Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emanuel Moravec/archive1

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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2018 [1].

---

Emanuel Moravec

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the dismembered Czechoslovak state created and occupied by Germany during World War II. Prior to the occupation of the Czech lands, Moravec was widely known as a leading proponent of democracy, and as a celebrated author and journalist. This article recently passed both GA and A-class review. A note on sources ... this article makes use of a handful of Czech and Slovak-language sources, however, there has only been one comprehensive biography about Moravec published in any language (by Jiří Pernes). The article does not use that as a source as it was the subject of a plagiarism scandal and was withdrawn from publication. The allegation was that it was plagiarized from a dissertation and whether or not this dissertation actually resulted in the awarding of a doctorate is unclear; therefore, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't believe either the book or the dissertation from which it was allegedly copied is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Before reviewing, I just wanted to clarify, have the Czech language sources identified in the Milhist ACR been consulted? For reference, these are ones used in the Czech wiki article, such as Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with two exceptions; on further inspection, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech appeared to be a visual history, or book of photographs; Kolaboranti 1939–1945 I wasn't able to obtain through any means. The others I did consult but found their information to be duplicative of that already in text. Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would strongly suggest citing the material that can be sourced to these publications, even where it is already cited to existing sources, otherwise reviewers and other readers will assume that the Czech sources have not been consulted. This goes to the comprehensiveness criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point, that makes sense. I'll add this in. Chetsford (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I've added these in now; LMK what you think about how I handled it. For the Magazine of Military History (Czech) I just added a single citation on a one-source sentence to avoid WP:OVERCITE (this is kind of a subject matter extraction of his visual history so is image heavy ... and there are a lot of good ones, I wish we could use some of them). On Czech Fascism and Collaboration I actually included it in a new "Further Reading" section instead as it seems like a pretty nice reference that deals with the whole period (Moravec only gets smattering of mentions sprinkled throughout but, contextually, the volume should be of interest to someone curious about this period). Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another read through, but given I looked at this in detail at Milhist ACR, I doubt there is a lot for me to nitpick about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A few things from me:

• his political party affiliation is given in the infobox, but I couldn't find it in the body
• it is probably worth pointing out that the all ministerial appointments were subject to approval from the Protector anyway. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe p. 135 is a reference for this.
• it could be mentioned that revision of Czech school textbooks was undertaken, and universities were closed and student leaders arrested and killed or sent to labour camps. Lemkin pp. 138–139 is the reference for these matters.

I reviewed this article in detail during its Milhist A-Class review, and that is all I have from this run through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - thank you very much, I've made these updates. For #1 (political party) I just deleted it entirely. I'm not actually sure where that came from; I think it was probably a leftover field from the original, stub article, but there's no actual source that confirms Moravec's membership in the National Partnership and it wasn't really a political party in any case so I should probably have notice and removed it long ago. 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The way that you phrased the closure of the universities (the nation's universities had been closed) is not ideal in my opinion. Before the war, many Czech universities had a German-language section and a Czech-language section. Only the Czech universities were closed, as Lemkin states. Also, the Protectorate was not exactly a nation. Catrìona (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Good points, Catrìona. I've revised; LMK if you think it looks okay. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Catrìona

After reading over this nomination, I don't have any additional comments to make. I believe that Chetsford has addressed concerns that the article might not be comprehensive. It's very well written and consistently referenced to reliable sources, and has been thoroughly picked over already at MILHIST ACR. Catrìona (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Pleased to pick up the Source review. Will try for today, but could be tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

