Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vidkun Quisling

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.
Promoted by The ed17 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [1][reply]

Vidkun Quisling

edit
Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.]


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, although this is the first article I've submitted for A-class review, I feel it meets all the relative criteria. It recently passed as a GA, and I would like to see it promoted to FA eventually, so I am submitting it here. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding sources:
    • Cohen, Maynard M. (2000) needs a publisher location  Done
    • Current Biography Yearbook. New York: H. W. Wilson. 1940.. Article title, author of article / editor of whole work? page run of article cited
      • Given editor. Not sure about the other bits, it wasn't my citation and I can't find the details online.
    • Dahl, Hans Fredrik (1999). publisher location  Done
    • Galtung, Johan (1997) Title of chapter cited, publisher location
    • Hayes, Paul M. (1971). Newton Abbot isn't a great publishing city, requires the US State or International State. If you're going to put the state location, it might need to be added to all locations
      • I added "Devon, United Kingdom". I can't help thinking that attempting to standardise the exact level of location detail on each would be overkill.
    • Shirer, William L Terminal period on the initial  Done
    • Yourieff, Alexandra Andreevna Voronina; Kirsten A. Seaver (2007) last, first for your second author like in the other multiple authors cited. Publisher location. Possible use of a primary depending on how you use it and which bits you use, check your useage (if you're using a Primary to illustrate with quotations of material already demonstrated with secondaries, it is fine). If it is a biography primarily authored by the academic / other author, it is fine.
      •  Done for the first two. It is a biography including sections recounted virtually verbatim from the subject mixed with secondary material. All citations to it are appropriate in this regard, IMHO.
    • Terminal period consistency in the citations, you use it sometimes, other times not
      • The only ones with are cite webs, and I can't get it to remove the final punctuation. Any suggestions?
    • fn 37 lacks a page range for the citation.  Done
    • fn 131: is Highbeam a publication? Italics. Place of publication, etc.?
      • It's a website (i.e. publisher), which I've tried to make clearer. No particular location, AFAICT.
    • Looks good, good diversity and academic use. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -- a fine effort for your first ACR, particularly on a potentially contentious subject. Prose is generally excellent and the language balanced; structure, citations, coverage and supporting materials also look good. A few points:
    • Quisling left Norway once more to become an intelligence officer with the Norwegian delegation in Helsinki, a post that combined the diplomatic with the political and the personal -- I think I get your meaning but it reads as though at least a word is missing; reckon you need to say "the diplomatic field" or "his diplomatic interests" etc  Done
    • Final return to Norway -- Perhaps I read the preceding too fast but his return with political plans seems a bit sudden -- did we really go into what brought this on and how the plans had gestated?
      • What brought what on? And I'm struggling to find any detail on how the plans gestated, sorry.
        • I'm looking for something (even just a sentence) on his motivation/impetus for developing this plan for Norway. It seems to spring up quite suddenly the way it's presented here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • a dull but efficient administrator who remained constantly in the headlines -- Seems odd to be so popular with the newspapers if you're that dull; is this really what we mean?  Done Reworded.
    • Your use of parenthetic dashes is inconsistent -- sometimes they're endashes, sometimes emdashes, sometimes with spaces and sometimes not; most acceptable seems to be emdashes without spaces so pls check and fix throughout  Done (I used endashes, other editors changed some to emdashes, I've now changed the rest)
    • He misrepresented the truth on a handful of occasions and the rest of what he had won him few advocates in the country at large... -- I removed "of" after "truth" but "the rest of what he had won him..." still doesn't make sense and I didn't want to second-guess what you did mean so pls take a look and re-phrase.  Done
    • Given the subject is well known, I wonder at the relatively short bibliography; perhaps the net should be cast a little wider to include at least a few more works/authors of World War II literature. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note sure about expanding the number of quoted sources. At the minute, I'm fairly confident we include the best biographies, but as you say, there are probably more MILHIST-y books out there, I just don't own any :( If you have any suggestions, though, I'm happy to look into it. (This is also the timestamp for many of the resolutions listed above.) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I think this is a very good bio detail-wise, so not looking to make it much larger. Also it's the story of an individual, not World War II as a whole or the events leading up to it. However he is a significant figure in the conflict and a few observations from some of the major WWII historians such as Taylor, Bullock, Gilbert, Keegan, even Churchill, might be useful. Feel free to leave this for a bit and see if anyone else comments similarly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'm only reviewing what's between the first word and the last word (not sources, images, footnotes etc). A read through didn't throw up any real issues and it looks comprehensive, but I'm not really qualified to judge that. The bibliogrpahy is realtively short, but if a comprehensive article can be written with just those sources, I don't see it as a huge problem, though (to paraphrase Dank's expression) other reviewers' mileage may vary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To comment on the bibliography issue: As noted on the article's talk page, I have in my disposition a few biographies in Norwegian on Quisling and other NS-members (Sverre Riisnæs, Jonas Lie and Johan Bernhard Hjort), and I'm also able to borrow some more bios of Quisling at the local library. At some point, I will add all or some of these to the bibliography with corresponding inline citations in the body text. As for the Galtung issue: It wasn't me who cited the book in the first place, but I managed to find the title through Amazon.com. However, Galtung is not a biographer of Quisling, and his writings are fairly left-wing biased (he's an eminent sociologist though), so I'm not sure whether his analysis should be given too much weight in this article. I'd recommend adding something more about his biographers' (Dahl, Høidal, etc.) and other NS-members' assessments of him (Hjort considered him a mediocre leader, and thought he would be better used as a mathematician). Eisfbnore talk 11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComments: looks pretty good to me, but I'm not a subject matter expert. I made a few minor tweaks, please check that you agree with my edits. I also have the following comments/suggestions:
