Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chaplain–Medic massacre/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:21, 6 November 2011 [1].

Chaplain–Medic massacre

edit

Chaplain–Medic massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 01:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check

  • Alt text: Present on all photos (no action req'd)
  • Dab links: None (no action req'd)
  • External links: Okay (no action req'd)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Supported for MilHist A-Class and, having reviewed changes since and tweaked a couple of words, just about ready to support here after I've done a spotcheck of one or two sources. In the meantime, one query on prose:

Comment: Can I just say this is an excellent example of the application of a range of appropriate sources when discussing a controversial topic.

I think the lead could do with the "unarmed" concept being dealt with more explicitly. After all, it is central to why this particular incident is important. It notes that the chaplain and medic were "unarmed" but the phrase "non-combatant" (particularly if you can make it in reference to the group as a whole), probably linked, would be helpful.
I also think that the "North Korean response" section could do with perhaps one more view (if it adds something) and the clarification of where the phrase "uncontrolled small units, by vindictive individuals, or because of unfavourable and increasingly desperate situations confronting the captors" comes from (since it has two citations). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Ed!(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - Copyscape searches have revealed some matching phrases with this webpage. These are:

  • "transmitted an order pertaining to the treatment of prisoners of war signed by kim chaek commander in chief and"
  • "by uncontrolled small units by vindictive individuals or because of unfavorable and increasingly desperate situations confronting the captors"
  • "there is no evidence that the north korean high command sanctioned the shooting of prisoners"

Unless there is an explanation that I have missed, these phrases need to be recast and the webpage in question cited if it has been used as a source for the article. (Sorry I see Appleman is cited) Graham Colm (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is directly quoted, the other two not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the last two to the paged noted (A public domain source book) —Ed!(talk) 23:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I think the issue here is not simply lack of attribution (which you've rectified) but directly using the words of the source without quoting -- from memory this applies even if the source work is public domain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I have reworded both phrases since it doesn't seem practical to quote them. —Ed!(talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're in hyper copyright paranoia mode at the minute, and vigilance is certainly no bad thing, but three phrases lifted word for word is not copyright violation (especially if the source is in the public domain!). Even if there were an issue with it (which, legally, there probably isn't), it would be covered under fair use. It's copying chunks of (copyrighted) text and presenting it as one's own work that causes legal issues (though moral issues are more subjective). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the US law on intellectual property rights, so how do we know that this source is in the public domain? Is it out of copyright or has the copyright been forfeited? Where is the evidence for this. Graham Colm (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a publication created by the US Government, by a government employee in the course of his duties. By US law it is automatically public domain. —Ed!(talk) 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that even if the material were copyrightable, the author wouldn't have a legal claim against User:Ed! that any copyright lawyer would be willing to take ... nevertheless, on Wikipedia, and particularly at FAC, some reviewers will oppose over long strings of copied words like these, and the delegates are going to fervently agree. And ... although I don't like all the drama over this issue, I do agree that not noticing that you're copying something word for word, or noticing but not realizing that it's going to cause problems at FAC, as often as the issue has been brought up, is not a good sign. We can do better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on most of that—being paranoid (or proactive, to use a term with less negative connotations) is our best defence. However, ~50 words in a ~2.5k-word article is, at the absolute worst, fair use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it wasn't declared fair use (in an edit summary) and it raises doubts, at least in my mind, wrt the integrity of the rest of the article. Graham Colm (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two unsourced "copies" are half sentences so unsubstantial it's almost laughable the time they have wasted. There is no copyvio in the article. Respectfully, I'm not interested in responding to non-actionable "bad feelings" about the work. —Ed!(talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed has responded to the above actionable points and, having spotchecked another of his articles recently which showed no such copying, I'm not assuming something endemic. Ready to support as my comments on the article have been dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did come across as paternalistic there, sorry. I'll back off. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status report: needs image review and spotchecks. I think it will be helpful to get opinions on how much of the material in the Background section is relevant to the massacre. The A-class review was almost a year ago. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. background, it's always debatable how much we need in articles when there are links to other pages that can fill things in. However the US division involved is mentioned in the exposition so it didn't strike me as irrelevant. I wouldn't object if it was trimmed a bit but I don't think it harms the article as is -- I was prepared to support with the background section intact and still am. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. No fixes yet. [Btw, I have no problem with the strategy of waiting to see if someone else will come along to help you deal with reviewers' comments ... collaboration is good. But at FAC, standard operating procedure is to ask questions, make comments, and at some point, oppose if things still don't look right.] - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. except for the Background section, which I haven't copyedited. The level of detail doesn't seem right to me; I wouldn't expect to start every WP:OPNORMANDY article with an explanation of how Hitler invaded Poland. But I'm not happy trimming it myself until and unless there's support for my position. I've tightened up the Background section, and I'm now comfortable supporting on prose; I trust the reviewers to make good calls on what's needed here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: I'm happy to support this for FA. I've made a couple of minor tweaks, which you may wish to review. One question that I wasn't able to resolve was whether it should be "machine gun" or "machine-gun". The article uses both. In Australian English "machine-gun" is correct, but I'm not sure about US English. Could someone in the know please check and make this consistent? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support Comments Not quite ready for prime time, I'm afraid. I found the narrative confusing in a couple of places, and some rough or inconsistent writing here and there. I've attempted to list my issues below. I would be happy to support if these are answered or addressed.

