Talk:Denise Vernay

B class assessment

@47thPennVols:

• This is a really good article. It should make GA or better somewhere down the road.
• I have made a few changes. Revert them if you don't like them.
• Regarding B class I have an issue with the several very long quotes you include. Can I suggest that you paraphrase large parts of each. Or lose large parts altogether - their information content is low. (If the article has a fault it is that it is not 'tight' enough, not in an encyclopedic enough style; but not a worry at B class.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: I was wondering about how much I should direct quote her; so, special thanks for your feedback on that (and for the kind words re: possible GA status). My end goal with this one is to truly honor Denise Vernay's life; so I want this one to be the best it can be. Your other edits are also much appreciated. (I couldn't quite figure out where to place the medal images; your placement works beautifully.) I'll work on revising this week. (P.S. I still also want to shoot for GA status with the Reading Artillerists article as well, but wanted to wait on that for a few weeks since I'm trying to crank out as many women's bios as I can for the Women in Red/Milhist backlog drive this month.) 47thPennVols (talk)

If you are going to work on it you should remove it from the assessment page while you are doing that. If you want to ping me when you are finished I would be happy to assess it without it going back on the assessment page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:Thanks so much for the nudge to edit the quotes. I think our respective edits have made the article even better. I did retain certain parts of the quotations because her thoughts about her WWII experiences are somewhat difficult to find online (because she avoided interviews during certain periods of her life and, even when she did, she was somewhat reticent to provide details of what happened to her). I think it's important to make at least some of her reflections available for future researchers because I feel they convey a more complete picture of who she was. I look forward to your feedback. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks

tweet, thanks from WiR Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts for GAN

• "Their difficulties mounted as relations between France and Germany began to deteriorate". I am not sure why the deteriorating international relations should cause difficulties for an ordinary French family.

Done 47thPennVols (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Something I always have an issue with is naming. The MoS says that an individual should be named in full on first mention, and referred to by their family name alone thereafter. It is natural to refer to women by their given name, as this article tends to. It also sometimes gives her full name. Are you ok with me making it MoS compliant and changing her name to "Vernay" throughout? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Me, too. (I've been wrestling with this issue with most of the female WWII Resistance members and Holocaust survivors I've been writing about.) Thanks so much for sending the link to the MoS. I spent some quality time going through it this weekend and mulling it over in relation to how best to reflect Denise Jacob/Denise Vernay. Looking forward to your thoughts on this. Here's my thinking:

1. We should be referring to Denise as Denise Jacob during the parts of the article which deal with her life prior to her marriage (per MoS: "Any subject who has had their surnames changed should be referred to by their most commonly used name. If their most commonly used name does include their prior surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, refer to them by their prior surname. In other words, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, avoid sentences like 'Clinton met Clinton while they were students at Yale.'")
2. However, for the period after her marriage, using just her given name would actually be the correct course of action - particularly when we're discussing Denise in the same sentence with her husband, Alain Vernay, and/or her sister, Simone Veil - both of whom also were prominent figures in France post-WWII (per MOS: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity.... For example ... Correct: Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: The Reagans arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother Wilhelm.")
3. Regarding the initial presentation of her name, I think what we're using ("Denise Vernay-Jacob") is the most appropriate choice since this is the format which is used in the biography written about her by the Fondation de la Résistance. (She helped to found this organization, and several people still involved with it knew her quite well. So, my belief is that they would most likely be presenting Denise's name in the formatting she preferred post-war.) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That all seems like a reasonable, and MoS compliant approach. I think that I would try to avoid referring to her as just "Denise", except where other choices just didn't flow, but that is simply my personal preference. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:Naming convention changes done. As per the naming convention outlined above:

1. Lead (as Denise Vernay-Jacob, Vernay-Jacob, or she): done;
2. Formative years (as Denise Jacob, Denise, or she): done;
3. World War II (as Denise Jacob, Denise, or she): done;
4. Post-war life (transitions from Denise Jacob, pre-marriage, to Denise Vernay-Jacob, post-marriage): done;
5. Death (as Vernay-Jacob): done;
6. Awards (as Denise Vernay-Jacob): done; and
7. External resources (as Denise Vernay-Jacob): done. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GAN Copy-edits

I have given the article a rapid run through. A mix of what I would do if I were copy editing for GoCE and what I would do if I were its GAN assessor. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you!! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when you have finished adding new material and I'll give it another run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Picky bits

Some picky bits as I go along.

