Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Le Paradis massacre/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

Le Paradis massacre

edit
Check external links

This article is current a GA, and an A-Class Military History Article. It has also had a regular Peer Review, and Military History Peer Review, and I feel that it now is up to FA standard. I am a new editor, this being my first article, so if I ask you to clarify seemingly obvious Wikipedian things then please do not judge. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Suggestions and comments

  • References. For an example, see "were ordered to try to slow the German advance in northern France to buy time to evacuate troops at Dunkirk.[3][4][5][6]" (last sentence, first para). This is merely stylistic, and I don't think there's any policy or guideline on it, but those chained refs are really ugly. Since only ref#3 is used more than once, it could be a good idea combining them – <ref>note 3, note 4, note 5 and note 6.</ref> Do the same with the "crossing it that evening.[1][2][3]" earlier in the paragraph, and where you can elsewhere in the article. Makes it look a lot nicer, and don't worry about complaints of lack of refs - 3 or 4 sources in a single ref is fine.
  • Bit of prose: "German forces pushed the French Army and the BEF to the Meuse river on 12 May, crossing it that evening.[1][2][3] From there, they rapidly advanced to the English Channel over the course of the next week." – while I think it's obvious that the "they" in sentence 2 is the German forces, it may be an idea to clarify it to avoid any possible confusion (the "they" could, just about, at a stretch, refer to the French & BEF).
  • "The Battle of France was SS Division Totenkopf's first major engagement of World War II. They were part" – this is just a question really, but should that be "they", or "it" in 2nd sentence? SS Division Totenkopt – division, singular? That's how I would have written it, anyway. Especially as you follow it with "The unit was engaged", unit singular.
  • "but the British counter-attacked under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel just west of Arras, on 21 May" – I think this would be better written "but the British, under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel, counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May." – make the commander a parenthetical, in other words. A few prose problems already, perhaps indicating a copy-edit needed?
  • In main body, link BEF on first occurrence, not the 3rd or 4th. Can't decide whether it's worth spelling it out in full again (I see it's already spelt out in the lede).
  • Linking in general, it seems there's potential for some high-value links that are currently missing (places, for example).
  • MOSDATE - check for "on the <date>" – the "the" is proscribed by MOS. Also, look for standalone years linked for no reason (1943, for example). I did this, I think Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Massacre, "An account by Private Albert Pooley; one of only two survivors:" – don't think that semi-colon use is right.
  • I'm a little confused: in the last sentence of Battle of Le Paradis, it mentions recent evidence suggesting that 20-odd prisoners from the Royal Scots were murdered – is this in addition to the 97 mentioned in Massacre?
  • Massacre again: "Even many SS officers were appalled by the massacre, some reportedly even challenged Knöchlein to a duel, although none was ever fought.[29]" – "even ... even"; copy-edit again.
  • In Trial of Knöchlein, you've wikilinked "misused a flag of truce" to White flag – two issues here: first, the wikilink is to a DAB page (needs pointing to the right place), and second it's a bit of an "Easter egg link". Link "flag of truce", by all means, but not "misused a". The semi-colon use there is also a bit dubious.
  • References and Notes. I think that, since you have separated the full publication details into References, the Notes sections only need to include author surname, year of publication (optional, probably), and page number(s). A hybrid between Harvard and "normal" in-line refs, in other words. You currently have full publication details in Notes, which makes the References section a touch redundant.
  • References could do with sorting into alphabetic order, by author surname. I did this myself, but it leads to a question on the two editions of Jackson's work. Different ISBNs, but is the pagination the same? Can the two be combined?
  • Is stephen-stratford.co.uk a reliable source? Some of the other Web sources beg the same question: www.kuro5hin.org, www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk (taking from mackillers.8m.com), the others? (Hint, the MOD has some pretty damned good on-line sites for regimental histories, so could be a good place to look for replacing things like norfolkbc).

That's it for now. A pretty short article, but that can't always be helped. Carre (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, more on Notes, for consistency. Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp.", just the page numbers (ref#9, 10, 29). Consistency. Carre (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to combine and tidy up the in-line citations, but the lack of author details on a few of the web links makes it awkward. Can authors be found? Also, two of the three news references are no longer available at the specified URL. Alternatives? Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thanks for the very thorough nature of your review, and the edits you made. I have done all the little grammatical changes you proposed, however I am not sure whether the article requires a copyedit due to the fact that it has had quite a lot of work done by different editors already. However, if you strongly feel that it needs one, or other editors agree, I will attempt to have one done.