General

• Publishers' locations - I don't think they're a requirement, and you didn't use them for Ames, but I find them helpful.
• Blue-linking titles to Google books etc. I personally like these and think they help readers, but I know other editors don't. That said, it's not a bar. One editor also complained I used Google Books, as they're a commercial seller, so I now use Worldcat unless the Google Books link gives a useful snippet. Just a thought.
• Source 1 - Do we need both the isbn and the oclc (also 7/12/17/18/21/25/27/34)? Also, I've not seen a review used as it is here, in Lay summary. I rather like it, but I've just not previously seen it. But it also appears as Source 2, which seems overkill.
• Source 2 - see Source 1 above.
• Source 3 - should this have the date of authorship (8 August 2017) as well as the archive and retrieval dates?
• Source 9 - again, does this need a date (November 2007)?
• Source 20 - as above, although here I can't see a date on it.
• Source 28 - as above but again I see no date.
• Source 30 - as above, 13 May 2015.
• Source 24 - You've a 10-figure isbn here, and 13 elsewhere. The converter gives me 978-1-58477-901-8.

External links

• 1 - This has been removed from YouTube for CV.
• 2 - Would this read better as "...a collection of speeches and broadcasts by Moravec"?
• 3 - Aside from looking rather like The Addams Family, I'm not sure this gives the reader very much.

That's Batch 1. I'll do a spot-check of the accessible sources against content later.

Thanks very much, KJP1. I've made all these updates with the following notes:

• Source 20 is undated.
• The condition of this passing A class was that I add the explanatory note and lay summary on source 1 and both OCLCs and ISBNs throughout.

Let me know if I missed anything and thanks again! Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That's just fine, if it's what the Milhists wanted. I'll do the spot check and wrap up later today. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, KJP1! I've updated with the paywall template for your note below. I appreciate the time you took in this very thorough review. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Spot check of accessible online sources (non-Czech language)

• Sources 2/3/6/9/15/22/23/26/28/29(see below)/36/37/38/41 - all function and all support the content.

Offline sources

• All look reputable to me, but having no Czech and not being a specialist in this area leaves me at a certain disadvantage. However, I'm much fortified by the Milhist A class review, which discussed the sourcing extensively and was satisfied.

Queries

• Source 16 - I think this needs a "subscription required", or similar. Certainly, I can't access it.
• Source 20 - The original is giving me a 404 error but the archive copy works.
• Source 29 - A dissertation, but permissible under Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP I think. It's certainly been reviewed.

Within my limitations, and mindful of the Milhist review, I'm satisfied the sources are verifiable, comprehensive and support the content. Am therefore pleased to Support myself.

Media review

• Generally looks good, a couple of comments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Why use such a close crop of the face for the infobox image? As it is fair use, you could use just about any other photo.
• How can we be sure the author of this photo[2] was anonymous/unknown?
• To supplement FunkMonk's comments: If you have a properly licensed fair-use image of the subject in the article, you can't use an additional non-fair-use image, so the infobox photo needs to go.
• File:Plk.Gst.Emanuel.Moravec.(1893-1945).Tablo.Valecna.Skola.1931-1934.gif needs a US license.
• I'd like to see more source information on this photo to verify the anonymous author claim. Where was it published and by who?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 and FunkMonk - thanks for the review. I don't have any info on that image and didn't notice it had even been added to the article; I agree with your comments, so have removed it entirely. Also, per your suggestion, I've updated the infobox photo with a less closely cropped version. Let me know if there's anything else and thanks again for taking the time to check on this. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66 and FunkMonk - just wanted to quickly check to see if these fixes were sufficient? Thanks again for the review. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Look fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Me, too.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing from coord duties... I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR, have looked over changes since then and made a few tweaks to prose. I just have two comments, which relate to the same passage: However, denounced by the Allies and the Czech government-in-exile during World War II as a "Czech Quisling", Moravec has come to be regarded as an "enthusiastic collaborator" with Nazi Germany. This contrasts with other protectorate-era officials like Hácha, who has often been seen as a "tragic figure"...

