Talk:Prague uprising/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: White Shadows (talk · contribs) 03:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Comments

Hi there! Looking forward to reviewing this important article. Please give me a little bit of time to read over the article and address the criteria below. My initial read-through of the article tells me that this is a nice piece of work, but there are still a few shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria. Strike throughs are words that need to be eliminated or re-written. Words in bold need to be added (or variations thereof).--White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 03:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this review! I had no idea that there would be so much to fix. I will get started on it. Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you’re eager to improve the article! I think the issues I brought up can definitely be addressed. My availability will be spotty today and Sunday but let me know what you need from me. I will be striking issues out and updating what I wrote as we move along.—White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 15:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

• The 1st section could probably be broken into subsections, particularly regarding the events leading up to 1945 (starting with the German occupation of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement, and the second sub-section could be about the events of 1945 leading up to the start of the uprising.
• "The Prague uprising was part of a wave of insurrection that broke out across Czechia in early May as Allied forces approached"

Would it make more sense to replace "Czechia" with "Czechoslovakia"?

Changed to the Protectorate. Slovakia had already been liberated by the Soviets. Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm liking the new edits to the background section! I suggest we replace "Other Western political leaders" with actual names though, or names of the countries that signed the agreement. I've made several other changes to beef up the background section. I think we're close to where we need to be there.

• "At 6:00 on 5 May, for the first time in six years, the Czech Radio broadcast in the banned Czech language."

What time was this? 6:00 AM or 6:00 PM? Would it read better if it said "For the first time in six years, the Czech Radio broadcast in the banned Czech language at 6:00 [AM?] on 5 May"? I see examples of military time being used, but would it make more sense for "noon" to then be spelled as "12:00"?

• "Radio staff supportive of the uprising barricaded themselves in the newsroom, despite the presence of about 100 SS guards in the building."

The uprising hasn't really started yet, has it? This should probably be changed to state that the Radio staff opposed Nazi Germany's occupation of Prague and began broadcasting in the Czech language in opposition to said occupation.

• "The Bartoš Command and Communist groups met separately met and both scheduled the armed uprising to begin 7 May."
• "By the end of the day, the resistance had managed to seize most of the city east of the Vltava river"
• "in the words of one historian"

Who? I imagine the author listed in the citation, but that needs to be addressed in the body of the article itself.

• Is this article written in British English or American English? I've seen both "armour/armoured" and "armor/armored" in the article.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• Some of the citations aren't in the same format as others. For example, Bartošek 1965, pp. 34-35. and Bartošek 1965, pp. 34, 40-1. It should either be Bartošek 1965, pp. 34-5. and Bartošek 1965, pp. 34, 40-1. or Bartošek 1965, pp. 34-35. and Bartošek 1965, pp. 34, 40-41. but not both.
• Overall, I love the citations. You've done a fantastic job with the Czech sources in particular. Well researched article that I feel like in some cases is just missing more prose. Citation issues are very minor in my opinion and should be easily addressed.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The lead seems a bit short. Usually, the lead should be roughly commensurate with that of the article. Based on the length of the article, the lead should probably be a solid two paragraphs in length, especially since the lead is often used to give the basics of the article in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on.
• "Reprisals for resistance activities were less severe than in Eastern Europe, but nevertheless caused violent hatred of Germans."

I suggest including some examples in here that would be quite relevant, such as the German reprisals following the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich.

• Speaking of Heydrich, he was the Acting Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. I really think this article can't be counted as "broad" unless there's more information regarding Nazi rule over Prague in the years before 1945. There's plenty of source material out there on Wikipedia that hasn't been incorporated into this article in any way. I had to link the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia into the article during my first pass over for the article. Indeed, I don't even think the phrase "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" existed in the prose at all until I added it in. Usually, a background section for an article like this would open with the Munich Agreement.

If you're nervous about working on this section, I would be willing to help you add all of that info in should this GA Review not pass (I'd do it myself in conjunction with you right now, but a reviewer cannot be a significant contributor to they article they are reviewing). I think this can be addressed now however.

• I like the layout, but some copy-editing work needs to be done throughout the article.
• The "Legacy" section and some of the subsections for the dates seem very short. 9 May is only 390 characters in length while 5 May is over 3,400 characters in length. I find it hard to believe that there is less to write about as time went on during the uprising. Surely 70-80% of the action didn't take place on the first day alone?

Will work on that. However, most of the sources actually do go into more detail of the first day than the rest of the uprising. Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• I made a few edits to the first section to demonstrate changes that need to be made throughout the article. Links to individuals such as Patton and Churchill need to have the individual's name spelled out in the first usage. Addressing them by their given name/last name in subsequent mentions are acceptable though.

Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Length of the lead is good. We just need citations for those bits that are missing them. Alternatively, citations can be removed from the lead altogether as long as the information presented there is cited elsewhere in the article.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• No major issues here, though again, I think just a tad bit more needs to be written about the impact Western Betrayal had in relation to the uprising. That's just a suggestion however. I think the neutrality points for a GA Review have been addressed. You're good to go here.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• No issues at all here from what I see.

1. 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):

• Something tells me Karel Hájek himself didn't upload that Prague liberation photograph in the infobox. The source shouldn't be listed as "own work" unless it actually is someone's own work.

The user who uploaded the photo is no longer active, so I can't ask him where he got it. However, it is used at this RS site. Can I put that as the source instead? (I'm sorry, I have no experience with image copyright issues). Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

We have to establish whether or not the image is copyrighted first. Having a source is useful when filing out the information on Wikipedia/Commons regarding where you the editor got the photo from...but that doesn't necessarily tell us where it was published or who (if anyone) holds copyright over it.

According to Wikimedia, "the copyright holder has approved publication" under the Wikimedia license via an email message. Doesn't that mean that we don't have to worry about the copyright? Catrìona (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. We have no more image issues!

• We might have a problem with the Alois Kříž photo. The licensing information for the photograph seems off.

Speaking of Alois, it's probably worth mentioning him in the text. Having an image of him being arrested yet never once mentioning him in the article itself is a (minor) issue.

• I'm not convinced that the licensing or information present for the photograph in the 5 May section is valid. Original publication, date, and author are all listed as "unknown". The only thing we have going for the photograph is a link to a website about the ROA, and the permission used for the photo is particularly bad. "This was taken at in late World War II and was probably never copyrighted. In any case, the person who took the photograph is dead." The date of publication and the date or death of the author are both important points when dealing with photos. I've had countless headaches when dealing with such things over at the most recent article I've been working on. These issues need to be addressed, or the photo needs to be replaced or removed.

I'll just take it out, as it's not crucial to the article. Catrìona (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

   Every issue has been adequately addressed and this article is now worthy of being listed as a Good Article. I'm passing this review. Congratulations Catrìona!--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.