    • according to the Featured article tools, there are no disambig links, ext links work (no action required);
    • according to the Featured article tools, "Universism" appears to be linked in the article, but it is a redirect back to this article - perhaps it should be turned into a stub? [2]
    • images lack alt text. You might consider adding it in, although it is not a requirement anymore (suggestion only);
    • the images mainly appear to be correctly licenced, although I am a little unsure of "File:QuislingOslo1942.jpg" - I'd suggest asking an expert to take a look if taking this article to FAC;
    • there is an inconsistent date of publication: "Hayes 1989" (citation # 47) in References but Hayes 1971 in Bibliography. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Universism, the page is currently a redirect back to the Universism section of the Quisling article, which seems appropriate per WP:Summary style.
Yes, that's a fair call. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the licensing of that particular file and I'm confident it would survive an FFD.
Fixed that ref, a typo on my part. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my support, as my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Quisling proved himself an able military cadet, joining the General Staff in 1911 ...": I don't think of a "cadet" as someone who would join the General Staff; is there another word? - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are differences of opinion on whether to include audible pronunciations at FAC, in part because of WP:NOICONS. But they don't bother me and I'm pretty sure they're not a problem for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No quibbles with your copyedits.
I have reworded the "cadet" sentence to read "Before going into politics, Quisling proved to have strong military potential before joining the General Staff in 1911 where he specialised in Russian affairs", and left the audio pronunciation issue unchanged. Presumably FAC would demand not the removal of the audio, but the icons? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of three boys and a girl": He was one of four children, or one of three boys.  Done Reworded
  • "he did not stand out from the crowd.": In what way?  Done Just removed
  • "He considered that, by granting too many rights to the people of Russia ...": "He considered that" doesn't sound right. Also, why is this particular opinion of his important to the narrative?
    • Reworded. It's useful evidence of his emerging political philosophy centred around control.
  • "personal skills": Diplomacy skills cover most skills that could be called "personal", and you could probably leave this out, unless you want to get more specific.
    • There used to be a reference to a love affair in the next sentence, and it's something along those lines I wanted to convey (not sure how best to, though)
  • I made an assumption that the claim that he spied for the British was never substantiated; correct that if it's wrong.  Done Tweaked
  • "bringing with him a military style plan for change": In what sense? It doesn't seem like a military plan to me.
    • In the next sentence there is reference to military hierarchies and designations / command structures i.e. it's a militaristic plan rather than bearing similarity to a military plan.
  • "the equivalent of approximately $1.6 million in 2010": This figure will need a cite, and may not be valid; see the warning at the top of Template:inflation.
    • Now vague in line with Dahl.
      • I don't think "a substantial amount in today's money" is going to work at FAC. A conversion to dollars valid at that time with a citation showing where you got the exchange rate would help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded (I thought Dahl used words to that effect, but I can't find that passage now). For the moment, a references to treasures should imply a large dollar amount.
  • "though Quisling seems to have had no attachment to the term": Does that mean Quisling said he didn't want to be called fører, but allowed it anyway? Why?
    • I've reinserted the word "particular" i.e. he neither wanted it nor minded it
  • "unlike his previous plans, was a counter-revolutionary body.": A body isn't like (or unlike) a plan.  Done reworded
  • "Some time during the period 1930–1933, Quisling's first wife, Asja, received notice of the annulment of her marriage to him.": Personally, I'd leave it out, unless it's important to know it because of something that happens later. It doesn't have any connection to the paragraph it's in.
    • I kept moving it around; still not sure where it would be best.
  • "pepper-wielding assailant": Sounds like a Monty Python skit.
  • I got down to Vidkun_Quisling#Popular party leader. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a massive scandal broke when Quisling and Prytz were accused of using diplomatic channels to smuggle millions of roubles onto the black markets. This much-repeated claim would later be used to support a charge of "moral bankruptcy", but neither it nor a similar claim that Quisling spied for the British has ever been substantiated. ¶ The harder line now developing in Russian politics ...": Okay, I prefer "a claim" instead of "a similar claim"; my concern is that the reader will stumble trying to figure out in what way smuggling roubles is similar to spying for the British. Unless you want to clarify the similarities, I think it's better not to bring it up. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a clean up of public finances through easing of the agricultural debt burden": usually "cleaning up" ... and in what way did one affect the other?
  • "he was referred to as "man of the year",": occasionally, this will get through FAC without some reviewer requiring attribution in-text (in cases where the secondary sources are agreeing that he was widely known as "man of the year"), but usually it won't.
  • Done for now. Okay, I got halfway through, down to World War II. I've recently started copyediting just the first half of each A-class article. If someone copyedits the second half, I'll review it to see whether I can support. Anyone who wants to help out, please see my edit summaries for things to look for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm about ready to promote this article, but aren't you missing the last part of the lead? (it's supposed to summarize the whole article!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Ed. What's missing? The first para of the lead covers the second half of the article, and the second para covers the first half of the article (by design). Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh. Silly me. :-) Are you sure this is the best way to cover it? If so, that's fine with me (I see it as an organizational choice, and I think those should normally be decided by the article author), but I just want to be sure, as you'll probably take some flak at FAC for it being backwards. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the warning. I prefer it backwards at this moment in time, because this way the information most people is looking for is right at the beginning. Certainly, it removes the need for a notability sandwich (most important details -> early life -> later life with repeat of most important details). I could be convinced to put it the other way round, but for now I'm happy. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Vidkun_Quisling&oldid=1142989030"