July 2007
- 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 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Self-nomination. This article details a critical event in modern history. I have used a variety of scholarly sources to document it, especially the two most respected sources in English on Hitler, those by Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw. I have sourced almost every factual statement in the article, and strove to cover all significant points even-handedly. Although I have dramatically overhauled the article, I did it after responding to constructive criticisms of a number of editors. It has been peer reviewed by four or five established editors (see discussion page). It also passed GA status on its first nomination. I have also examined the article for WP:MOS adherence. Again, this is an important subject, and it deserves to be a FA. I welcome any suggestions on how to further improve this article.--Mcattell 01:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are there any web refs available?Rlevse 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are a couple of websites that deal with the subject matter. One is so throughly erroneous (meaning contradicted by written sources by professional historians) I didn't include it in the external sources area. One is adequate, but does not deal with the subject as well as any of the books do. Some of the major books cited have been scanned and available on the web at Amazon.com, through the "Search Inside" feature. If you search for "purge" or "knives" in the book, you can get to the material that deals with the subject matter. Hope this helps. --Mcattell 13:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Print based material is always preferred over web based material, so good job on using book sources. LuciferMorgan 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Night of the Long Knives represented a turning point in the conduct of German government. From then on, it was clear that the Nazi Party was in unquestioned control of the state, that Hitler was in control of the Nazi party, and that both were fully prepared to use brutal violence to accomplish their political objectives. - Would you say this is a viewpoint commonly held by scholars who've studied the event, or are there historians who hold a differing view as to the significance of this event? LuciferMorgan 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
That sentence was one of the few that have remained intact from the article of several months ago, and probably needs to be revised. I will revise within the next twelve hours.--Mcattell 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, as I was just curious as to whether historians wholly agree on that or if they have differing arguments (as you know, historians tend to emphasis certain events and motives etc.). LuciferMorgan 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Y Done: I limited the concluding paragraph to statement that adheres to the broad consensus of historians of the era.--Mcattell 23:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it's a broadly held opinion by historians, then I proclaim my Support. Good work, and I hope you lend your talents to other Nazi events like the Reichstag Fire or Kristallnacht - I find it an interesting period of history. LuciferMorgan 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - Article is very well-written and informative, discusses an important topic, has many reliable references, and has images that greatly add to the article (with detailed rationales for the two fair use images). that require such).
Upon reading the article, I had a few minor concerns:
- Wording - as the German courts and parliament, or Reichstag - Is clarification of "Reichstag" necessary? This is a fairly familiar term for most people, and people who would like to learn more about it can easily click on the link. If clarification is necessary, I would think it should go after the prominent wikilink, such as: as the German courts and Reichstag, or parliament. The same goes for the sentence about the Reichswehr, though I'll admit this is a less familiar term that may be in need of clarification. Y Done
- Link to Reichstag - The wikilink in the article for Reichstag directed the user to the dab page for Reichstag. I fixed the link, and it now directs to Reichstag (institution), but possibly the Reichstag (building) article would also be appropriate. Anyway, as the dab page is clearly not the intended redirect, I went ahead and changed the link.
- Quote - "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" he wrote. - Not a grammar expert, but wouldn't He wrote, "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!" or "A chancellor sentences and shoots members of his own private army!", he wrote be more appropriate? Y Done
- Online links - I know it has already been mentioned above that there are no online refs available, but are there absolutely no websites that give non-contradictory information that could be used as external links? A few external links would add to the article and give readers the chance to go outside Wikipedia and get more information.
-
- There is a website called "Spartacus International" that used to be in external links, but I removed it because most of what is written there is flat-out wrong. Not only that, but it's just stub. In fact, the site seems to implicitly excuse Hitler by incorrectly minimizing his role. Just a few examples from that site:
-
-
-
- "Many were shot as soon as they were captured but Hitler decided to pardon Roehm because of his past services to the movement." That's completely untrue. No historian that I have ever read mentions anything about a pardon. It never happened. Why would Hitler even issue a "pardon" since the courts were never involved in the first place?