• "she moved with her parents and siblings, Madeleine (born in 1922 and also known as "Snowy"), Jean (b. 1925), and Simone Annie Liline (b. July 13, 1927), to Nice later in 1924". While I like the idea, she probably didn't move to Nice with siblings who had yet to be born.

• GREAT catch!! (I caught another age-related error earlier today, but completely missed this one so HUGE thanks.) I've tweaked the wording, but it now feels a bit awkward. When you have a moment, could you take a look? (If you can figure out a better way to phrase, please do.) 47thPennVols (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Er. That's it. Good work.

• I tweaked several more of the references/citations earlier today. Are they good to go? 47thPennVols (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the naming. I like the post war additions especially, it rounds out her life. It looks done to me. (Bar the point above.) Time to put a GAN tag on it I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words, and especially for your insights, guidance and brilliant edits. It was fun working with you on this, and I think we've done justice to this heroine's incredible story. Are you able to tag for GAN? If so, and if you feel comfortable doing so, please do (barring any last changes you'd like me to make). 47thPennVols (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I would feel most uncomfortable tagging this as I have only made a passing contribution. Instructions are here. My version: go to the talk page and click edit. hit return to create a blank line at the very top. Insert {{subst:GA|subtopic=Warfare}}. Check your edit via preview. Publish. Wait for an assessor. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Once again, many thanks for your guidance. (I wasn't sure if the nomination should come from someone other than the article creator.) Followed your instructions above: re: tagging, and just hit send. So, it's official. Denise Vernay's profile has been nominated for GA review. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Good for you. "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article..." Just waiting now. Unless you know a friendly editor you could ask to assess it? Sadly not me - "The nomination must be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: I'm now worried that I made some sort of mistake during tagging because I'm not seeing the article title appear on the Warfare subtopic, and the coding above states "without topic parameter". (Maybe I'm missing its listing, or maybe I did something wrong during the tagging process?) Can you double check the talk page for me to make sure I tagged it correctly? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Well spotted. Yes, that's a GA symbol, not a GAN one. I thought that I had checked for that. I must have been sloppy. I have removed it. What you need to do is type in exactly what is on the next line at the top of the talk page. (It is case sensitive. Don't cut and paste it. Don't sign it.) Gog the Mild (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thanks for checking. I re-tagged, following your instructions (typing the case-sensitive tag without cutting and pasting or signing), but the article still isn't showing up on the Warfare list, and the same,incorrect visual tag for GAN that was showing up on the talk page after my first GAN tagging attempt seems to be there again. On top of that, the "nowiki"text below was automatically added to the talk page when I hit edit to send this message. I'm not even sure what the nowiki text means, but I'm clearly doing something wrong, and would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very baffled. I just deleted the strange GA template, typed in what should be there, clicked on preview and saw just what I would expect. Let's give it one last try before I nominate it with a note that it is really your nomination. Could you go into edit mode on this whole page, then cut (as in cut and paste) the middle bit of the tag below, including the curly brackets, then paste it at the top of the page? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• • @Gog the Mild:. Glad to know it's not just me. Something's clearly not working. I just followed your instructions yet again. This is what I entered onto the top of the talk page:

}}. But as you can see, the incorrect tag is back at the top of the page and that weird "nowiki" text is appearing again at the bottom, and the article is still not showing up on the GAN listing for Warfare (or even for Miscellaneous). Help? 47thPennVols (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, I just had the same issue. Anyway, it is now up, nominated by me, but with a note explaining that you are the actual nominator. Is that ok? If not, do say; it is easy to undo. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

47thPennVols, I edited your comment above by inserting a new line before {{tmbox}}. This is because {{tmbox}} on a line beginning with a wiki bullet (*) causes a Multiline table in list lint error. So I solved a technical error, but I'm not sure if this deals with the substance of your "complaint". —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Denise Vernay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 02:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is my first GA review, but I just had two articles passed so I think I can apply the criteria. Please comment individually under each of my comments and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference layout

• Although your citation style seems to be acceptable per GA criteria, per your previous GA submission, I would strongly advise you to follow a more common Wikipedia style, such as using <ref name=""> to combine similar refs and reduce clutter.
• I also strongly urge you to use citation templates, such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. This helps prevent dead links and makes the references easier to find.

