Wikipedia:Peer review/My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)/archive1

My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)

I'm starting this peer review on behalf of Rskellner (talk · contribs). What are your suggestions to improve this article to A-class status? It is currently a Good Article nominee. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments by DO11.10

I was at first struck by the fact that I had never heard of Friedrich Kellner or his diaries, I think that this is quite a shame, as he was certainly a interesting figure and left behind such a rich legacy. Some comments on the article:

• The section "Various entries from the diary" provides no context given for the entries. Why are these particular entries important? What was going on in the world and in his life that made him write such things? The quotations need to be given proper context, and interpretation if necessary, on an individual basis rather than just stated. (The entries also need to be in block quote format.)
• It is extremely important that this article make clear that any feelings discussed here were ones Kellner wrote about in the diary. Otherwise it looks like WP:OR. For example: Throughout the course of the war, Kellner looked to the United States for rescue, and (wrote in his diary that he) could not understand why that country acted so late to stop the carnage of World War II.(page number cite)
• Most notable individuals and/or published works generate criticism, have Kellner or the diaries ever been criticized? If so this should be included.
• "The purpose of the diary" - does not seem to be an appropriate title for the material in this section, and the material here should probably be combined with the "author" section at the top.
• Kellner began his secret diary to expose the crimes of the Third Reich. He was risking his life to put his thoughts on paper, but he believed his diary could serve as a warning for future generations to oppose dictatorships and their totalitarian ideology. - I think that perhaps "record" rather than "expose" would be more appropriate and this makes more sense when taken with the second sentence here.
• The diary has been on exhibit in museums in America and Germany. The first public showing.... - this confuses me, aren't museums public places.
• Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before a person's name.
• was part of the Presidential Library’s commemoration of (the 60th anniversary of?) Victory in Europe Day, which took place on May 8, 1945.
• The documentary film was released in 2007 (please state this in the article) and mention of it should follow the 2005 Library commemoration.
• Needs an infobox, probably {{Infobox Book}} (maybe put Image:Kellner Diary 25 Apr 1943 Atlantic Wall.jpg in the box?)

--DO11.10 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

a number of changes made

I do appreciate what is happening here in this Peer Review, and I feel confident the end result will be a much better article.

Most of your suggestions have now been followed, including the removal of the "Purpose" section. I have also removed the repetition about the presidential library exhibit and the documentary. And I have removed the repetition about my own participation. I even removed the photograph of me.

I think that your participation is perhaps the most important part of the diary's journey, and answers a big question "How/When/Why was the diary translated into the English passages I am reading?" I don't think that including your own involvement is unseemly at all it, and is a very important part of the story, besides it is not WP:OR since there are reliable sources that can be used to cite your involvement. I read the "Fort Worth Star-Telegram" article, I found it fascinating and quite moving, would it be possible to include more of this type of information? Perhaps something more about his political beliefs and his vehement dislike of the Nazis, and also the struggles you went through to translate it and get it published?

I encountered resistance when I first created this article because I had included too much biographical material. I was told that the Friedrich Kellner biography article was the place for that, and the separate article for the diary should be about only the diary. I will try to find the middle ground and include more of this information that you want to see. I believe I can do it if I concentrate on a purely objective tone. My problem, of course, is my personal closeness to the subject matter.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to box the quotes and still keep the citations within the box. I will work on your very first suggestion about providing some kind of context for the quotes -- but that will be tricky, because I would not want to intrude my voice on top of the diary entries. I will see what I can do, and others can make changes to my attempts.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations might help here-

My problem with boxing the quotes is probably a misunderstanding on what is meant here by boxing. I have codes that create a nice colored box with the quotes nestled within, but the code for the citation doesn't work within the code for the box, so the citation drops out. Is it okay for me to leave this task to someone more knowledgable about tweaking these codes? I'm not trying to get out of work. If someone will at least do the first quote, I will be able to follow that model and do all the others.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have formatted the quotes according to the WP:MOS, I also moved some images because they were (at least on my screen) overlapping with the text.--DO11.10 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your question about criticism of the diary, I am afraid that has not yet occurred, but no doubt will be on the horizon once the diary is published by the University of Giessen (Justus Liebig University). There are some interesting comments about the diary by Professor Dr. Sascha Feuchert at the JLU website (see the link in the article). During the exhibition of the diary in Germany, Professor Feuchert gave a long speech about the value of the work. And a number of newspaper stories have been published about the diary in Germany, Israel and America. Should I cite more of those?