-
-
-
- "However, after much pressure from Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler, Hitler agreed that Roehm should die." False. Goering and Himmler wanted Rohm to die, but they did not have to pressure Hitler. Hitler made his own decision.
-
-
-
- "The purge of the SA was kept secret until it was announced by Adolf Hitler on 13th July." Again, flat-out wrong. As it is now correctly stated in the Wikipedia article, Gobbels made a radio address to the nation much earlier to try to squelch rapidly spreading rumors about the purge.
Most of the earlier entry on Wikipedia, from a few months ago, seems to have been simply cut and paste from this site. I won't object if somebody adds this site to the "External Links" section, but when a website contains such erroneous information I (IMHO) would prefer that Wikipedia not directly link to it, because it implicitly lends credence to the stub. In any event, I think that the subject of Nazism itself leads to more erroneous and disreputable sites than, say, the history of New Zealand, so we should choose external links with care. In any event, I did add links to Brittanica Concise, a free site, and to a site at the Holocaust Museum.Y Done--Mcattell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Overall, my concerns are minimal. This is a great article that is worthy of FA status. A job well done. Raime 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
I think that these are excellent points, and I will address them soon. Y Done Thanks for your help.--Mcattell 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think this is FA quality, I do have some small concerns.
- Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA) I wonder if the first few paragraphs need a little reorganization. The section starts in 1933 with Hilter's appointment and follows the next few month's political events. Then we jump back the 1920's and then focus in June 1932 how that violent month had influence on support for Hitler. Then we reintroduce Hitler's appointment and the political events following it and the rest of the section continues chronologically.
- Conflict between the army and the SA
- A combat veteran of the First World War, Röhm had recently announced that he would execute twelve men in retaliation for the killing of any stormtrooper. This sentence must have been moved around, because I cannot place what "recently" should be compared with. Also I am not sure who is killing SA members? the army? the communists in street brawls? This just seems out of context.
- Blomberg and many of his fellow officers regarded the SA as a plebeian brown-uniformed mob that endangered the position of the army as the sole repository of German military power. and Blomberg and others in the military saw the SA as a source of recruits for an enlarged and revitalized army. These statements seem contradictory, and it especially troubling because they are separated by a paragraph. I think the issue of how they could hold both views at the same time needs to addressed. Whether with "at worst, at best" or focusing on the first view being about an independent uncontrolled SA and the second view being their hope for the SA once brought to heel.
- In January 1934, Röhm presented Blomberg with a memorandum demanding that the SA replace the army as the nation's ground forces, and that the Reichswehr become a training adjunct to the SA. I still would like a little more background about this. What possessed Rohm to make such a move? Why did he think it would be supported? How did Blomberg immediately respond? Did anything happen between the memo and the meeting at the end of Feb.?
- Growing pressure against the SA:Good work on this section since the peer review. I think is much more informative now.
- By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision of a new German army with the SA at its core came into conflict with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the Reichswehr. Because their plans for the army were mutually exclusive, Röhm's success could only come at Hitler's expense. Considering we already covered the memo and the pledge this seems to be backtracking. It seems to me that after Rohm signs the pledge his "vision of a new German army with the SA at its core" is pretty much dead. If I am correct I think you need to do a little rearrangement here; memo, conflicting visions, and finally meeting resulting in pledge. If I am wrong, maybe you can clarify that Rohm did not plan on honoring that pledge or signed only because it was expedient. Or something else actually based on sources to reinforce that his vision held even after signing the pledge.
- and the hoped for (but never attained) command of the army for Göring. I find this very awkward, how about something like "and Goring saw the destruction of a chief rival for the future command of the army."
- Purge
- Enraged, Hitler tore the epaulets off the shirt of Obergruppenfuhrer Schneidhuber, the Chief of the Munich Police, and shouted at him that he would be shot. Is this the Chief of Munich Police a member of the SA? or was he supposed to have stopped the street violence? I am a little confused about how this ties in.