OR

• In your discussion of torture, you include a quote describing Gestapo torture generally. Did Delarue talk specifically about how Jacob was tortured in this passage? Otherwise this may be a WP:SYNTH concern.

"The torture of the bathtub," according to historian Jacques Delarue, would have involved "plunging the patient into a bath of icy water ... hands handcuffed behind [the] back, and keeping [the victim's] head under water until [she] was on the point of drowning." Denise Jacob would then have been "dragged to the surface by the hair and, if [she] still refused to speak [would have been] immediately plunged under water again." Often, "when the patient was on the point of losing consciousness," he or she would be revived by the Gestapo agent with coffee or brandy before the torture session was resumed.

Focus

• Excessive quotes—per Gog the Mild's comments on the talk page, I agree that this article includes excessive quotations that would be better to rewrite in your own words and integrate into the text. Your comment that My end goal with this one is to truly honor Denise Vernay's life makes me concerned about the potential neutrality issues with overusing Vernay's own statements. Wikipedia articles are not memorials—our goal is to neutrally summarize secondary sources.

@Catrìona: I edited down the quotes from what I'd originally included in the article when @Gog the Mild: first used the word "excessive" (during the early part of the B-Class review for the article). I did opt to retain certain parts of the quotations not to create a memorial to her, but because it's very difficult for researchers to find direct quotes by Vernay (particularly for students who may not have access to print materials which have been archived in France). As I explained to Gog, Vernay avoided doing interviews during certain periods of her life and, even when she did, she was reticent to provide details of what happened to her. So, for this reason, think it's important to make at least some of her reflections available for future researchers. 47thPennVols (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You might consider starting a page for her on Wikiquote. That would allow you to keep the quotes available, but not interfere with the Wikipedia quote policies.

• The two short quotes in the "Joining the Resistance" section should be integrated into prose.

Pictures

• The main picture on this article does not have an original published work or date, but I'm willing to let that slide because it would probably qualify for fair use as the primary visual identifier for a deceased person.

 Done

• Relevance—I would advise getting rid of the pictures of medals, partly because of concerns of memorializing and partly because they don't add anything to the article. Instead, you might consider adding some pictures of locations or actions that Vernay was involved in, for example, adding a picture of the liberation of Mauthausen. You might also be able to find a relevant picture in Category:French resistance.

 Done

• Thanks so much for your thoughts regarding the photo selection for the articles. The photo of Vernay is used on the French Wikipedia page for Vernay, and was also posted by Women in Red organizers for the redlink to Vernay's data for the April 2018 Milhist challenge. So, I'm comfortable with that photo choice as well. Regarding the medal photos, I actually put quite a bit of thought into which photos to use initially, and painstakingly reviewed what was available on Commons. (Despite the large number of photos there, I ended up ruling those out: a.) because I didn't want to use a photo that had prisoners other than Vernay in it because that would have been misleading to readers, and b.) because I didn't want to use photos that had been taken on dates when she wasn't imprisoned at one of the two concentration camp sites (because doing so had the potential to inject confusion regarding her dates of incarceration). But, I wasn't completely happy with the medal photos, either. So, I've continued to look for better images on and off over the past several months. I recently found a present-day (May 2011) photo of Montluc, one of the sites where she was tortured, and a post-liberation photo of bodies discovered at Mauthausen by U.S. Army troops (public domain, U.S. National Archives), which was taken two weeks after she was freed by the Red Cross. I've now replaced both of the medal photos with these two images. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is a definite improvement, but you don't need to credit the source of the photos in the caption, and you should keep the caption as short as possible (WP:Caption)

