Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Le Paradis massacre
Le Paradis massacre edit
This is my first ever article on Wikipedia, so I can't judge its quality, nor are there any GA/FA/A articles on similar topics that I can compare it to, so on advice I have taken it to PR. It's biggest weakest that I can see is its lack of inline citations, which at the moment I can't do. I have also requested images for it, which do exist but I do not have the technical skills to get them. Any feedback on these points, or any other issues would be great, I do hope if I can get the citations to take it to GA eventually. Mattyness (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
LordAmeth edit
Looks good to me. I apologize that I don't really have any suggestions to make. Obviously, in-line citations and images would be a great boost to the article, but other than that nothing really stands out. I wonder what other editors think about the use of words like "atrocity" and "massacre" in this article. Don't get me wrong - I'm as anti-Nazi as the next Jew, and if this wasn't an atrocity or a massacre then I don't know what is ... even so, we have to make efforts to show a neutral point of view. If you have inline citations directly quoting that this was called an atrocity and massacre by objective scholarly secondary sources, that'd be great. Otherwise, excellent work for your first article. Welcome to the project!!LordAmeth (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply When I figure out how to use inline citations properly, I will try and cite the whole article, which I believe is possible although not many sources are avaliable, and I can't find any books devoted to the topic, only ones that mention it in passing.
I see your point about "atrocity" and will consider changing it to something less POV-ish. As for "massacre", a quick Google search shows that nearly all of the correct hits call it the 'Le Paradis massacre', so that would seem the convention. I am still waiting (hoping) for images, or else I will have to try and do it myself.
Other points I would like to add, I have a quote from Pooley on his events of the massacre, but it is all used in the article, so it would basically just be repeating it. Is it worth putting it in? And...damn, I had something else to say but it has gone out of my head as I was typing. Well, thanks for your response. And thanks for the praise! :) Mattyness (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have cited the whole article, although I have not yet cleared up the references and notes sections. I would really appreciate some more feedback. Mattyness (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin edit
Quite nice, overall; just a few minor issues that I noticed:
- The footnotes don't seem to actually show up anywhere; you're probably missing a
<references/>tag. - The "See also" section should be eliminated, if possible. It shouldn't be too difficult to link most or all of these terms from the text. (Totenkopf was indeed a part of the Waffen-SS, if I'm not mistaken.)
- The long quotes in the trial section should use blockquote formatting, and should ideally be cited directly.
Keep up the good work! Kirill 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)