on 19 April could have sparked the Uprising which began on the same day. Meanwhile, beginning in April, tens of thousands of burried corpses were first unearthed by the crawler excavator at Treblinka for mass cremation, per new SS orders. Could that be the real reason for the postponement? Let me see what else I can find – PB
-
- Thanks for asking, and yes, I'm finished with that. Please archive this whole section if you will. It is already shown that Chorążycki committed suicide on the same day, and personally I don't see a need for further expansion - PB
Operational command
- "It was evident that large-scale killings were happening nearby, which caused panic among the villagers." Did they think they were going to be killed too?
- The whole chapter in Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik 2011 pp. 335–434 is devoted to witness testimonies from villagers who lived in constant fear of being killed if caught near the train tracks. Please look at it again – PB
- "Christian Wirth was assigned to move into Treblinka" Did he then stay there for an extended period of time?
- "Stangl had a reputation as a competent administrator with a good understanding of the project's objectives" I suppose the project's objectives were to kill all the Jews?
- "Stangl wanted his camp to look attractive, so he ordered the paths paved and flowers planted along the sides of Seidel Street, near camp headquarters and SS living quarters" Was Seidel Street near camp headquarters and SS living quarters, or were they three separate places where paths were paved and flowers were planted?
- I didn't write this. Somebody else did. I believe adj. "attractive" is from Stangl's own testimony. Anyhow, the "Kurt Seidel Straße" was the main road in the camp, named after Treblinka SS-man who built it (Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik 2011 p. 78). Please take a look if this needs to be explaned – PB
- "Stangl accepted the extermination of the Jews as a fact" A fact as in it was happening or that it had to happen?
- "(actually, prisoner Walter Hirsch wrote them for him)." I assume he did so under no little duress? That is, he was forced to?
- I don't think he was forced to do so. Just trying to improve his own chances of survival – PB
- My own musings, more less. Please consider this point non-actionable – PB
Death count
- "The last rail transport of Jews destined for death" I understand where this is coming from, but "destined for death" seems a little dramatic for a Wikipedia article. I can't think of any suitable replacements off the top of my head, but there's got to be some.
After the war
- "The new Soviet-installed government failed in its duty to preserve evidence of the crime" I think you mean moral duty, not legal duty, right? It might be more NPOV if you just take the "failed in its duty" part out. Then again, I haven't been around Wikipedia that long, so maybe not. How about "failed to preserve evidence of the crime"?
- "The scene has not been legally protected" Even to this very day? Otherwise, "the scene was not legally protected until..." would be more appropriate.
- "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials" Did they not allocate any funds to the design competition or the memorial? Neither?
- No money was given for anything – PB
- "No funds were allocated for it by the Stalinist officials. The committee disbanded in 1948. Many survivors left the country. In 1949 the town of Sokołów Podlaski took it upon itself to protect the camp with the new fence and a proper gate. A work crew was sent in to beautify the grounds with no archeological insight." I think all of these short, choppy sentences could be combined so that they're more coherent.
"the collapse of the Soviet empire" I understand many Poles have hard feelings toward the Soviet Union, but in the interest of NPOV it might be best to stick with "Soviet Union".
- "The exhibition house opened in 2006 following the collapse of the Soviet empire" The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so why did the exhibition house open so much later?
- Already resolved I believe. Changed to "collapse of communism". House of former custodian built in 1960 was renovated and turned into a museum only after his retirement. Years went by. Please confirm in section "After the war" – PB
Treblinka trials and footnotes
- " Twenty years after the war ended, eleven former SS camp personnel were brought to trial by West Germany, including commandant Kurt Franz." Any reason it took them so long to have the trial?
- This is one of those dark chapters of judicial history of Europe after World War II. Most former Nazis have never been tried, and instead held positions of political and economic prominence throughout Germany.(Wiesenthal Center)
- Heinz Reinefarth went on to live the life of Riley similar to other Holocaust perpetrators including SS-Obersturmführer Strippel from Majdanek, and Oberscharführer Fiedler from Chelmno. Reinefarth was elected Mayor of Westerland and in 1962 member of parliament (Landtag) of Schleswig-Holstein. After his term ended in 1967, he worked as a respected lawyer. – PB
- "Gustav Munzberger from Gas Chambers received 12 years, Franz Suchomel (Gold and Money) 7 years, Otto Stadie (Operation) 6 years, Erwin Lambert (Gas Chambers) 4 years, Albert Rum (Totenlager) 3 years. Otto Horn (Corpse Detail) was acquitted and set free" I understand that German capitalizes all nouns (I'm a German major, for crying out loud. I should know that.) However, generally nouns are not capitalized in English. Any reason why they're capitalized here?
- Already discussed at GAN and resolved. Please look back – PB
- "but Austria did not issue a warrant for Stangl's arrest until 1961." Any reason why it took them so long?
- Footnotes: Make sure that all access dates are all DMY (4 July 2013) and not MDY (July 4, 2013)! I think some of them are and some of them aren't.
New FAC Comments
Lead
- "The new exhibition centre located at the camp opened in 2006 after the collapse of the Soviet empire" I still think "Soviet Union" is more NPOV than "Soviet empire".
Background
- "Majdanek and Auschwitz": when did they begin operating?