• @Catrìona: Many thanks. Based on my reading of the FAQs on Commons, it looks like the source does need to be credited for the fort image (even though this conflicts with Wikipedia English policies). The original creator indicated that he wants to be attributed whenever the photo is reused, and also indicated that the specific license should be identified when reusing. It doesn't look like I need to do so for the second article, however, because the second image has different attribution requirements. Although I cited both images in a similar manner to ensure consistency, I'm happy to shorten the captions for both where possible (and eliminate the attribution for the second entirely), but I really do think the license needs to be in there for the first/fort image. (Just as a bit of background, a Commons administrator deleted a photo from another article that I'd worked on a while ago because he indicated the article didn't cite the license. So, I'm now a little wary of not following Commons protocol, especially for a photo I didn't originally upload.) 47thPennVols (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. What I would suggest doing in that case is removing the picture or replacing it with one without that requirement. It's not adding enough to the article to justify such an awkward caption. Catrìona (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done

• I'm not sure what the new image is adding to the article. It's just a plaque in French, which most readers won't be able to understand. Also, one would expect there to be a memorial at such a location.

@Catrìona: At this point, I'm going to pause our discussions for the day because it seems that we may not be following the correct procedures for GAN review. Per "Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not": "The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided." The "Actual Criteria" section of this article also notes that media should be: a.) "tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b.) "relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." I believe that my original images met these requirements, as did the Montluc prison and Mauthausen images that I substituted at your request (as did the caption for the fort which cited the copyright information, which you asked me to remove). You now also have an issue with the most recent compromise image - the plaque image which was substituted for the fort image. (I would have inserted a translation of the plaque's text, but it would have made the caption too long - and you've indicated that you don't want long captions.) Please forgive my frustration. I do understand that this is your first GA review, and do sincerely appreciate your suggestions, but it feels like, at this juncture, that we're just spinning our wheels here and not making the article better. (I actually think the fort image did improve the article; so I'd like to go back to that one, but include the licensing info as permitted by Wikipedia English and Wikimedia Commons.) 47thPennVols (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of what the criteria are not. Perhaps I'm applying the "relevance" criterion more strictly than some other reviewers would, but that's a matter of opinion. Could you ask someone who is a copyright expert if we have to reproduce the entire license and copyright notice, or if it's sufficient to credit the photographer by name?

• The attribution requirement is plainly stated on Wikimedia Commons: "Attribution (required by license): © Xavier Caré/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0". (The creator wants the full statement used.) And the Commons FAQs are clear on this point - use the attribution and licensing info as directed by the creator. Better image; reasonably short caption. No need to jump through any extra hoops. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• @47thPennVols: Based on the enlightening discussion on Aircorn's talk page, I think that this could qualify as an exception to MOS/Captions policy and won't object. Please take a look on my comments above. The possible OR is most concerning. Catrìona (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: Thank you. Please also see my update on Aircorn's page re: my explanation for re-adding a link to one of the medal photos to replace the now-missing public domain photo of Mauthausen. (This is a really good example of why I'm so careful with photo selection early on with my articles, and why I'm reluctant to change photos, titles, captions, etc. I was honestly not trying to be difficult. I've just seen and heard of too many instances now where Commons editors are removing photos from Wikipedia articles without discussion or explanation. And that has now happened to the Vernay article, which had previously been stable, photo-wise, even after undergoing a fair amount of revision for B-Class review with @Gog the Mild:.) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked the deletion on commons. It seems like you uploaded the image and it was deleted because you didn't fill in the "source" field. Since you presumably have access to the deleted photo, I suggest that you work with the deleting editor and provide evidence of origin in order to get it uploaded again. It was taken by the US Army and therefore not copyrighted; you just need to prove it. Catrìona (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I DID fill in the source field, Catriona. The error was not mine; it was committed by the Commons editor. (As I explained in our discussion on Aircorn's talk page, I entered all of the applicable sourcing data - U.S. Army, Signal Corps, National Archives, date, location, public domain, etc. into both the Source and Author fields when I originally posted the photo, but the Commons editor incorrectly stated that there was no source information present - very odd because the source info was clearly present. He also failed to initiate a discussion or provide further explanation on the talk page.) I'm in the process of challenging the deletion right now. But it will take time. So, I've replaced that photo with one of the medal images from the original article. Based on the discussion with Aircorn, that image should not be a problem. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should also add a caption for the infobox photo with the approximate date

