Talk:Partisan Congress riots

Copy edit

Hi Buidhe. Bad luck - you got me. As usual, I shall be on the bold side with my copy editing. As usual, don't hesitate to flag up here anything you don't see the reason for or disagree with - or if I twist a source. Or if I write garbage, just revert it. As you have specified FAC I shall also throw in, entirely free of charge, occasional passing comments more suited to a FAC review. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• "regardless of whether the original owner was deemed worthy" I am really struggling to work out what this means.
  • Removed. I guess I was trying to highlight a difference in viewpoint: (in general) non-Jews wanted to distribute property according to the merits of the person (whether they were a partisan or veteran, etc.) while Jews tended to focus on the legality/morality of the transaction, and wanted to negate Aryanization for that reason.
• "identifiable groups assaulted Jews on various streets" What's an "identifiable group"?
  • I'm not entirely sure, so I took this out.
• "Kapucínska and Zámocká" Are these streets, Jews, or identifiable groups?
  • Streets, clarified
• "was an annual gathering for Slovak partisans which took place 2–4 August 1946" It can't be an annual gathering if it [only] took place in 1946. (And how long a tradition did it have by the year after the war ended? If it was the second, it might be pushing it to call it annual, even if we now know that that is what it developed into.)
  • Removed "annual" and reworded.
• "On the night of 31 July/1 August (Wednesday/Thursday)[37] or 1 August/2 August (Thursday/Friday)" If the date is unclear then a note as to why may be helpful.
  • I removed the first reference, since I realized that Cichopek may not be referring to the same incident as the other sources.
• "Jews present were assaulted and 15,000 Kčs was stolen" That seems lot. Was that what the Jews robbed happened to have on their persons?
  • Not as much as it seems (I've added currency conversions into USD.) The source isn't clear but I think it refers to money that was held by the kitchen, e.g. for buying food.
• "Jews were attacked on the streets, especially Leningradská and Laurinská" I think that you need to somehow indicate that the last two are streets. (I assume they are streets.) I am not sure how.
  • Added "Streets" at the end, although this is a bit clunky it avoids any confusion.
• Quotes: note the second sentence of this from the MoS "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". (My emphasis.)
  • I went back through and added some attribution. If there are any cases which
• "The police and other partisans" This assumes that all of the police were partisans. Was this so? If it was, have we already been informed of it?
  • I meant other than the partisans who were rioting. I made an edit here which hopefully clarifies.
• "Frischer responded with more appeals to the Czechoslovak authorities" Just checking that you don't mean 'Slovak authorities'.
  • Yes, he was located in Prague so he could appeal to the federal authorities.
• "and insulted two of them" "insulted" or assaulted?
  • Insulted is correct.

@Buidhe: That's my first rough run through completed. If you could give some thought to the points above, I'll then have another go, incorporating as necessary any of your responses and picking up bits I missed first time. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• • @Gog the Mild: Thanks so much! Your edits were really helpful. buidhe 09:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

    Buidhe, I was planning on taking a second run at this later today. Just checking as to whether you would still like me to, or whether the copy edit job is done so far as you are concerned? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

    Gog the Mild, That would be most appreciated! Thanks again. buidhe 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. That's me done. A really good article. I leave you with the thoughts below.

• " national administrators" are repeatedly mentioned, including in the lead. I think that some explanation - if only a bracketed "managers" - is needed if a reader is to understand this. Although "their gains" makes me think that it was some sort of quasi-ownership[?]
  • Added footnote
• "advocated for the rights of survivors" Possibly link to Holocaust survivors.
  • Done
• Should most of the mentions of "partisans" be changed to 'former partisans'?
  • Done
• "two grenades had been thrown into the Jewish community offices"; "when two grenades were thrown into Pavol Weiss' house, where three Jewish families lived, without causing injury" Did they explode?
  • It's not clear. The source only says that there were no injuries from this incident.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your edits, which have really helped this article. buidhe 21:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that one of the men who robbed František Hoffmann's apartment during the Partisan Congress riots left behind his Czechoslovak Medal of Merit?
  • ALT1:... that the Czechoslovak authorities denied that partisans were responsible for the Partisan Congress riots, instead blaming Hungarians and "reactionary elements"?
  • ALT2:... that the Slovak authorities suspended restitution to Holocaust survivors after the Partisan Congress riots because many partisans were unhappy returning property that they had obtained to the original Jewish owners?

• Reviewed: María Antonieta Rodríguez Mata
• Comment: Sources in article, mostly open access (if you read Slovak)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 06:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC).

• New enough. Long enough. Sourced. Can you please source the hooks? --evrik ^(talk) 04:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Evrik, As it says in the article, Bumová 2007, p. 18. for ALT0, Bumová 2007, pp. 23–24. for ALT1 (this is also discussed in several other sources), and see Bumová 2007, p. 21. and Cichopek 2014, pp. 105–106. for ALT2. buidhe 14:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Buidhe It is customary to add a citation behind your hook. Please do so, I don't read Slovak. Thanks.--evrik ^(talk) 19:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: as you can see, I provided the citations, so I have no idea what he wants. buidhe 04:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the hooks above, I see no sources. --evrik ^(talk) 04:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• evrik, what matters is whether the sources are in the article where the text relevant to the hooks are, backing up the facts in the proposed hooks. It is not a requirement that these be duplicated in the hook listings here, just a nicety (though Buidhe has since listed them all just above, stating in her initial reply which is for ALT0, for ALT1, and for ALT2); indeed, some nominations list the sources next to the hooks but don't include them in the relevant article text, which is a problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I came by to review this nomination because it was languishing. While citing the hook may be a nicety, having to hunt to confirm the hook, in wasn't a language I don't read, wasn't working for me. Truthfully, I am not satisfied with any of the hooks, but Alt 2 is the best - though it needs editing to make it punchier and more concise. --evrik ^(talk) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe this would benefit from another reviewer. buidhe 20:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Doing... Buidhe (talk · contribs), I will do a full review of this nomination, and post here within 24 hours. Thanks in advance for your work. Flibirigit (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was moved from draftspace to mainspace on February 23, and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. Sourcing is complete with good usage of footnotes. Article appears neutral in tone. No plagiarism detected due to foreign language sources. Somes areas were flagged by the Earwig tool, but those were directly attributed quotes which is not plagiarism. All images in the article are properly licensed on the commons. Hooks are interesting to a broad audience, properly cited and mentioned in the article. AGF on sources. QPQ requirement is complete. DYK nomination is passed with no preference of hook. Flibirigit (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)