- Arriving back at party headquarters in Munich, Hitler addressed the assembled. Consumed with rage, Hitler denounced "the worst treachery in world history." The fact that no plot by Röhm to overthrow the regime ever existed did not prevent Hitler from denouncing the leadership of the SA. "Undisciplined and disobedient characters, and asocial or diseased elements," according to Hitler, would be annihilated. The crowd, which included many SA members fortunate enough to escape arrest, shouted its approval. Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself. Göbbels, who had been with Hitler at Bad Wiessee, set the final phase of the plan in motion. Upon returning to Berlin, he telephoned Göring with the codeword Kolibri to loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims This paragraph is a little problematic and lacks cohesion. "the assembled" needs to be clarified. The second and third sentence need to be combined somehow so you not talk of how Hilter wasn't prevented from denouncing the plot after a quote of him denouncing the plot. Is Hess at this assembly? Is Gobbels? Does the reaction of the assembly have an impact on Gobbels putting the purge in motion?
- Such relentless violence cemented the fearsome reputation of the Gestapo as the Nazis' secret police. I am not very skilled at grammar but this sentence doesn't sit well with me.
- Aftermath
- The army's support for the purge, however, would have consequences for the institution. This doesn't really say anything, what are "consequences for the institution"? consequences on it's independence? consequences on it's reputation?
- the later enormity of the Holocaust. Earlier "the commandant of the Dachau concentration camp" is mentioned. Is the Holocaust an ongoing or future event at this time?
- Tone:In the peer review one of my big concerns was tone. You have done a great job addressing that. There were two phrasing that still seemed overly dramatic to me.
- Germany's inter-war experiment with democracy, the Weimar Republic.
- loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims.--BirgitteSB 23:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support after some issues are addressed:
- In Aftermath, we read: Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Hitler had the cabinet approve a measure on July 3 that declared, "The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State." In the next paragraph, we read: In the following weeks, Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a conservative who had been Bavarian Justice Minister in the years of the Weimar Republic, demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by writing a law that added a legal veneer to the purge. It met no opposition in the Reichstag.
- These paragraphs read as though they are describing two different measures, while in fact they both talk about the same law passed by the Cabinet, the Gesetz über Maßnahmen der Staatsnotwehr of July 3, 1934. This should be cleaned up. (The paragraphs also contradict each other as to who provided the impetus for this law: Hitler or Gürtner?)
- Also, the legal citation for the law should be provided (RGB 1934 I, S. 529).
- Since Hitler had made the Reichstag pass the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed the Executive to enact laws, it apears superfluous to mention that the law met no opposition in the Reichstag. The Reichstag had already ceased to function as a legislative assembly, and I'm not eve sure whether it regularly met at all at this time.
- Instead of "as legally sanctioned", wouldn't be "as lawful" better? Sandstein 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- These are excellent suggestions, and I will address them within the next week. (I'm a little sick right now). --Mcattell 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support An engaging and articulate retelling of a fairly shocking series of events. Ceoil 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 21:04, 31 July 2007.
Self nomination A well rounded article deserving of WP:FA status as it meets the criteria for an FAC so I look forward to seeing this become the first philatelic FA.