- "near the Małkinia Górna railway junction connecting major cities with Łopuszyński's gravel mine located 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) from the Treblinka town railroad station" So the railway junction connects major cities OR major cities to the gravel mine OR major cities to Treblinka? I'm sorry, but this sentence leaves me very confused...
- "Treblinka I operated from June 1941 until 23 July 1944" Sso we don’t know exactly when in June 1941 it started operating?
- "The entire camp, which was either 17 hectares (42 acres)[38] or 13.5 hectares (33 acres) in size (sources vary):" The entire camp, as in all of Treblinka II, or the entire camp, as in all of Treblinka I and II?
- "the main road within the campgrounds" I understand what you're getting at here, but when I hear the word "campgrounds" I think of a place where people go on the weekend to have fun with family and friends and enjoy nature. I don't think that's the connotation you want to come across here...
- "All buildings contained the clothing and belongings of prisoners?" So does that include the undressing barracks, then?
- "Mentz single-handedly executed thousands of Jews in there" So was the open-excavation trench inside the small barracks?
- "The same trench was also used to burn loads of identity papers deposited by new arrivals" The new arrivals didn't hand over their identity papers there, they did so at the fake train station, right?
Killing process
You mention Stangl by his last name only without linking his name, even though this is the first time he's mentioned in the article. I suggest giving his full name, mentioning his status as the camp commandant, and linking his name.
- Stangl is linked in paragraph preceeding the "Killing process" – PB
Organization of the camp
- "The red unit (Kommando Rot), which was the biggest squad, unpacked and sorted the belongings of victims who had been already "processed"." The way you word it now, it sound like some of the victims unpacked and sorted their own belonging, which isn't what I think you're trying to say. How about "unpacked and sorted the belongings of victims after they had been "processed""?
- "A different work detail was responsible for the upkeep of Treblinka II": first, don't you mean Treblinka I, and second, why is Treblinka II italicized here when it isn’t anywhere else?
- All of the above has been taken care of. Please double check if you want – PB
Operational command
- "His deputy was SS-Hauptscharführer Fritz Küttner who maintained a net of Sonderkommando informers and did the hands-on killings." I think you mean "network"?
Treblinka prisoner uprising
"The Jews of Treblinka became increasingly concerned about their own fate" I think you mean only those in the Sonderkommando who were most resilient to stress? The vast majority of Jews were killed within hours of arrival, and most of the Sonderkommando Jews were killed within a few days. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
After the war[reply]
- "The sculpture represents the trend toward large avant-garde forms introduced in the 1960s." The trend in Poland, in the world, in the West, in Eastern Europe? Where was this trend taking place?
Individuals responsible
|
Support Two copy-edits, 100-some comments, and 350+ edits later, I support the promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I should mention is that I could be considered "a significant contributor to the article before its nomination", hence meaning I should disclose that here. PoeticBent is the one who's put the bulk of the work in expanding and adding content to the article, but I have put a lot of work into the article's prose (almost 375 edits at this point), both during the GA review and during this FAC.
I am partly a reviewer, having offered 80-100 comments and suggestions on how to improve the article, and partly a significant contributor, having made those aforementioned 375 edits and having responded to comments by other FAC reviewers.
I offer my apologies for not disclosing this COI sooner. I offer my apologies for not mentioning my role as a significant contributor sooner. I'll try to remember next time. AmericanLemming (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the way I look at it. By design, FA is the last level of article development in Wikipedia (at this particular point in time, naturally). Whether you describe what needs to be changed (thus engaging others in making specific improvements to your satisfaction like Squeamish Ossifrage), or you change it yourself (to save time) makes no difference. We are all responsible for bringing the article to a more advanced level of development by discussing it back and forth. Squeamish Ossifrage is a significant contributor to the article as well, like Napoleon surrounded by his adoring troops. Poeticbent talk 19:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the extensive changes made to the article in the wake of Squemish Ossifrage's comments, I intend to reread the article, if nothing else for prose considerations. However, since I am frantically cramming for an organic chemistry final this week and next, this will happen sometime between December 13-15. My intention to reread it is not meant to revoke my support given above but rather to further fine-tune the prose in light of a substantial revision to the article. Additionally, I will reread the article whether or not it passes or fails its FAC here; I've put so many hours into copy-editing and reviewing it that I want to make it the best it can be. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do a close-read of the article today. I'm also going to review the three FACs older than this. It's going to be a good weekend for my edit count. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting more reviewers
[edit]One thing I would point out, PoeticBent, is that articles seem to need at least 5-6 reviewers to pass FAC. I happen to know that because I stalk the FAC candidates page. If the delegate deems that the article "hasn't had enough eyes on it", they won't archive it after a month (that is, fail it); they'll leave it open for another few weeks to see if a few more people will look it over.
I would suggest posting on Squeamish Ossifrage's and John's talk pages and asking them to finish their reviews by the next week or at least by the end of the month. Additionally, I would recommend asking around at WikiProject Poland and Wikiproject Military History (or any other relevant Wikiproject, for that matter) to see if anyone's willing to review the article. Furthermore, if there are any editors you know who might be willing to review the article, you could ask them as well. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent ideas. I'd like to deal with your own review first in its entirety hoping to get the first Support vote to pay the good Karma forward. Poeticbent talk 19:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for slacking on this one. I'll try to see where I stand in the next day or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Treblinka II (officially the SS-Sonderkommando Treblinka), was divided into three parts and built by two groups of German Jews - why the comma after the closing parenthesis?