  • Unsure of the value of linking "roadblock". Certainly not jargon?
    • Actually it is jargon ... follow the link, and you'll see in the first paragraph that it's used in battle to indicate stationing of troops, rather than the usual meaning, which could include a tree falling across the road. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The timeline of the narrative in the last para of the lead is a bit unclear. Was the commission established during the war, or established later, to investigate war crimes that occurred during the war? Clarifying that will then clarify when the North Koreans established stricter guidelines.
    • Agreed that the lead is unclear on the point. The text makes it clear both were during the same month the incident occurred; I'll rewrite.
  • "Problematically, U.S. forces in the Far East had been steadily decreasing since the end of World War II, five years earlier." Decreasing "in number" might be more clear.
    • I can't fault this recommendation because "number" is so commonly used ... although I think it sounds a little bit better at the front, and I changed it to "Problematically, the number of U.S. forces ...". OTOH ... what else could "decreasing" mean here? The troops weren't getting shorter.
  • "These American soldiers, most of whom had experienced only occupation duty in Japan and no actual combat, were inexperienced and unprepared compared to the more disciplined North Korean units." Here you seem to say twice that the soldiers were inexperienced.
    • Thx much for catching the "experienced ... inexperienced" jingle. I removed "inexperienced and" as you suggested.
  • In the Background section, you never explain why "the United Nations committed troops" and yet the narrative covers exclusively American troops.
    • Added "available to support this effort".
  • "There, it was reinforced by South Korean troops from the Republic of Korea Army." As opposed to troops of what nationality from the Republic of Korea Army?
    • Oops. Removed "South Korean".
  • "a large build-up of North Korean troops on the other side of the river" Be more precise here (north side, west side, etc.).
  • "Stretched thin, the 19th Infantry was unable to hold the line at the Kum River and simultaneously repel the North Korean forces." The word "simultaneously" probably needs to be before "hold".
    • That would change the meaning to make either goal equally probable. The current wording makes it clear that it was a given that they wanted to hold the line, but unfortunately that meant that they couldn't also repel the North Koreans.
  • You are not consistent with "U.S." and "US".
    • Ugh. Fixed.
  • "classifying them as noncombatants under international law." Doesn't read smoothly. This is a modifying phrase, but what is it modifying?
    • I knew someone would say that :) But I thought it would be someone who cited WP:Checklist#dangling back to me and asked why I was violating the checklist! IMO, there's only one possible thing "classifying" can be modifying, namely, the previous clause, "neither of the two nor any of the wounded were carrying weapons". If you can find another possibility for what it might be modifying, I'll add some words ... but then there's a chance someone will drop by and tell me the new version is redundant. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Changed my mind ... I know that potentially dangling participles offend some people, and there's usually a way to rewrite, I'll rewrite. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tidied up a bit. Thanks for your help, Dank. —Ed!(talk) 12:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. Everything looks good—I have switched to support. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Ed and Andy. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chaplain–Medic_massacre/archive1&oldid=1136098456"