Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manifesto of the Sixteen
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Manifesto of the Sixteen edit
- Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Skomorokh
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the editors have exhausted the known English-language sources on the topic, the article has passed a GA review, and I would like to know in particular if it satisfies the scope requirement of A-Class. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at a comprehensive account of the subject ever published, so it is particularly important that it meets the highest standards. Any comments welcome. Skomorokh 01:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments No issues reported with dis ambig or external links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suggest to provide some more background on the state of anarchy in the great powers. What was their role in society, how much influence did they have compared to other worker's movements. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting suggestion; perhaps we could add a background section after the lead. Skomorokh 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's you, not we. I'm not familiar enough with anarchism to write such a section, but I advise you to give a brief introduction into European anarchism at that time as the first section of the background. Then I can fully support your article for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, I've been meaning to respond and take part this assessment myself for a few days now. This is an excellent idea, but may be difficult to fulfill in the short-term, as giving any such summary a proper write up would require a good deal of immediate research and editing. Some very basic information would, at the least, include how old anarchist philosophy and movements were to each country, what tendencies were prevalent (this is especially important given that the legacy section notes the widening of fissures between groups), and who were major, active figures to each country, region, and movement. This information may be intuitive to some anarchists, but providing proper citations could take some legwork. --Cast (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the KISS principle. I know, it's difficult to write the most important basic facts with a few words, but that's needed in order to understand the article. You can renominate it anytime you've accomplished the goal. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, I've been meaning to respond and take part this assessment myself for a few days now. This is an excellent idea, but may be difficult to fulfill in the short-term, as giving any such summary a proper write up would require a good deal of immediate research and editing. Some very basic information would, at the least, include how old anarchist philosophy and movements were to each country, what tendencies were prevalent (this is especially important given that the legacy section notes the widening of fissures between groups), and who were major, active figures to each country, region, and movement. This information may be intuitive to some anarchists, but providing proper citations could take some legwork. --Cast (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's you, not we. I'm not familiar enough with anarchism to write such a section, but I advise you to give a brief introduction into European anarchism at that time as the first section of the background. Then I can fully support your article for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting suggestion; perhaps we could add a background section after the lead. Skomorokh 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The lead is too long, make it 1/4 shorter. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Skomorokh 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is sufficiently shortened. Well done. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Skomorokh 22:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References comments - (this version)
Page numbers are needed for refs 3, 4,and 17.Can ref 19 use the {{harvnb}} template too?A lot of your sources seem to come from POV publishers...AK Press (twice), AK Press/Kate Sharpley Library, Freedom Press (twice), Jewish Anarchist Federation and Black Rose Books.- FAC may require OCLC's and locations for all of your books (for locations, use worldcat.org/ISBN/isbnhere)
- —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Refs 3, 4 and 17 are for single page URLs. I can't get ref 19 to work with {{harvnb}} (i.e. it does not link properly), perhaps because of the two authors. I am not aware of any of the named publishers having a pro- or anti- WWI stance and so do not consider them to have a POV in favour or against the Manifesto and its authors. As the manifesto was broadly unpopular amongst its chosen demographic, the weighting of sources from the period ought to be critical, and I feel this is achieved by including Goldman, Ghe, Nettlau and Berneri; and you won't find any more unimpeachable historians of anarchism than Paul Avrich and George Woodcock. I hadn't realised OCLCs were of use for works which already have ISBNs, but it can't hurt to add them and the locations. I think I used Ottobib to extract the data that is there, so hopefully worldcat will have more. Thanks again for the suggestions, very helpful! Skomorokh 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed #19. :) You have to use "last2=___" and "first2=___" in {{cite book}}.
- Maybe POV was the wrong word. For example, I read the opening sentence of AK press ("AK Press is a collectively owned and operated independent publisher and book distributor that specialises in radical and anarchist literature.") to mean that it's books were POV, when it really just means that it publishes stuff related to anarchy etc. Sorry! Additional thought: you may want to change or remove the link to Black Rose Books....(look where it goes to?)
- As a wise editor told me: "worldcat is your friend." :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. Refs 3, 4 and 17 are for single page URLs. I can't get ref 19 to work with {{harvnb}} (i.e. it does not link properly), perhaps because of the two authors. I am not aware of any of the named publishers having a pro- or anti- WWI stance and so do not consider them to have a POV in favour or against the Manifesto and its authors. As the manifesto was broadly unpopular amongst its chosen demographic, the weighting of sources from the period ought to be critical, and I feel this is achieved by including Goldman, Ghe, Nettlau and Berneri; and you won't find any more unimpeachable historians of anarchism than Paul Avrich and George Woodcock. I hadn't realised OCLCs were of use for works which already have ISBNs, but it can't hurt to add them and the locations. I think I used Ottobib to extract the data that is there, so hopefully worldcat will have more. Thanks again for the suggestions, very helpful! Skomorokh 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a few comments.
- "Fellow Russian anarchists, Goldsmith and Kropotkin clashed often on their opinions" Unclear and awkward, who clashes with whom?
- Much of the Contents section is unsourced.
- Can some images be moved to the left? It is rather unbalanced.
- These shouldn't be too big of a deal, and with them incorporated it will be A-Class worthy. – Joe Nutter 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified the Russian ambiguity (Goldsmith clashes with Kropotkin), and reworked the images so that they are evenly distributed. As for the Contents section, the interpretation is taken from the source cited in the first line (Woodcock), and some of the reporting is from the Manifesto itself. Appreciate the comments, Skomorokh 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the "contents" section, I should point out that I did not include any on the basis that the source for the information was uncontroversial and instantly recognizable as the actual manifesto itself. This is akin to a movie or book summary on a respective artiacle, which also require no citations on Wikipedia for the very same reason. Citations would only be necessary if the work was large and complex, so as to assist tracking the information, but the Manifesto is only ten paragraphs in length, and can be read within minutes. I honestly don't feel it requires citation. --Cast (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- The third paragraph in the Manifesto section about its publication needs a citation at the end.
- Block quotes should only be used for quotes that are four lines in length or longer. Also, the first blocked quote needs a citation.
- The first paragraph of the "Signatories and supporters" section appears to repeat information contained in the "Conception and publication" section.
- Image File:Kropotkin2.jpg needs more detailed source info as well as a better explanation for why its copyright is expired. Same for File:Jean Grave.png and File:Christian-cornelissen.jpg.
- The article concentrates on the reaction to the manifesto by other anarchists. As a result, it makes it appear that the anarchist reaction to the manifesto in Europe and the US was mainly naval gazing- criticizing each other's ideas and dedication to the cause, playing power games with each other, and arguing over what it truly meant to be an anarchist. Did the manifesto have any other impact besides making various anarchists argue with each other? How did the governments or general societies of Europe and the US react to it? Did they ignore it or embrace it? Did the German government comment on it? After World War I was over, were any later events influenced by the manifesto? What was the manifesto's impact on history and what is it's legacy? Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.