- Done. Good catch, thanks.
They were led to the edge of an open excavation seven metres deep directly behind it - I'd say "pit" here - odd way to use "excavation"
- Please look at photograph of Samuel Willenberg standing next to his study of the "Lazaret". The burial pit was big enough for a foundation of an office tower. That's why I'd rather call it an excavation this one time if you'd be so kind. — I'm looking forward to your complete review, Casliber. Many thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright - "excavation" is probably more encyclopedic than "great big pit".....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look once John and Squeamish Ossifrage have revisited their opposition above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this prior to WP:GAN at Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp#Pre-Ga_comments. I would like to ask other reviewers if anyone has done a spotcheck on references to see if all content claimed to be referenced in fact is referenced? My spotcheck few months ago suggested it wasn't the case. If it is fixed now, I would probably support this, but until it is confirmed this is not an issue I cannot do so. Unfortunately, I don't have time nor will to do a second ref spotcheck now myself. Please echo me if there are any replies to me here. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify. Your spot check (per our discussion) was about the idea of placing an anchor behind each fact rather than at the end of each paragraph. Most references prior to expansion were already there at that particular time, only scattered. Dozens were added since then, including many scholarly monographs. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 10:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for similar reasons to Squeamish above. Despite all the work that has gone on here, there are too many problems with the text. Some examples (i have not read the full article):
- some of the content of "Treblinka II" appears to be about the "killing process", which is the subject of a subsequent section.
- " It resembled a retaining wall drawn by commandant Franz Stangl later on." Drawn where? What is this a reference to, and why is it important?
- "they were replaced with cremation pyres which were up to 30 metres long," which -> that
- "totally made up train schedules". "totally" not necessary
- "unhinged locomotive". Strange choice of word. I know the term as meaning insane. Do you mean decoupled?
- "The Jews who were resistant to the process". Again, slightly odd expression. Would have thought "The Jews who resisted" would be more natural.
- " they became well aware of". Why not simply "they became aware of"?
- "which had been taken out from Soviet military bunkers..." would read better as "which had been taken from Soviet military bunkers..."
- Arithmetic contradiction. We are told the trains carried "from about 4,000 to 7,000 victims per transport" and that "An entire train transport of people could be killed in a matter of two or three hours". We are then told the first system used to gas them "was imperfect and required a lot of effort" and that the new chambers "were capable of killing 3,000 people in two hours". But as i read the above sequence, the first system was killing 4,000 to 7,000 victims in two or three hours, which is if anything faster than the second. What is happening in the text here?
- "After the suffocation ended..." this sentence is long, cumbersome and is missing at least one punctuation mark.
- "By April, the Nazi propaganda began to draw attention to it amongst the international community via the Katyn Commission..." clumsy sentence, and not clear what "it" is: the Katyn massacre or mass burial of corpses as a strategy (I worked out which - but the para isn't well constructed).
- "...and made ready by the Sonderkommandos to be exchanged". Exchanged for what??
- "brought their grand total to roughly one thousand". Why "grand"?
Sorry, just too many prose problems that don't meet the standard for FA, in my view anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Hamiltonstone for devoting time to our nomination. Every comment helps to make Treblinka a better article which is our ultimate goal. I would like to address the issues raised as soon as AmericanLemming completes his review as promised. Poeticbent talk 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open a month and a half, there are too many concerns with this nom for it to have a chance of achieving consensus to promote any time soon. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, a nominator whose FAC has been archived must wait a minimum two weeks before nominating the same (or another) article. Poeticbent, I recommend that you use that time (or more as necessary) to work on the outstanding issues and then take the article to Peer Review or MilHist A-Class Review or even both, inviting the reviewers here (particularly those who have opposed promotion) to look over your improvements, before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. I am nominating this for featured article because, like last time, I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It has received a peer review and a copyedit. At the previous FAC, there was one support, and two reviews that had been addressed. I want this to be TFA for January 1st, the 90th anniversary, so I really need this to pass on this try. Again, this is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic.
From last time, The 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated. Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Admiral caption should end in period, but licensing is all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a period to the image's caption. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05
|
Comments from Toa Nidhiki05
- I'll be doing a full overview of the prose in the article as well as checking for duplicate links. Toa Nidhiki05 22:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lede
- I would reword about the game organizers selecting a team from both coasts, because they didn't choose Navy - Washington did. As it reads right now, it could create the mistaken belief that the committee selected both teams. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. I have no clue why I wrote that.
- Team selection
- Aftermath
- Neither. Ticket sales were high. I tried to clarify that.
|
Overall, this is a good article. A bit on the short side and with some minor prose issues, but I'd be fine with supporting once these issues are fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I've tried to address all of your concerns. Much appreciated, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job on the fixes, I'l' go ahead and give my support. Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the article refers to Tesreau's broken leg, I didn't see any reference to the incident during the game that led to the break. Was it broken during the game (which is what I assume), or was it damaged at some earlier time? Could the boils (which I suppose must have been fairly severe to lead to medical advice not to play) have been symptomatic of an undetected fracture that had somehow become infected in this pre-antibiotic era? The main question I'm asking, which the article doesn't seem to answer, is "how did Tesreau break his leg?" RomanSpa (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In all the sources I found, there was no mention of when or how Tesreau broke his leg, just that he did. I forgot to include in the article that the boils were on the non-broken leg, so I added that to clarify for everyone. Thanks for bringing that up, sorry I can't fix your main question. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Game summary: The first paragraph of this section has four citations to reference 19 and none to other sources. Without them, four cites is a bit of overkill; you could probably get away with one or two.