 Done

Article Copyedits

@Catrìona: Thank you for your tweaks to the article's infobox. I'm concerned by your changes to the lede, however, because the wording now seems to convey the impression that Vernay was at Auschwitz. (Her family was sent there, but she wasn't.) For comparison, here's the original ("Although she and her sisters, Madeleine and Simone, survived their respective death camp experiences at Mauthausen and Auschwitz-Birkenau, their parents and brother did not." versus your revision ("Although she and her sisters, Madeleine and Simone, survived Mauthausen and Auschwitz-Birkenau, their parents and brother did not."). Because the word "respective" really needs to be included in that sentence, I'd like to change it back to a modified version of the original to read: "Although she and her sisters, Madeleine and Simone, survived their respective experiences at Mauthausen and Auschwitz-Birkenau, their parents and brother did not." 47thPennVols (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be easier to remove Vernay from the sentence. We already said that she survived. Catrìona (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done 47thPennVols (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Because 47thPennVols had not responded to my comments about OR above, I decided to take matters in my own hands and fix what I saw as the most pressing issues with the article: the OR, non-encyclopedic tone, and prose that could be made more concise by removing excessive quotes (QUOTEFARM is not part of the GA criteria, but I think it is reasonable to enforce to the extent that it harms focus).[1] These changes were promptly reverted by another editor without reference to WP:NOR or WP:QUOTEFARM, with the edit summary "Your CHANGE was POV".[2] If my changes had been accepted, in whole or in part, I would have put the article on hold until the image issue was resolved and then passed. However, as it is, I feel that it is necessary to ask for a second opinion. Thanks for your time. Catrìona (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: Per the original message I was typing out to you below (but that was preempted because of an edit conflict with both of us hitting send at the same time), rather than asking for a second opinion at this juncture, I'll be placing the article on hold, and am asking that you cease your editing. (Again, I'm still trying to resolve an issue with one of the photos.) Additionally, I need time to assess where this article stands, and what can legitimately be required during a GA review and not before any further changes are made. Thank you.47thPennVols (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent copyedits, and problems with this GA review process

@Catrìona: I was just typing out a message to you, but ran into an edit conflict while posting. (You were posting at the same time I was.) I'm posting the original text of my message to you below, and will respond to your message above in a moment.

ORIGINAL TEXT OF MESSAGE: "@Catrìona: I just noticed that you've made a significant number of copyedits to the Vernay article without making any mention of them on this GA review record. (I only realized that you had made significant changes to the article when I received a notice on my watchlist earlier this evening that @Beyond My Ken: has reverted several of your edits with the notation that "Your CHANGE was POV".) I have to say that I'm surprised that you proceeded with editing without letting me know that you were doing so, and that you didn't document your changes on the GA review page. (As you know from prior communications that we've had, I've been working on trying to resolve a problem with one of the photos that I substituted for the original photos contained in the article - a substitution you had requested. Information regarding that photo was posted in the photo discussion elsewhere on this GA review, as well as on Aircorn's talk page.)

Although I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review what you've done, yet, it does seem, from a cursory review, that you have made sweeping changes to an article that was already assessed as B-Class by another independent reviewer, and that you may be "imposing your own stylistic preferences" and not differentiating "between those improvements that are necessary for the article to meet the criteria, and suggestions to improve the article beyond the actual criteria", which Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not indicates are not appropriate actions in GA reviews.

