Talk:Elyesa Bazna/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• This article seems generally well-written and sourced, and I see no obvious reasons to fail it. I will review it in detail over the next few days. I will not be able to finish specific comments at one go, but feel free to address things as they come up, and hopefully we can get this through. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues with formatting that I can see

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool only flags quotes, which are all attributed. I will spot check book sources as I come to them, but I have no concerns on this score

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article is focused: what background is present is quite necessary

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues with neutrality

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No evidence of recent content disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images seem to be tagged appropriately

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

Life

• Rather dramatic title. Isn't the entire article supposed to be about his life? I'd prefer a slightly more descriptive "personal life" or "early life and family" or something like that.
  • It's now "Early and family life"  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• If he was born under a different name, perhaps that should be mentioned here.
  • Removed the birth name. I'm unable to find a reliable source, which came from the Russian WP per wikidata, so I commented out the name in the intro, because it has the pronunciation info, in the event someone finds a source. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Surely Kosovo was not Kosovo as we know it when Bazna was born? It was a part of the Ottoman empire, was it not? I see you have mentioned it early on, but I think moving it to the first mention of Kosovo would be better.

Updated the place of birth in Pristina, Kosovo Vilayet of the Ottoman Empire (now Kosovo).  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Likewise, the entity that we know as Turkey did not exist: what was it the father identified with?
  • The source said he identified with Turkey, but the point is he identified with the Young Turks. I removed it, because making that connection is OR and the Young Turks come up in the immediate following sentences. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Bazna's father gave Muslim lessons" is rather clumsy phrasing: certainly nobody teaches "Muslim". "Teacher of Islamic doctrine" or something similar would flow much better.
  • Updated to "teacher of Islamic doctrine"  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to why Bazna's words are being reported: surely a source gives the same info directly? Especially if we can report that he was caught stealing without using his words.
  • I am unable to open the book that I got this info, I get a 404 message, and I tried using Wayback, but there was no archived copy. What I could see, though, the search summary is "He said later that his father was a mullah, a Moslem holy man..." So, I changed the words from "Bazna asserted" to "Bazna asserted to others later in life..." Hopefully that works. Seems  Done, but it would be good to have input on that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would suggest using "in late 1943" or something like that in the text, and collecting the discrepancy in the time of hire into a footnote.
  • Edits made as suggested. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• "through the intervention of Albert Jenke, the brother-in-law of Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister." This is a rather confusing sentence: what sort of intervention? Since you discuss this in greater detail later on, perhaps leave out references to ribbentrop here, and just say he became a spy.
  • There is more explanatory information to help tie this together better. Looking at this, I realized that the info wasn't grouped together very well and reorganized it. It is now, more appropriately, in the "Becoming a Spy" subsection. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Is there any information about when his marriages occurred, or really anything further about wives and mistresses?
  • I was able to find out some more information about the mistresses in the Google books version of The Cicero Spy Affair: German Access to British Secrets in World War II, but a lot of the pages were hidden. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I ordered the book, but just noticed that it's coming from the UK and might not get here until the end of November. There is more information, though, now about his relationships. See if that's good enough for the GA. I'm sure I'll be able to find more info when the book arrives and will add it then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Turkey during World War II

• " The Allies tried to stop German purchases of chrome (used in making better steel)" this seems unnecessary detail (also incorrect, I think it's chromium that is used in steel).
  • Yep, you're right it was chromite ore for chromium. It's left in. 'Once I set up the economic interests that created the push-pull of it's relationships with the Allied and Axis powers, chromite ore exports and banking are important elements in why Turkey wanted to maintain its relationship with Germany. That connection wasn't at all clear in the earlier version. See what you think of it now. Not done--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The information in this section is well sourced and so forth, but as presented it's relevance is not clear. From what I know of this subject, it was Turkey's initial neutrality, and the fact that it maintained relations with both sides, that made it such a target for spies. I'Is it possible to rework this a little bit, to address the issue of relevance?
  • Yes, your suggestions really helped make this section significantly better than it was. See what you think of the current content. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Furthermore, as a standalone section it doesn't work too well. What I would suggest is the following: make it a level-three section (rather than level two), and move it inside the "Spy" section, and title it something like "Background: Turkey during World War II"
  • Ah, good! I've been fiddling with that, but didn't really like what I came up with. I love that suggestion!  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• If Turkey promised to enter the war in 1943, then why did it take two more years for them to do it? (This is mostly just curiosity).
  • A couple of things: It didn't want to choose sides until it had to, it's economic interests prevented it from moving faster on this, and it was afraid that the western Allies were going to push it into a war that would have it overrun by German and/or Russian armies. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Spy