• Firstly, despite the three quotes above being only snippets, they are all loaded terms and should be attributed inline. The passage is cited to three sources so there's no way to easily determine just who uses these words.
  • We still don't know who said "Czech Quisling", "enthusiastic collaborator" and "tragic figure". If the first is a commonly used term that both the sources for that statement employ, I'd say leave as is, but if only one author uses it than I think we need to say in-line just who it was -- same goes for the other two terms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • This outstanding point seems to have been overlooked, so I've taken it upon myself to attribute "enthusiastic collaborator" and "tragic figure" (in the process correcting the source for the latter). I can see "Czech Quisling" in one of the two sources cited in that sentence (Johnstone), but the other is behind a paywall, so I'll need to rely on Chetsford to check if both use the term, in which case by all means leave the sentence as is, or if only Johnstone uses it, in which case the term should be clearly attributed to him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Secondly, although I believe "however" is overused in WP articles, I try to refrain from shooting it on sight. In this case I can see that you want something to contrast the previous paragraph (Czech historian Jiří Pernes has argued...) with this one, but it can be seen as editorialising because it appears it's us (Wikipedia) highlighting the contrast, rather than simply presenting info and letting our readers work it out. It might improve the flow, and allow us to eliminate the "however", by simply making the first paragraph follow this one instead of precede it. Another option is to move that bit to the Biography subsection, which is concerned with the source of that contention.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose - many thanks for the review. These should be both fixed now, but let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose - thanks and sorry I misunderstood your comment. The paywalled referenced to "Czech Quisling" is by UPI correspondent Leo Disher in the following form: One of the war's strangest and most deadly personal feuds is between Col. Moravec, No. 1 Czech Quisling, and Col. Moravec, the Czech's No. 1 Quisling Hunter. (In the second instance, Col. Moravec refers to F. Moravec, not E. Moravec.) However, I'm apprehensive about attributing the term "Czech Quisling" it to Leo Disher as it's been widely used by other sources and I don't really have any reason to believe he originated the term. It's also used by Chris Johnston at Radio Prague [3] without taking credit for it (for his actions, he became dubbed "the Czech Quisling), by the Czechoslovak Government-in-Exile [4], in this contemporary journal article by Karel Margry [5], and many other places. I'm unsure, therefore, how to attribute it without presenting it in list form of all the names who have used the term? Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No that's fine, leave that bit as is -- I just wanted to establish that both sources for the sentence used the term, which they do, and, ideally, that it's a commonly used epithet for him, which it obviously is. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "A veteran of World War I, Moravec served in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Czechoslovak Legion, and Russian-backed Serbian forces". I found this confusing. starting with "A veteran of" may imply that you are going on to describe his life after the war. Also, the armies appear to be in the wrong order, as if I read the main text correctly he served in the Serbian forces before the Chech legion, which went on to fight on the side of the White Russians. Also it should be made clear that he changed sides. Maybe "In World War I, Moravec served in the Austro-Hungarian Army, but following capture by the Russians he changed sides to join Russian-backed Serbian forces and then the Czechoslovak Legion, which went on to fight on the side of the White Russians in the Russian Civil War."
• "He was subsequently paroled and given command of a machine-gun platoon in the First Serbian Volunteer Division, a unit consisting of former prisoners of war, including Serbs and other Slavs from the countries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." You should clarify that they were fighting on the Russian side.
• "embroiled" This word is POV and should be deleted.
• "more hysterical aspects" Also POV. I would say "more extreme aspects"
• "Moravec returned to writing with gusto and a darkly reoriented editorial line". I do not know what "darkly" means here.
• "Czechia" I think it is better not to introduce another word for Czechoslovakia (assuming that it what is is) in the middle of the article.
• "Hácha discussed the proposal with Karl Hermann Frank". You should explain who Frank was.
• "a doctoral dissertation on Moravec's life written by a different author". I would name the author.
• This is a first rate article apart from the confused account of his service in WWI. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Dudley Miles - thanks very much for the review. I've updated all of these items per your suggestion. On #6 I replaced "Czechia" with "Czech Lands" since it's just referring here to Bohemia, Moravia and Lower Silesia, instead of the entire Czechoslovakia (Bohemia, Moravia, Lower Silesia, and Slovakia). Let me know if I've missed anything! Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.