A couple of Philately WikiProject editors have suggested this is the best quality "Postage stamps of ..." articles on Wikipedia and that it is likely of WP:FA quality. One editor said that we should aspire that all "Postage stamps of ..." articles should be of this depth and quality of content. As the primary editor of this article, sure I am biased, but I think objective too; I agree with them, considering it took more than 3 months to write, checking details from all the sources listed. On that point, my only concern is with the bibliographic references that are used as sources for many of the statements made. I wonder if these should not be inline but in doing that I suspect there would be no cleanly laid out books section? By way of background to my contributions you might look at a couple of my other recent major page edits, such as, Postal history and Letter sheet as well as my active work on the Philately Portal. ww2censor 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Object: My apologies, I'm skimming this and commenting on random bits:
Non-free images lack fair use rationale. The lead is insufficient. Why is there a blank section? (Exhibition souvenirs) Years seem to be overlinked (for my taste), yet I see complete dates that aren't linked. The word present links to 2006? Instead of "from 1922 to present", why not "since 1922", which avoids the issue altogether? I'd suggest something similar for the "now"s that link to June (!) 2007. Date ranges need en dashes, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). There are too many headings and subheadings for the current text. For example, "Postage dues" has many one-sentence subheadings. Pagrashtak 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up: I believe I have addressed all your concerns:
- The fair use rational for stamp is that unless there is a specific copyright permission they can only be used in articles about the stamps themselves. So all non-free images now include a statement that fair use is claimed as this an absolutely fair use because they are used in an article about stamps. That issue was talked about before where stamps were used in non-stamp articles but that is not the case here.
- The introduction was incorporated into the lead at some stage but I though that was too long in that form. I will take advise on that and be happy to join the lead to the intro if that would be preferred.
- Blank section removed - not very important in the overall view.
- Reduced year links to a bare minimum. I hope dates are now not "under-linked".
- Rephrased the "up to 2006/2007" per suggestion.
- Added emdash for the one date range.
- Reformatted several subheadings as bold text so they don't appear in the TOC and now the TOC is more compact, especially "Postage dues" ww2censor 21:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but "Absolutely correct Fair use in article Postage stamps of Ireland." is not a valid fair use rationale. You have to say why it qualifies for fair use under Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. As for the lead, Wikipedia:Lead section says that the lead should be able to serve as a stand-alone summary of the article. Do you feel this is the case? It's much better without the numerous year links, but full dates should be linked to allow date formatting, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The "since [date]" is better, but I still see the word now being linked to June 2007. This needs to be fixed also. Date ranges take en dashes, not em dashes. I didn't see the one you updated, but I saw a range that needs an en dash that didn't have one. The table of contents is better, but still needs work. You've got 19 primary sections—more than the primary and secondary headings of World War II combined! This is most likely indicative of a need for restructuring. Pagrashtak 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- 2nd follow up, You are a hard task master but I appreciate that. Sometimes noticing the small things too is what this is about.
- According to fair use of stamps they must be "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" and that is the case for all the images that are actually stamps, not labels. Also I refer to the Irish statutes for Irish Government copyright that states "Government copyright in a work shall expire 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made." So perhaps those images older than 50 years should be made into {{PD-stamp}}. I have also asked another, well experience administrator and philatelic editor to review the images in the article for me, so I will defer on those for the moment and leave you a post when I have revised the licensing, with fire-use rational or an other licence, depending on his suggestions. Do you suggest that I use the {{Non-free media rationale}} template anyway? Image licensing will be acceptable.
- Based on your suggestions regarding the TOC I have revised the sections to make more sense and reduce their number, moving around a few sections to make more sense IMHO. There are now only 7 main sections, four with subsections. As part of the TOC revision I have pulled most of the "intro" out into the lead section and feel it stands better than before giving a good overview of the topic. One problem I have is with the image placement in the lead section. Any advise on that?
- Dashes - I think I have found them all and edited as suggested.
- All full dates have been linked and all solo year dates unlinked.
- Found the last linked "now" date problem.
- ww2censor 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- All image licences have been revised in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and copyright of the images. There should now be no issue with them. ww2censor 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response. Although your heading changes simplified the TOC, they still chop up the text and make it hard to read. The text still has dash problems. Pagrashtak 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- 3rd follow up I think I reintroduced several dashes during my inline citation edits and forgot to alter them.
- The lead has been expanded.
- I think I found all the dashes now and replaced them with ndashes, if not, please tell me exactly where they are because they are hard to spot.