• Again, I'd prefer a slightly less terse title: perhaps "espionage career."
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• That quote seems better suited to the end, in the "potential consequences" section, than the beginning of the espionage section.
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The level three heading "becoming a spy" is not, for some reason, visible in the read mode. It's also not really necessary.
  • Combined this section + activities section to make "Intelligence"  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The information about his linguistic skills seems out of place at the moment. It's relevance needs to be brought out a little more: surely his knowledge of French enabled his spying?
  • Yes, I consolidated the his language skills in the "Early and family life" section.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would incorporate the sentence about his singing into the personal life section (perhaps just after the mention of his hire by the British Embassy)
  • I moved his opera training and singing of German Lieders into the "Early and family life" section Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think the lengthy footnote at the bottom of the subsection would be worth paraphrasing and incorporating into the section: it is interesting, and relevant.
  • I'm not sure what note you meant here, but see my comments in the section about notes --CaroleHenson (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think every use of "Cicero" needs to be in quotes; the first one is enough.
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• "activities" would be more accurately titled "Intelligence"
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Once again, I think some of the content within the footnote about Bletchley park is worth incorporating into the main text: specifically, elaborating the idea that the British knew there was a leak, but were unable to pinpoint it. Alternatively, that entire paragraph (which I've placed at the top of the "activities" section" could be moved to the bit where you discuss Bazna's downfall.
  • I pulled out the info about the lead during Bazna's term of employment. The information about the prior leak is still in a note, and I addd a link to the point where Knatchbull-Hugessen's habit of bringing home papers is mentioned. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I think the "rightly skeptical" sentence needs clarification. As I understand it, Bazna was never a double agent, and the other double agents had not been discovered at the time that they were skeptical. I would phrase it something like "The Abwehr was right to worry about the presence of British double agents within their secret service..."
  • I used your language, I wasn't able to see into the article, but I found another source that has the content to support that statement.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• The gladwell citation (number 45) needs an accessdate to prevent linkrot
  • That edit was made. I also removed the url and accessdate from another citation that was used in a caption, it came from another site, is not found on Wayback Machine. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Malcolm Gladwell, author of Pandora's Briefcase, questioned whether he was telling the truth before he died or practicing his long-held habit of deception" It is unclear whether this sentence refers to Menzies or to Bazna. Also, are there any other secondary sources which comment on whether Bazna was in fact a double agent? I haven't heard this argument being made.
  • Edit made to Gladwell paragraph. I don't think that Bazna was a double agent - the point is, though, that Ribbentrop did and that kept Bazna's intelligence from being used more expeditiously and effectively by the Germans. I expanded that paragraph with that comment, so hopefully that helps. Wires gets into a discussion about this on page 137 of the 1999 edition of The Cicero Spy Affair: German Access to British Secrets in World War II See what you think. Done --CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Further, he says that Bazna having passed on the codeword for Operation Overlord to the Germans supports his theory." Why does this support his theory? Not clear at the moment.
  • I've updated the sentence to "Further, he says that Bazna having passed on "genuine", "important" intelligence and the codeword for Operation Overlord to the Germans supports his theory that Bazna was not a double agent." Operation Overlord's importance was stated earlier. I think the point is: if he had been a double-agent, why would he have passed on such important information. Side comment: The irony is that not much of it was actually used due to skepticism about him being a double agent. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• "The end" is again a rather overly dramatic title. How about "discovery"?
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Allen Dulles" should be linked, and the reason he is important needs mention.
  • Link made, his importance is the conveyance of information about a spy operating out of the British Embassy. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• When did Moyzisch hire Kapp? The chronology of that paragraph is unclear. Did she spy for the Americans, stop, and then start again?
  • I reorganized the section and put some of the content in a note. Hopefully the chronology of the section makes sense. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• "British intelligence gave the impression that it believed that Bazna could not speak English and furthermore was "too stupid" to be a spy" rather confusing sentence. Is this after they received Kapp's information?
  • I reorganized some of the sentences. See what you think. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• What became of the sting operation? You've mentioned its genesis but not its conclusion
  • Great catch, thanks! Nothing happened - and there are no details why not. There were statements that the forged documents were made on official paper and should have looked official, but they were not passed on. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• "Concern...was averted" does not seem to be grammatical, and also it would be interesting to see how.
  • Good point, it's reworded. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• You mention the plot to kill Churchill et al above: it seems to me it would be more relevant to the "consequences" section.
  •  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

• The last sentence is uncited
  • I removed it. From the comments "only evident sources are IMdB and a similar type of site http://www.turkcealtyazi.org/kadro/0151852/osvobozhdenie.html that have the title of the film series, actors name, and Bazna. There appears to be no source other source that ties "Bazna" or "Cicero" to this film series" It was just one episode in an article on the English WP. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• It would be interesting to know, if the information exists, how much the original story itself has been studied and reproduced. I came across the story for the first time in a book meant for children. This is dependent on the coverage existing, however. Question, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think all the films and books are mentioned in the article / used as sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes

• In my opinion, virtually all of the footnotes should be incorporated into the text. I see footnotes as the place for information that is not directly relevant, but is important to understand a specific sentence, or is otherwise interesting. Only the footnote about Kapp fits this criterion. There are also no length issues that would be created by doing this.
  • Take a look at this now, I have pulled out content from notes and into the body of the article. But, I have also added somethings into the notes section, due to discrepancies, reworking the Turkey at war section, etc. It seems to me that the items left in notes are appropriate. See what you think. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• As I've mentioned above, you could add a footnote removing the discrepency in Bazna's time of hire, and remove that from the main text. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• It would be interesting to have information on why Bazna was never prosecuted for anything besides using forged currency
  • The After the War section says that Bazna was interviewed by the intelligence he provided was "to be too old to be of much value to the Germans." There was never a charge leveled at Moyzisch during the Nuremberg Trials, which I added to the article. Maybe that provides context, if Moyzisch wasn't charged, why should Banza be charged? See what you think. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've copy-edited the lead and added some info, but it is still on the shorter side: if there is anything important missing, feel free to add it. Specifically, it would be useful to have a sentence or two about what information Bazna leaked.
• The caption of the image of Kolbe does not establish its relevance to the article, which it should. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Source check

• The text prior to cite 38 (which I chose at random to start with, but I'll be checking more thoroughly by and by) is not quite supported by the source (which does not mention instructions to Sir Hugh, does not say the threat will be maintained via Turkish airbases, and suggests that the occupation of those bases did not come from the same document)

If I have the right sentence, I am seeing that information there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"The intelligence provided by Cicero included a document instructing the British ambassador to request the use of Turkish airbases "to maintain a threat to the Germans from the eastern Mediterranean until Overlord is launched." The document carried the highest security restriction (BIGOT list).

• url for cite 5 does not seem to work.
  • I looked at this version, and citation 5 is this citation I have no idea why there is no preview of that book any longer. I understand that does not rule out a citation, though, do you have a different understanding?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Cite 10 says he became valet in October, but also says he was chauffeur before: which possibly helps explain the time discrepency.
  • Yes, I think that Bazna having worked at the Embassy for Busk first caused some confusion. Some people may have misconstrued the dates he started working at the embassy for the date he started working as valet to the ambassador. I think you're right, he probably became a valet in October.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Cite 18 has nothing about Cakmak being replaced by Orbay: is that in cite 19?
  • I have no idea what was going on with that. I probably did get the bulk of the info from cite 19, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how I saw that. So, I found a new source and reworded to:

"Now that they saw the need to reach some accommodation with the Allies, the Turks replaced their army chief Fevzi Çakmak with Kâzım Orbay who was "more sympathetic to the Allies".--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• otherwise, sources that I have access to check out (I haven't checked all 66, but I've checked a good number: I'll check a few more as this is completed).

References

On hold

I'm going to place this on hold for two weeks, so that the concerns I have raised above can be addressed. I think they are substantial enough that I can't pass this right away, but not too large that they cannot be addressed. If more time is required, I am willing to be flexible, but two weeks of complete silence will force me to fail it, because it isn't fair to other nominators to leave this open indefinitely. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments

Regretfully, I have to close this as unsuccessful at this point. The nominator has not been active for several months, and I do not personally feel capable of of fixing the issues, partly because of source access. I have invited others to complete the improvements on the nominator's behalf, but nobody has responded. I think the points I have raised above should be more than enough to go on for now. If the improvements are completed and the article is sent back to GAN, feel free to ping me, and I will do my best to complete what should be a speedier review. Vanamonde (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, Sorry, yes I have been offline for quite a bit. Thanks so much for all your input! I will review your comments, make updates and resubmit soon, hopefully within the week.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson: That happens, no worries. Work your way through it and submit it when you're able. Still not completely sure about RL commitments, but I should be able to do the second review, which will hopefully be a bit quicker. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, Oh, thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson: You're welcome to use this review to structure your responses (I don't think there's a rule against that) but do remember that eventually you will have to renominate it and I will perform a second review, because I did close this one, and reopening might break some templates here and there. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to record feedback to your items. What would you do? Thanks so much for chiming in!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, this review page is transcluded to the talk page of the article, so you could just continue to respond here: I just wanted to warn you that a second review page will be necessary at some point. If it would make it simpler for you, you could nominate it, and I'll open the review and copy these items over: but that's not absolutely necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I know that a second review will be conducted. If it's ok to continue to put the comments here, I'd like to for tracking purposes. I was on a mobile device for a couple of day, but have my computer back again, so I'm going to be able to get more done now. Thanks so much for a thorough review!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, Hi, just a heads up that I'm getting close - it was quite a bit of work, and the article is much better for it. I want to copyedit and during the review of the article for copyedits, I will gather additional info for the intro. I'll work on that tomorrow. So, I will be reposting this on the GA page soon.

You did such a lovely, detailed assessment of the article and had great, pointed questions. I appreciate your input and your knowledge of the subject.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great! Let me know when you've nominated it, and I should be able to pick it up. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do, I wanted it to marinate a little bit longer before I edit it, I will do that tomorrow. The more distance, the more I pick up. Thanks so much for staying on this!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I renominated the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)