I tried to combine the references, but only succeeded in messing them up. I will try again in a day or two, but I don't seem to be having much luck.

Personally, I quite like the notes and references style. I think it is quite clear to the reader, and looks neater and is more helpful to a new user of Wikipedia. However, again if you strongly feel I should change it, or other editors agree I will. But, I had seen it done on some others (I think) so I thought it would be acceptable in this case.

As for the references, I have removed one that I wasn't sure about. But for the others, all I can say is that their sources match what I have read in other books that I have cited, and they match up to one another. References are also listed on stephen-stratford, and from I have read elsewhere on the site and compared to historical facts, they seem reliable.

Could you explain further what you mean by " Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp."", apologies again, this is all new to me.

I will work through the last of the points raised, thanks once again for your help, and I would appreciate any other help from other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

OK, the p. and pp. thing. See these two references:
^ Mann, SS-Totenkopf, p. 85.
^ Charles W. Sydnor (1977). Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death's Head Division, 1933-1945 93. Princeton University Press. Retrieved on 12 December 2007.
(my bold added). The first has p. 85, while the second has just 93. Suspect it's some inconsistency within the {{cite}} templates, but could be wrong.
On the separation of Notes and References, what I mean is something like

== Notes ==

Mann, p. 85.

== References ==

  • Mann, Dr. Chris (2001). SS-Totenkopf. MBI Publishing Company. ISBN 0760310157.
so you only have the full details of the source in one place. However, if you don't like that way, then that's fine too.
I tried to combine the refs too, and also made a mess of it! That makes two of us :) Carré (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck off the stuff done, and I fixed the p. and pp. thing - was a misused parameter in {{cite web}} - need to specify "pages=p. x", apparantly. Carré (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued edits. I have clarified the Royal Scots massacre bit. As for the wikilinks, none of the place names are big enough to have their own articles. Again, I would appreciate other reviews by other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Leaning toward support. This is a very well-written article. I fixed some ref errors that were causing part of the Battle of Le Paradis section not to show up and fixed some WP:NBSP isses. Can you address these comments please?
    • I'm a little confused by this: Due to the boundary between the two British regiments being the road, Ryder's men surrendered to SS Hauptsturmführer Fritz Knöchlein and his company, who had been fighting the Royal Scots
    • "Recent evidence " -how recent?
    • Per wP:MOSQUOTE, only quotations of 4 lines or more should be offset. There is a smaller length one that should be returned inline.

Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with comments:
  • counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May following on from the counter attack of the day before (Battle of Arras).A bit confusing with two counter-attacks in two days. IMO not clear that both counter attacks where done by the British.
  • A map would be nice in the Background section.
  • Rue du Paradis road - Rue is road in French - isn't it wrong to have both Rue and Road then? --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your reviews. I have made all the changes suggested by Karanacs, however can you clarify the quote issue? I am not sure what you mean by inline. Peter Andersen, I cannot find a map, and I looked but I couldn't find the suggested confusion over the counter-attacks, but I did make the other change. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I still don't understand the sentence about surrendering to a different unit. What did the road have to do with that? I think this needs a bit more context. I fixed the quote for you. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some concerns:
  • Comment I'm afraid these don't seem to be reliable sources: [1] and [2]. Epbr123 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this source "Gordon Williamson (2004). The Waffen-SS p. 24. Osprey Publishing. Retrieved on 12 December 2007." is used properly. It is being used to footnote the statement "The men of Totenkopf fought recklessly throughout the campaign, suffering comparatively higher death rates that other German forces.[5]" but the book blames inadequate training and inferior weapons/equipment. Use Sydnor (1977) pg 108 instead. Furthermore, the Williamson book goes on to say that 3 men survived, the commander was executed in 1948. The other sources and article say 2 survived and execution in 1949. --maclean 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I replaced the Williamson reference above, but the "Stratford, Stephen. Private Pooley's Revenge" appears to be just some guy's website and should be replaced with a published source. --maclean 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing notes: A fine start, but after almost two weeks, the article hasn't gained sufficient Support. Working with Opposers to resolve issues raised may help prepare the article for re-approaching FAC. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Le_Paradis_massacre/archive1&oldid=1138465648"