My original question about criticism was motivated by: 50% personal curiosity, 50% remembering the criticism that Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl has generated (and I suspect most people don't know about). Absolutely! Cite or link to as many references as possible.

Dr. Feuchert's speech is actually online at the university's website, so it will be easy for me to make a reference to it. I shall do that, and I will include other references besides that one.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Friedrich Kellner article, there is a section called "Reception of the Diary." Do you think that should be moved out of there and placed in the "My Opposition" article?

Yes, I think that this should be placed in the diary article, doesn't really need to be removed form it's current location though. I would just expand the detail level for each entry (I will have to think about specifics here).

Perhaps tomorrow I will have the time to copy and paste that article. I should be able to expand each reference without two much trouble, and without padding it in any way. There is an abundance of specific data that can be used here.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, a major newspaper feature article about the Kellner diary just appeared yesterday (Sunday, April 22, 2007) in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I think you would find it very interesting. It also includes a video and slideshow. Do you think this article should be referenced in some way? Scott Rskellner 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite facts using these newspaper articles, do so. IMO, The more references, the better. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% here.--DO11.10 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I placed reference to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article in the "Author" section, where it helps to support a statement there. I also placed a brief "purpose statement" (which I put in italics) in the beginning of the various entries from the diary section. If needed, the purpose statement can be expanded. The entries should speak for themselves. If anyone thinks a particular topic needs to be represented among the diary entries, please let me know the topic and I will see if there is a corresponding entry in the diary. There are 676 entries to choose from, covering many different topics. In the two-page Star-Telegram article, they also set aside a section for various diary entries. Scott Rskellner 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should probably expand the infobox, fill in as many of the fields as possible. I will let you know I think of anything else, I have to think some more about the "various entries" situation. Please don't hesitate to contact me.--DO11.10 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now expanded the infobox. Perhaps someone would doublecheck it once again to see if I left anything out.Rskellner 22:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One entry I am particular curious about is the last one, on May 17, 1945 (or at least one after VE day). I have had some thoughts on improving the "various entries" section, but in the interests of, well interest, I will post them on the article's talk page.--DO11.10 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Given that Kellner himself titled his journal, should this article be instead located at My Opposition, with incoming redirects from Friedrich Kellner diary and Friedrich Kellner's diary? There is nothing at "My Opposition" currently that would necessitate pre-emptive disambiguation. Serpent's Choice 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was orginally titled "Friedrich Kellner Diary." Then it was changed to its current title "My Opposition" (the Friedrich Kellner diary). If it is changed again to simply "My Opposition," won't that create problems with all the links, now becoming double re-directs? ScottRskellner 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixing double redirects is fairly painless. As well, there are some articles that have been moved far more than twice. Serpent's Choice 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have already made two mistakes with the title, first making it Friedrich Kellner Diary and then changing it to My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary). I would not like to make another mistake, so please help me to change the title to whatever you feel people will agree with, and so it won't have to get changed again. And if you could help me to understand what I need to do with the linking (double redirect) situation, I would greatly appreciate it. I will do whatever is necessary to make this a worthwhile article. Thank you. Scott Rskellner 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should be called My Opposition. Double redirects are easy to fix, just change the redirect location, you can access redirect pages easily by checking "what links here", So once you move the page just change the redirect at "Friedrich Kellner Diary" from "My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)" to "My Opposition". Easy peasy! I would also follow the suggestion above, and create redirects to My Opposition for the two red linked articles, and to any other spellings, etc... If you need any help drop me a line.--DO11.10 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that there is a separate article for the Canadian documentary, My Opposition: the Diaries of Friedrich Kellner. The Canadians used the plural "diaries" in their title of the film instead of the singular. Yet it is actually a single diary, but in ten volumes. ScottRskellner 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OKAY, I have just changed the name to My Opposition, and I went to the old Friedrich Kellner Diary page and changed the redirect. Now the "What links here" section is pretty sloppy. Perhaps I will just go to every one of those links and change them all to My Opposition. Thanks for helping with this. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve matters. Scott Rskellner 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)