First half: The last five sentences here have four "completed"s that I am counting. A little more variety would be nice; maybe another word could be found for the extra point attempts ("converted"?)
- Changed two to "converted".
Comments from WWB—I had reviewed this article during its last time at FAC. I'm a college football fan (go Ducks!) so the topic is a familiar one to me, however my primary focus is readability, clarity of language and copy-editing type issues. The article has improved from when I first read it, although it was already in good (literally, GA) shape. That said, I do have a number of questions and comments, and then a few general questions near the end, before I could declare support:
- Introduction—Two questions:
- I'm a little puzzled by the sentence calling "this installment the second game played in the Rose Bowl"—does that mean second bowl game, or second football game, period? Was UCLA playing in it during the regular season at this time?
- I may have asked this before, but what is the standard for writing "east coast and west coast" as this article does, or "East Coast and West Coast", as I would expect to see? Capitalization notwithstanding, I wonder if the terms may be vague to non-U.S. readers, so I'd suggest clarifying as "of the United States" (or maybe even wikilinking each).
- I tried to clarify on the second game part, and it appears that capitalizing "East Coast" and "West Coast" is correct, so I made the changes.
- Team selection—Same question about capitalization of "east coast" and "west coast" here. (Later in the article, I find "east" and "west" alone, however these bother me less.)
- Fixed. Explanation above.
- Team selection#Navy—Should there be a comma following "season" in "the last game of the season played on November 23"? It seems to me like a natural subordinate clause, and reads a bit funny without it.
- Pre-game buildup—Reads somewhat awkward with the phrases "the evening before the game" and "the night before the game" in quick succession. Simply removing "the game" from the second occurrence may help this.
- Fixed "the night before the game".
- Pre-game buildup#Navy—Two questions:
- Three repetitions of "season" in the first two sentences; could this be rewritten slightly to be more economical?
- Saying that "Navy's defense had stopped running plays during the regular season, but had trouble defending pass plays" could be read (incorrectly, I'm sure) as saying that they stopped every running play. Better to say they had "successfully" done so?
- Changed one of the "season" occurrences, clarified on the defense issue.
- Pre-game buildup#Washington—"Washington's defense ... being much larger." Might be helpful to say the players, on average, were much larger.
- Added that it was an average.
- Game summary—The "most elaborate at that time"—compared to other college football bowl games, I presume? Whatever the case, I'd prefer this be a little more specifically worded.
- Game summary#First half—At end of first paragraph, change "100 yards of offense" to "100 yards gained" to avoid repetition of "offense"?
- Done. Changed to "gained".
- Statistical summary—I think we'd discussed this before, but "out threw" seems to me like it should be one word. Random House, via Dictionary.com, seems to agree. Not a big issue, though.
- I would replace "the 'Streetcar Named Desire'" with "A Streetcar Named Desire"—better to use the play's full proper title, and italicize it per convention.
- It seems contradictory to say that the "1924 Rose Bowl ... had very high ticket sales" when the article previously says that sales were "much lower" than the Tournament committee expected. I'm not sure what the solution is.
- Changed to A Streetcar Named Desire, and tried to clarify the ticket sales by attempting to fix it in the game summary section.
- I decided to search Google Books for "1924 Rose Bowl" and found at least one source with information about Washington's kicker playing through a broken toe. Oddly, it names a different kicker—Les Sherman, as opposed to Leonard Zeil. Is this a conflict of sources, or is one mistaking the punter for the placekicker? Besides that, anything else worth mining from Google Books?
- Related to the above, I wonder if you might say something about your research process to give an indication of how thorough you were. Are there any potential sources of information about which you are aware but haven't explored?
- On the Les Sherman issue: I also saw a few sources which said that he played with a broken toe and was the kicker. However, the vast majority of sources say it was Ziel (messed up the spelling in the article, need to fix that) who played the game. In fact, part of this is an interview with Ziel about the game and later life. I don't know if anyone played with a broken toe, and since most of what I found supports Ziel, I'm going to leave it like that.
- On my research: As far as I can tell, I have tried to exhaust all useful sources. I started out with a simple Google search, went on to check Google News, went through Google Books, searched at sites like Questia and Highbeam, went to the local library and used their database, and asked one of my family members, who collects Navy athletic memorabilia and related items, if he had anything related to the game. I haven't found any additional sources which offer really anything else that can be added to the article. Basically all of them just state that Navy and Washington played to a 14-14 tie in the 1924 Rose Bowl. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all I've got for the moment. Happy to follow up when you're ready for me to look again, Awardgive. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the long explanations, but I wanted to make sure I fully answered the questions. Thanks for the review (again). I'll get around to helping with C-SPAN in a little. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked over the changes and they all look good to me. I'm also satisfied that your research was very thorough. I just wanted to make sure that you'd had the chance to look through a database like Highbeam or Nexis. I'm happy to support promoting this article to FA status. Good work on this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Having previously reviewed the list here, I was asked to return by Ian Rose, no doubt to expedite this FAC's removal from the bottom of the page. I went and copy-edited the article, and the prose is quite a bit better now than it was before. There are a few more wikilinks to football terms, less passive voice, and a few more scores and such to help the non-football fans keep up with the writing. There aren't that many details on the game, which is not all bad because that means less jargon to confuse people; since this is from almost 90 years ago, I believe that it is still comprehensive, and the research summary above reassures me in that regard. Before I support, I wanted to point out that the next-to-last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, on the Rose Bowl's history, doesn't appear to be covered anywhere in the body, which is not optimal. Can a similar sentence be placed in one of the early sections? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Comments from Quadell
This is a strong candidate, and I'm glad to see the improvements Giants2008 made. I have identified a few issues.
