Talk:Elyesa Bazna/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 08:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I will review this, since I did the first review and failed it primarily due to inactivity. Let's get this through. Vanamonde (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

Early life and family

• Actually, I preferred the earlier version of the last couple of sentences of paragraph one. How about "Bazna later stated that..." and leave the others out. Currently a bit clunky.
  • I made some edits to tighten it up a bit. I think we should keep the connections to the Young Turks. This was a big issue for the family... and we removed the sentence about his father having affinity for the Turks - which I figured was ok because we mentioned the uncle and grandfather's participation. See what you think.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I really wasn't very clear here in retrospect. By "the others" I merely meant the others Bazna was talking to later in his life, not the other sentences...in any case, your edits are fine.
• "Bazna married twice. With his first wife, who he later divorced, Bazna had four children. He had live-in mistresses." How about "Bazna married twice, in addition to having several live-in mistresses. With his first wife, (etc). One of his mistresses was (etc)."
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• "conveyed rumors that the Germans had a good source of intelligence." some clarity needed here: conveyed rumours among the British?
  • I don't know if it was among the British. How about: "she said that she had heard rumors that the Germans"--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Intelligence

• While I appreciate the reorganization effort, this sub-section is a little big, and broad in scope. Why not break it into "Beginning of Spy career" for the first seven paragraphs, and "Intelligence" for the rest?
  • I broke into three sections: Enters the diplomatic arena, beginning of his career as a spy, and intelligence.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer "espionage career" for brevity: and the other strikes me as language more appropriate to an eulogy. How about "return to Turkey?"
      • How about "Employed by diplomats"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I see why you prefer it, but the grammar is odd: "Employment by diplomats"?

Double agent hypothesis

• " working for the British by supplying true and elaborately detailed false information" I am very confused.
  • I can see why! An error in the editing process. How about "who were in reality working for the British and were supplying the Germans with false information."--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• "After all the warnings about a spy operating in the embassy, Brown states that there was a conclusion that..." again, rather confusing. Am I correct in thinking that Brown is saying "The British had received a lot of warnings about a spy, and therefore a possible conclusion was that Bazna was under British control.."
  • Removed the lead-in info and combined with the next sentence: Brown states that "Bazna was indeed under British control within a short time after he started to photograph the documents", and that he...--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Much better.

Discovery

• The first few sentences of paragraph three need to be reordered, so that the first sentence can say when Kapp started working for Moyzisch.
  • How about: "About January 1944,[9] Moyzisch hired a new secretary named Cornelia Kapp, also known as Nele Kapp, who had spied for the British and Americans in exchange for immigration to the United States.[10][11] She had worked at the Germany embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria beginning in July 1943 and within a month had become a spy. In January 1944, she moved..."--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That works.
• After some thought, I find the title of this somewhat misleading, because ultimately he wasn't discovered, it would seem...I would suggest "End of espionage" or something like that. Unless there is some information missing here.
  • How about "Discovery of intelligence leaks"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That works.
• Is there no explanation of why he left? Logic would suggest it was because he felt he was blown, but the article doesn't say that.
  • No, but don't you think the reader could surmise that because he had been interrogated, a new alarm system was installed, etc.?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, but he still had a cushy job: and also, the version of the story I read a long time ago involved a row with Sir Hugh. Now that might be apocryphal, but more detail might help clear it up.
      • I am still not finding that. From what I can tell, Bazna's leaving was a very quiet affair. The ambassador had been out of town for about five weeks and then when he returned he was quite busy with diplomatic affairs. There's a story that Bazna relates where he claims that when he was saying goodbye to Sir Hughe, the duplicate key to the ambassador's letter box fell to the ground. But, he did not see it.
      • There are some theories that Bazna may have been fired, but nothing to back it up. Could you, by chance, be thinking about when he left his positions working for Jenke or Busk? Or, do you remember any details that I could use to research, like the nature of the disagreement? when it might have happened?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, it was a while back, and in a not terribly reliable source: a book of real-life spy stories. If it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources, and there's not much you can do about it.

Potential consequences

• Minor point, but "key" is used once too many times too close together
  • First "key"---> important.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• Ideally, I'd like to see a sentence or two about Bazna's early life in the second paragraph.
• The content in the lede is a good, but the order is a little odd. It has some analysis, which is followed by further detail about what he leaked. The bits about German distrust are also broken up.
• The lede also has too many paragraphs: the guideline suggests 4. My suggested structure would be as follows: Para1 as present, Para2 for early life and time as a valet, including any details of his MO, Para3 for information about what he leaked, and any analysis of it, including the German distrust: and Para4 for the discovery/anything after the war. This is a suggestion only, if you can think of a better way to do it go ahead: but the current structure is disjointed.
• The lead should mention how his spying ended.
  • I think we should focus on the key information... and it would be nice to have info about his early life, but then the intro would be even longer. I have made edits to the intro. Take a look at this section now and see what you think.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• You've addressed the issue with the number of paragraphs, and the last one now reads nicely. The issue with ordering is still there, though. And I would still suggest a sentence, or even a sentence fragment, about his early life. It is supposed to be a summary of the body, after all, and we devote a whole section in the body. How about something like "Born in Pristina, Bazna graduated from a military academy, and held a number of short jobs in various cities before returning to Istanbul." Or something like that.

I have added more to the lede about his early life and reordered some of the sentences.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• There is some amount of overlinking. Use the "highlight duplicate links" tool to fix this. Generally, a term should be linked in the lede and at the first use in the body, and nowhere else. You could make an exception if a link would be particularly helpful to understanding a particular sentence, but in general this rule should be followed.
  • I loaded the script for the tool to find dup links, but it's not working. So, I'll get them manually. In such a long article, I don't see an issue with dupe links, but I do get your point. I got an edit conflict on the latest edit to remove the links... so I'll just wait awhile.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • That's weird that it's not working: it is for me...in any case, I'm done for now. Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I moved it to the top of the file, and it's working now. Done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• This is entirely optional, but in the long run I would suggest that you convert the citations to sfn formatting or something similar. You have a number of books that you use many times: shortening the refs will greatly improve readability. This is not a GA requirement.
  • Yep, I'm happy to do that... there are soooo many Wires citations, for instance.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• @CaroleHenson: Most of the article seems fine: just address the few prose/MOS issues I have raised, and I can pass this.Vanamonde (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, Vanamonde93, just so I'm sure are open items, I see:
    • Intelligence - whether you're ok with "Employed by diplomats" section heading. It would be nice if it was descriptive of the content
    • Discovery - more info about why he left. I haven't read yet about the fight he had with the ambassador. I'll look into that.
      • I added a comment above about this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Lede - I added the sentence you suggested and can add another sentence or two.
      •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Lede - address ordering.
      • I see what you mean. I made the edits, see that you think.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Sfns - I added Sfns for multiple use of the same source - but there are still some that could be converted to Sfns. What is your thought about a hybrid approach?
      • Never mind, Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Am I missing anything? I'll be able to work again on this today, but perhaps not til tonight.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • It was just one remaining header: so I boldly modified it myself, so that I could pass this.

Vanamonde93, I have worked on the lede and changed the citations to Sfns. There are comments here and in the specific comments section. It would be great to get your feedback. Thanks for all your hard work on this!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think that about wraps it up. Thanks for sticking with my nitpicking, and well done! It's a solid piece of work on an important subject. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thank you for all of your insightful comments!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)