Again, I do understand that this is your first GA review, and genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm for doing the best job you can, but I don't feel as if we've reached the point where we're sharing the "common goal the ideal to make the article as good as it can be" that is recommended by "What the Good Article Criteria Are Not." So, at this juncture, I'm going to formally place the GA review on hold to enable me to assess where things stand. Please refrain from making any further edits. Thank you. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)"

PennVols, in fact, I had mentioned them above—that I was concerned about the non-neutral tone, that I was concerned about original research, and that I was concerned about the excessive use of quotes that harmed focus. I felt that these concerns were more serious than the image issue, and I hadn't realized that you preferred to do things "one at a time" and tackle them later. I was perfectly willing to discuss the changes, and actually I expected that you would think that I had gone too far with them. But hopefully another reviewer will come into this and help resolve the issues. In my comment above, I distinguished between GA criteria and non-GA criteria-related improvements, but keep in mind that original research, focus, and neutrality are all part of the GA criteria. Catrìona (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Catriona, I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you on this. Your description of your concerns above does not mesh with the sweeping changes you made to the article. The fact that another editor (whom I do not know) independently reverted your edits with the notation that "Your CHANGE was POV" indicates that there may very well be something seriously wrong with the number and phrasing of the edits you've made. The article review is now officially on hold. Please refrain from taking any further actions with this article. Thank you. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There is some language that I do not consider encyclopedic, such as "live a long, full life", "laid to rest". "Her happiness was short-lived"—according to whom? However, these are relatively minor issues and I would not fail the article for this reason alone.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   In a Good Article, I'm concerned about the large number of references to the bio on the website of the organization which Vernay founded, which is not independent. However, what's a greater concern are the quotes which are directly attributed to primary sources. In general, in order to prove their significance and avoid OR, quotes should be repeated in a secondary source in order to be included in Wikipedia. Other quotes can still be put onto Wikiquote, provided they comply with Wikiquote policies. Although the revision made to the long quote about torture is an improvement from an OR standpoint, the current version still supports the inference that Vernay was tortured in the manner described, which is classic WP:SYNTH.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I do not consider this article sufficiently focused to meet the GA criteria. The main reason for this is the excessive quotes. Although WP:QUOTEFARM is not part of the GA criteria, brevity is. Most of this could be shortened significantly by paraphrasing. I was able to remove almost 3,000 bytes from the article is these two edits[3] without removing much in the way of verifiable facts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Most of this article meets the criteria on this, but the worst example follows: "... memories of Denise Vernay-Jacob's heroism and that of other female French Resistance fighters gradually began to fade among members of the general public, a collective forgetting which had its genesis in the failure of French leaders to publicly acknowledge women's wartime contributions. General Charles deGaulle decorated only six women for valor while choosing to celebrate the activities of 1,036 men." This is mostly opinion and should not be in Wikipedia voice, even though it is a widely held view, which I happen to agree with. The passage makes it sound as if deGaulle went through all the recommendations himself and deliberately chose not to recognize the women—which is not supported by the source. In fact, there were several possible factors, for instance the fact that women and men tended to take different roles in the resistance. Blatant sexism is only one factor that played into it.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I will reiterate my objections to the medal pic. What the medal looks like does not shed any light on Vernay's life or accomplishments.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   You may think that I'm being too strict in my application of policy. Personally, I'm willing to compromise on stylistic issues, but not on substantive ones. There's a fair amount of OR, neutrality issues, and puffery that sneak through the GA and even FA processes, but that's not a reason to be lenient. Catrìona (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to 3 October law

Hi, 47thPennVols, can we talk about the link to the Vichy legislation of 3 October 1940 in section #World War II? I don't understand this edit of yours:

• 07:58, May 15, 2021 (UTC) (diff): Partially reverted prior edit because editor removed existing link to a viable, useful Wikipedia article and replaced with a wikilink to an article that is currently under dispute

First an apology: I had a dozen tabs open, and did not realize I edited the same article (this one) twice, the second time undoing a revert you had made of my previous edit. That was not intentional; I assumed my second edit was my first one, on a different article. I've self-reverted back to your version while we discuss this, but I think that leaves it in an inaccurate, or at least sub-optimal state, pointing to the wrong article.

So, as to the content question at hand: I don't understand the edit summary you left, or why you made the edit. First, what article is under dispute?