- I made some copyedits as well. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of them.
- Semicolons have their uses, but when too many sentences use semicolons too closely together, it can be a distraction for the reader. In this article, semicolon usage seems to be bunched up. The lead uses five. Both the "Team selection - Washington" section and the "Aftermath" section use three in a single paragraph (though I changed one to a colon). Some variety here would improve the prose.
- Tried to cu down on semicolon use. There are now no more than two per paragraph.
- The "Team selection - Washington" section has two sentences in a row that start "Washington's next game was..."
- Changed one of the beginnings.
- There are a few repetitions which should probably be fixed.
- For instance, a footnote says "However, [Washinton's] first two games were against sailors from the battleships Mississippi and New York, and were not considered to be part of the team's official schedule". The article body also says "Washington opened their season with victories over teams from the battleships Mississippi and New York; because these teams did not represent colleges, they were not considered an official part of Washington's schedule."
- Removed the footnote, it did seem repetitive.
- For another example, one section says "Washington chose the Navy Midshipmen [to be their eastern opponents], who accepted the invitation", and another sections says "Washington asked Navy to represent the east."
- Again, we learn that "Navy's special teams were considered by critics to be... about even with those of Washington", so we are not surprised to read in the next section that "Washington's special teams were considered to be... about even to those of Navy."
- Cut out the "about even to those of Navy."
- In the "Statistical comparison" chart, I would think you should spell out "First" instead of "1st", and should not capitalize the second word in entries. (But if there is a football standard I'm not aware of, then that's fine.)
- Spelled out "first", but the rest of the table is based on the one from 2000 Sugar Bowl.
- When you say Washington's 1923 season was "the second best in school history", do you mean up to that point or until the present day?
- I don't understand the final sentence, regarding making teams responsible for ticket sales. "The strategy has been used since, with only a small number of tickets allocated to the Tournament for each yearly edition." Has it been used once or twice since, or every year since? And what does "allocated to the Tournament for each yearly edition" mean?
- Clarified. It means that tournament officials have only gotten a few tickets since 1924.
I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get to these this afternoon. Nobody close the nom, please. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've tried to address all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, awaiting your response. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I believe this article meets our FA requirements and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and the support. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 15:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not all that impressed with the writing, frankly. I think it's a middling GA, but might need some rewriting to meet criterion 1a. From the lead:
- "between the independent Navy Midshipmen and the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" Unnecessary failure to use parallel structure.
- I honestly have no clue what this means.
- Just throwing this in here as I skim the FAC page—what the reviewer means is that the conference descriptions aren't handled the same way in the same sentence for both schools. It's commonplace in grammar that if you're describing two things in a sentence, the same description form should be used. One proper way to handle this, for instance, would be to say, "... between the Navy Midshipmen, an independent team; and the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)", introducing both schools in the same way in the same sentence. Personally I don't think it's such a big deal, but as the reviewer thinks as such, I thought I'd help clarify this for you. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game took place on January 1, 1924, at the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, California, and closed the 1923 college football season." Awkward. Better: "The game took place on January 1, 1924, at the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, California, closing 1923 college football season."
- "The game was played in front of
a crowd of approximately 40,000 people"
- Also "was played" and "ended" again misses parallel structure for no good reason.
- Again, don't understand this.
- Outside comment: I think Laser brain means that it's bad form to combine active and passive voice in one list. (So for example, "The dog growled, was petted, and wagged its tail" should be reworded, since "was petted" is the only clause in passive voice.) Personally, I think it's a very minor issue in this case, but it could be rewritten as "The game opened in front of approximately 40,000 people and ended in a 14–14 tie" or "The game was played in front of approximately 40,000 people, and it ended with a 14–14 tie" or something. (Edit conlict: Laser brain explained below.)
- "The 1924 game was the tenth edition of the Rose Bowl, which had first been played in 1902. Following the inaugural game's blowout score, football was replaced with chariot races until 1916. The Rose Bowl stadium had been constructed the year before, making this installment the second game played in the arena." The narrative here is very unclear. Are you using the terms "edition" and "installment" interchangeably? Is that the language used in sources? The Rose Bowl was played in 1902 but not in the Rose Bowl? Chariot races were held until 1916, and then more football? But not in the Rose Bowl until the year before... what?
- Clarified the stadium issue and installment/edition. And yes, chariot races were held because of how bad the football game was, but after a while, they decided to go back to football.
- "East Coast" and "West Coast" might be a bit US-centric as written.. would be interested in an opinion from non-US readers.
- "in preference to" is not a good phrase to use.
- Changed to "in favor of". Any better?
- "Predictions gave Washington a slight advantage in the game due to the weight difference between the teams; the Washington players were on average 10 pounds (4.5 kg) heavier than those of Navy." Colon, not semicolon. Easy fix but might be a problem elsewhere as well.
- Fixed. Quadell had addressed semicolons in his review, but I think I missed that one.
- "heavy rain showers had fallen the day before" Why is this relevant? Not explained in the lead.
- "The game kicked off" and "The kick missed" You're using active voice with subjects that didn't perform the action.
- These are common phrases when describing football. Other bowl game FAs also use this kind of language.
I didn't read on, but it seems to need work. --Laser brain (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I know how awful it is to get opposition when your nomination has been open this long, and I'm sorry for that. I'll help in any way I can. --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the parallel phrases stuff, I tried to address all of your concerns. Also, the lead has also proven to be the weak point for this article, and was the main problem for the Peer Review and both FACs. The rest of the article has usually proven better. Thanks for taking a look, awaiting your response. -Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Parallel structure is using consistent grammatical structures in sentences. In the first example above, you use an adjective before Navy Midshipmen to modify it (the independent Navy Midshipmen) but use a modifying phrase after Washington Huskies (the Washington Huskies, a member of the Pacific Coast Conference). So, there is no parallel structure and that's poor grammar. The fix would be to modify both teams beforehand, like: "between the independent Navy Midshipmen and the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) Washington Huskies." In the second example, you use two different verb tenses (past tense "ended" and past perfect "was played"). Again, it's easy to fix but I wanted you to be aware of the issue so you could fix it elsewhere. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside comment: I disagree with the claim that there is a grammatical error in the first sentence. Perhaps some style guides might say that such use is discouraged, but many others do not, and any rewording would cause more stylistic problems than it solves, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "error" is not the word I would use since it's subjective, like many grammar issues. I could be talked out of it. Do you think my suggestion introduces problems? --Laser brain (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... using "Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" as an adjective could be mildly confusing. Honestly, I can't think of the ideal way to put it, but I think either your suggestion or the current wording would be acceptable. What wording do you like best, Awardgive? – Quadell (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the way it has been. I wrote it that way because "independent" seemed to fit decently in front of Navy, but sticking "Pacific Coast Conference (PCC)" in front of Washington seemed kind of unusual to me, although I'm fine with changing it. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not insisting on it, especially when two editors prefer it the other way. I'll give the rest a read-through tomorrow and either post more comments or strike my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments: I'm afraid I'm still uneasy about the quality of the writing. I'm finding too many issues to support promotion. More examples:
- "Because the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC) was the only conference with teams located in the Western United States, a school from the conference had been chosen for every Rose Bowl game."
- "The tournament invited" and "Washington was then allowed by the Rose Bowl" Again, I find this use of subjects performing actions to be quite strange. How does a tournament invite someone? Surely it was a person or a committee? In the second example, "the Rose Bowl" is performing an action (allowing). Thus far, we've learned that the Rose Bowl is either a physical stadium or it's a game, neither of which are capable of allowing anyone to do anything. That usage further confounds the already confusing double usage of the term "Rose Bowl".
- Clarified. It was the committee, and the second instance was also the committee.
- It's not explained why Washington chose Navy as its opponent, which is especially relevant since you take time to point out that other teams with better records were eligible.
- Found and added info to help clarify.
- "which was followed by four more shutouts
in a row"
- "Because of the wet conditions, several football critics predicted that Washington would have a slight advantage in the game." Why is that? You've just said that both coaches seemed confident in their wet weather playing ability, so it's unclear why Washington would have an advantage.
- "and was announced by a local Pasadena station" To the casual reader, it's unclear if this means the station just announced that the game would be played, or had an "announcer" working and broadcasting the entire game. This needs to be clarified and explained for someone who might not know what "announcing" a game means.
- Changed to "aired". Better?
- Some other football jargon is unlinked and unexplained in the article, for example "special teams".
- I went through and tried to link every football term I thought might be confusing or need clarification to an unfamiliar reader.
- "with numerous events displayed" Events held? Awkward.
As I said earlier, definitely a middling GA but I don't think the writing is polished enough to meet criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to address all of your new concerns. The article has been copyedited by six or seven other people, and a few of your concerns I wasn't even aware existed until you pointed them out. When I have the chance, I'll go through the article and look for anything that seems to need correcting. In the mean time, thanks for following up with your review, and I await any more comments/concerns you have. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments from AmericanLemming====
Looks like this article needs a good copyedit. Anyway, I'll give the article a close-read over the weekend, making changes as I go. Additionally, I'll list any concerns I have with the article's prose below. Since I am very detail-oriented and thorough, I hope I'll be able to address Laserbrain's concerns about the quality of the prose. I will fix or comment on every specific instance where I believe the prose could be improved. I know some FAC reviewers don't believe FAC is the place for that, but I do. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This FAC has been here a long time, but there is no clear consensus for promotion and I will be archiving it in a few minutes. Problems remain - like this for example: "The game began on time, with a temperature of 52 °F (11 °C) and the field still wet." How can a game have a temperature? Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for FA consideration as its primary editor to date. I am happy to work with reviewers to make any improvements that are felt necessary. This is the first nomination for FA of this article. It has had a GA nomination (successful) and a peer review. PocklingtonDan
The article is about a stone structure of ambiguous origin, located in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. FA review of areas such as copy-editing are welcome, but specific value can be added by reviews additionally by those with domain knowledge in areas such as archaeology, history, and etymology. (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really read the article; maybe I will, maybe I won't. I just wanted to know what was going on with the mountains of "Explanatory notes", like "See Grimm[169] and Davidson.[135]", that just point to "Citations" without "explaining" anything? Is this a convoluted bundling method? Have you seen sfnm?