Secondly: your change removed the link I added to "the law on the status of Jews", and replaced it with "the Statut des Juifs (Statute on Jews)" (putting it back to how it was originally). But that link is a redirect to the article Vichy anti-Jewish legislation, which covers various laws from 1940 and 1941, whereas "the law on the status of Jews" covers only the law of 3 October 1940, which was the one that defined "Jew" and restricted professions open to Jews, thereby throwing a lot of people out of work. The wording in that portion of the article, originally comes from your edit of 17:07, April 21, 2018, and has three things in it all of which lend credence to the law on the status of Jews being the right target, namely: 1) the date of 3 October; 2) the comparison with the Nuremberg laws regarding the "definition of a Jew", which was also a major part of the 3 October law; and 3) the reference that mentions the changes Petain made to the law to make it stricter. This last item is based on a 2010 discovery. and refers to Petain's hand-written annotations to the 3 October law, the only such law of Vichy known to have been personally altered by Petain in his own hand to make it more antisemitic than the original draft.

It seems very clear to me that this all applies only to the law on the status of Jews of 3 October 1940, and no other law, and also that law is the only one that makes total sense in this context, since Vernay's father Andre was an architect, meaning he would have been no longer able to work legally after 3 October, date of the law which prohibited Jews from exercising a profession liberale. So, can you please put back that link? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology and taking the time to reach out, Mathglot. I'm happy to have a dialogue with you about this. First, let me say that I'm pleased that you've recently created and have been working on "law on the status of Jews." Your Wikipedia article did not exist at the time I was researching and writing the Vernay article, and I think it's a very good thing that additional research and writing is undertaken with this aspect of WWII history. (The reason I wikilinked "Statut des Juifs" to the Vernay article in the first place was to ensure that high school and university students researching Vernay's life would have access to as many thoroughly researched Wikipedia articles as possible to help them better understand the motivating factors behind Vernay's decisions.)

That being said, I was uncomfortable with the change you made from the wikilinked article ("Statut des Juifs") that I had included when researching and writing the Vernay Wikipedia for two reasons: 1. the article that you changed the link to ("Law on the Status of Jews") was tagged as a stub and contains a notation at the top of the article that recommends the addition of more content to it (and still is tagged as a stub and still includes the content expansion suggestion); so it appeared to be less well-developed than the article that I had used as the original wikilink, and 2. the article that you changed the link to ("Law on the Status of Jews") was written and/or translated by you, which felt like a potential conflict of interest. (And that seemed to inject unnecessary instability into the existing article when the article you wanted to wikilink to still appeared to be a stub that was still undergoing revision and review.)

As for the date(s) of regarding the laws on the status of Jews as they applied to the Jacob family, one of the important citations related to this article - a bio created for Denise (Jacob) Vernay by the Fondation de la Résistance - mentioned only the "Vichy's new 'status of the Jews'", but specified only a timeframe and not a clear date: "Au moment de la guerre, les enfants furent mis en sécurité à Toulouse chez un oncle et regagnèrent Nice fin juin 1940. Le 9 septembre, la Gestapo s'installe à Nice. Le nouveau « statut des Juifs » décrété par Vichy prive alors le père du droit d'exercer son métier. La pénurie s'installe. Les trois sœurs étaient parfaitement soudées : Denise donne des leçons particulières de mathématiques pour aider la famille. A la rentrée scolaire de 1940, elle entre en première au lycée à Nice." (Roughly translated: "At the time of the war, the children were taken to safety in Toulouse with an uncle and returned to Nice at the end of June 1940. On 9 September, the Gestapo moved to Nice. Vichy's new "status of the Jews" deprives the father of the right to practice his profession. The shortage is settling down. The three sisters were perfectly connected: Denise gives private math lessons to help the family. At the beginning of the school year in 1940, she entered the first school in Nice.")

All of that being said, I note that you've continued to work on your article, and think you make a good case with your speculation, "It seems very clear to me that this all applies only to the law on the status of Jews of 3 October 1940, and no other law, and also that law is the only one that makes total sense in this context, since Vernay's father Andre was an architect, meaning he would have been no longer able to work legally after 3 October, date of the law which prohibited Jews from exercising a profession liberale."

So, I would be happy to wikilink to your article, but hope that you will continue refining it further so that is becomes least a start-class article soon, rather than a stub. Best wishes for continued success with your research and writing, and again, thank you for reaching out. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)