- doing Thank you for taking the time to give the article a brief scan. I hope you will take the time to read and review it fully. I am looking at this particular item now, thanks for the helpful javascript tool - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are a ton of harv errors in the references. You can see them easily if you use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done I have sorted the reference errors. However, the same javascript tool shows several refs that are not cited. I have resolved each of these now too - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing there seems to still be a ref issue, note ϸ, I see "See Knight (2011),[260]Powell (2012)CITEREFPowell2012 and NYNPA Minerals Technical Paper (2013).[261]" -- note the CITEREFPowell2012.Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are also two refs with "|url= missing title (help)" errors. Chris857 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done Thanks for the heads up. This is now resolved - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reference system is weird. For example, do a ctrl+F for "[79]". There are two hits. One goes to the citation "Hayes 1964, p. 11.", but the other goes to the explanatory note "Ϗ.^ See Lang[146] and Geake.[210]". This seems to be the case for all the citations. 122.172.27.199 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rather than pointing out some problems that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. I see that you are an unregistered user with 3 edits from 2009 and a dozen more in the last 24 hours. You may want to withdraw your oppose, which as an unregistered user is highly unusual, and familiarise yourself more closely with the FA review process. I would refer you specifically to the guideline that New reviewers are encouraged to leave only Comments until they are sure that they understand the criteria PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is (self-locked-out) User:Indopug, actually, and I have been reviewing FACs since January 2008. Thank you.122.172.27.199 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, so you claim, at least. The whole point of logins is to verify such claims. You are not logged in and unable to verify your user identity. I could claim to be any user I choose. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Squeamish Ossifrage
[edit]Oppose, urge withdrawal. FAC doesn't prescribe a specific referencing standard, but this isn't really acceptable. Numbered citations point to "explanatory notes" which aren't numbered, but are instead indexed with a (very) extended Greek alphabet? Then those notes in turn point to sfn-formatted citations with corresponding references? That's very confusing, and it's nonstandard to the point of uniqueness. Additionally, you've got unformatted external links (like in the lead). There are books missing ISBN numbers (I believe the Barker book is 978-0-7134-3189-6, for example), and books without issued ISBN numbers should ideally have OCLC numbers instead. The division of books into printed and electronic sections based, presumably, on how you accessed them, is very confusing to the reader and not at all a standard practice. Google Books is not a publisher per se; you're also very inconsistent how you refer to Google Books and whether it's italicized. Most of the printed journal entries lack page numbers, and I'm highly dubious of the way you've formatted the title of the Austen reference (if it doesn't have a title, don't make one up). Malformed templating abounds (Chadwick, Andrews, Strahan, Witcher, likely others). Several of the website references are insufficiently formatted ("North York Moors" is little more than a bare link), and several are not reliable sources (including MyHeritage, Wiktionary pages, and a Wikipedia image file!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rather than pointing out some issues that you can see and giving me an opporunity to fix? Why? The FAC guidelines suggest that reviewers and editors work together to improve articles, this unsightly brief comment stating oppose is hardly conducive to that end. Additionally, offering a wall of text rather than cogent and well ordered points makes your comments difficult to respond to: nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Most of your points were covered and explained at GA review, but I will revisit them here. I would urge you to change your oppose to a comment and allow us to work on addressing these minor issues that have raised. I have broken up your comments into bullet points in order to address them rationally and individually PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm usually pretty amenable to letting folks respond intra my comments (even though the header says not to), but please don't bulk-refactor my response like that. Also, from the header (and this one is taken rather seriously), "the use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged". As it stands, however, simply bringing the citation and referencing system into something compliant with criterion 2c will require changing hundreds of citations; that's error-prone work in a task that cannot afford errors. Regardless of what else is right or wrong with this article, I remain convinced that it's in the best interests of the article's development to close this nomination early and use the two week relisting lockout to rebuild the citation structure into something more standard, fix the broken reference templates, add the missing information, clean out the clearly unreliable sources, and then bring it back to FAC for a clean second look. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no wish to withdraw the article nomination. You are of course entitled to your opinion on this matter, but it is a shame that you are not willing to work with me as a reviewer to fix any issues that you have with the citations within this review and work as a team as others above are willing to do. Your revert of your comments into an impenetrable wall of text is similarly unhelpful and makes responding to your points in a clear way very difficult. I had hoped not to encounter awkward reviewers such as yourself, but c'est la vie - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes ... Dan, insulting the reviewers ("awkward reviewers such as yourself") is not the best way to attract others to review your nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage is not new to reviewing FACs, and I doubt he'd recommend withdrawal lightly. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a little inventive to read my characterisation of this reviewer as "awkward" as an insult given that this is a transparently accurate representation of his behaviour. He is deliberately making it awkward for me to respond to and action the points he raised. I'm not sure quite how else you would describe his behaviour in reverting my edit that broke his wall of text into actionable points that I could respond to and action in editing the article. You can check the edit of his. He also refuses to change his oppose to a comment and give me a chance to fix the points he raised as I am entitled to do and have offered to do. How would you yourself characterise this behaviour? It is certainly not a hepful and collaborative behaviour. I am interested in attracting helpful editors who are interested in raising constructive comments that are actionable and that I can respond to. Reviewers such as the one referenced here I, and wikipedia, can do without. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would characterize this response as exactly the kind that would encourage me to volunteer my feedback elsewhere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So be it, don't let me stop you. Have a nice day - PocklingtonDan (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand your frustration. The FAC environment, including my contributions, is characterized by a different level of intensity than many of the project's other processes. I'm certain it's unpleasant to have pushed an article through GAN and a peer review only to have a reviewer here tell you that it is facially incompatible with the featured article criteria in its current state. Some of what I listed above really should have been brought up in those earlier stages; I would not have passed this article at GAN. You are welcome to disagree with me, of course (ultimately, the delegates will weigh conflicting opinions here). You're even welcome, I suppose, to call me awkward and unhelpful, although I can't see how that improves the article or the project as a whole. You are not, however, welcome to use status graphics on this page (per the FAC instructions), nor to refactor my comments without my permission (per the talk page guidelines). If this article's citations and references were structured in any of the generally acceptable styles, I'd be happy to do a more detailed analysis intended to be replied to (and there's quite a bit of prose that needs work; for example: "The structure has, in some sections only, been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course, but Hayes is both doubtful whether such ditches have been proven to be extant, and also questions whether, even if their existence is proven, these represent part of the structure's original construction."). But unless and until that happens, there's no shortage of other places for me to spend my time and effort, the vast majority of which involve editors who don't feel it's necessary to insult me even should they disagree with me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On the sentence you point out, Squeamish, that was about where I stopped in the peer review. Changed to: "The structure has been reported by Codrington and archaeologist Frank Elgee to have been flanked in a few sections by lateral ditches that ran parallel to its course. Hayes is doubtful whether such ditches would represent part of the structure's original construction, and if they even existed." - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P-Dan, we'll be happy to help with referencing over at MilHist's A-class review, if this FAC fails (which seems likely at the moment). - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I got down to Extant course in the peer review, I'll start from there.
- "consists of [an x-mile] section of the structure on": FAC reviewers are generally looking for a tighter style. I'm not sure, but it looks like you could replace all that with "runs for x miles". Be on the lookout for nouns that don't really add information.
- "the absence of much vegetation": Absence of a lot of something is a roundabout way of saying "not much". "the sparse vegetation" works.
- "on the macro scale": raises the question for me of how big the macro scale is
- "consisting on closer detail of several short, straight sections": consisting of several short, straight sections
- "that pivot occasionally onto new alignments": that turn
- "not clearly demanded by the landscape or surveying concerns": I admit I'm not clear whether we're talking about a roadway that was built 6,000 or 2,000 years ago, but either way, that's a long time ... what would their "surveying concerns" have been?
- "near Morley Cross; east of Keys Beck; near Hazle houses; at July Park; and at Castle Hill.": Commas are better when none of the elements are complex (and often even when some of them are).
- That's all in the following subsection from where I stopped before. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per strange referencing system and prose concerns. --John (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing and prose issues were raised at the GAN review. The editor unilaterally decided he was correct after I walked away. The article is very long and it is a compilation rather than a summary. It's much longer now and needs a serious copyedit. J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to find the article review process on wikipedia an incredibly frustrating process that adds little or no value to an article and causes maximum frustration to editors. Wikipedia editors give up their free time to make wikipedia better by adding content and the GA/FA process is combative and does little or nothing to improve articles. I find there is virtually no interest in actually ensuring the production of comprehensive, well researched articles but that instead there to be an unhealthy obsession with curt prose and formatting concerns and virtually zero effort expended in ensuring that content is correct and reflects accurately and in an unbiased manner the subject being written about. Where stylistic problems are observed, no opportunity is given for editors to respond to them and make edits to mitigate them before "oppose" is called. In short, the GA and FA review process is run by a bunch of grammar nazis who know nothing about the article subject and do not value useful contributions to Wikipedia.
The problem appears to be that the FA process is negative only. Ie it is a process of picking fault, not recognising quality. So you end up with a ridiculous situation where the more full and complete an article is (which should make it a useful article) in fact is marked down at GA/FA compared to a poor article with little or no content of worth, because there is less to criticise. That seems to be how articles for FA review such as How Brown Saw the Baseball Game attract no opposes, despite being brief and of little worth, whereas articles like this one, which has introduced a wealth of well-researched information to the encyclopaedia on a far more notable topic, attracts loads of opposes.
I can't help but feel that a more sane gauge of an article's worth might be to include some indication of *positive* merit of the article so that you have a score for both and can judge articles in a more even manner than at present.
I withdraw this nomination since I find the process itself fundamentally flawed. I will be performing no further work on this article, all you have succeeded in doing is making me have no further interest in editing wikipedia. I wonder how many editors you have burned out over the years with this ridiculous process? I'm betting quite a few. Knock yourselves out with the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the FAC coordinators I'm sorry you feel that way, but prose and formatting are part of the criteria, and you are dealing here with several reviewers very experienced in those criteria. Content is of course also vital but ideally that should be largely sorted before getting to FAC, for instance through Peer Review, or A-Class Review if applicable. I hope that you may yet take up Dank's suggestion of a MilHist ACR, and take on board suggestions for improvement there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this experience has put me off bothering to contribute to wikipedia in future, on this or any other article - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
name goes here was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