- The postage due and the stamp issuing authorities sections have been compressed without removing contents, so I hope you feel they flow better. Several of the subsection could be expended but only with detail that I don't think belongs here. Most of the sections have complete catalogues written about them, but this is not a catalogue, so unless I was to pad the sections I don't think there is much else I can add without seeming to be catalogue like. Each section in necessary and I cannot see a way of combining them without losing the individuality they require. More specific advise would be appreciated on how to achieve the layout you envision if it still lacks the construction you think appropriate.
- Thanks for the input. ww2censor 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I did find some minor copyedits which I fixed myself. The article seems generally to be thorough, comprehensive and well-referenced, with nice graphics, and I will be happy to support the nomination if the following can be addressed:
- Criterion 2d requires "consistently formatted inline citations" and I'd like to see a few more of these. I understand that for a subject like this there may be a lot of material coming from a handful of books, but I think five inline refs is too few.
-
- Done - There are now 30 inline citations, hopefully not too many but I think I have covered all the statements that might be questioned.
- In the Overprints section it states: "These stamps were issued and in use in Great Britain between 1912 and 1922." I assume this refers to the original GB issues without the overprinting? If so, this should be clarified.
-
- Done - copyedited to clarify. The un-overprinted stamps were issued and in use in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 1936
- In the Definitives section it states: "Some series changes are not just design changes but utilise a different watermark..." This is unclear to me; it implies to me that a watermark change alone would not count as a series change, but the article only seems to describe six designs (original, Gerl (should these be 1968-9?), Craig/Wildbur, Heritage/Treasures, Birds, Flowers). Is this because high-values have been counted separately, or should it say something like "Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved complete design changes..."?
-
- Done - copyedited to clarify. Two series changes involved only a change of watermark, but six involved a complete redesign, or changes necessary due to currency changes; sterling to decimal, and decimal to Euro. (I would love to rephrase with less use of the word "changes". Any ideas?)
- Later in that section, "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour and many different values were issued until stamps featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland were issued on September 9, 2004." I'm unsure what this means; should it say "The first definitives where all values were printed in full colour were issued on September 9, 2004, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland."?
-
- Done - copyedited to clarify. Irish birds feature in the 1997 stamps that span the changes of currency used from the Irish pound, through dual currency issues to the introduction of the Euro. These were the first definitives where all values were printed in full colour. On September 9, 2004, a new series was issued, featuring flowers native to the Woodlands and Hedgerows of Ireland.
- In the "Collecting" section, "more in response to a view of profit rather than the real function of the postal service" (and the section following that: this sounds like a POV (though I suspect it may be a valid one!). Can you provide an inline reference to substantiate this claim, which An Post might want to deny!
I love the picture of the watermark! Walkerma 07:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done - removed possible POV text as I cannot immediately find a source.
- Follow up Thanks for the input. I like all of the copyedits that are mainly clarity and grammar related. And I though I could speak decent Hiberno-English! Thanks.
- One small issue is the addition of a "the" before ESB who I know prefer to NOT use a definite article in front of the name; as in, ESB, not the ESB, but I would let that go from a normal grammar point of view as it might be considered WP:NOR.
- I will try to address the other issues you mention in the next 24 hours if possible. I was wondering about the number of inline references but was worried about having too many to the same sources. One question in that regard. If I put a book in an inline ref, should it still be listed in the general reference material?
- Again thanks, I will leave you a message when I have addressed all your mentioned concerns. ww2censor 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't like dozens of cites from the same book, but sometimes it can be useful to have a few, at least. I confess to getting confused myself, the rules have changed so much (and there are different styles too!), but I'd suggest having two sections, as used in a recent FA, Mary of Teck (which you could perhaps emulate). I don't think you need 62 inline, though! The inline cites are mainly needed IMHO for (a) key pieces of information (like the date An Post began) and (b) controversial statements. One good way to look at it is to imagine someone else inserting the fact (and pretend you didn't know the fact) - would it look unsubstantiated, or seem like vandalism? Inline cites can also be helpful for very specific facts such as "There were XXYY Irish stamps released during the 20th century". You can put in different pages from the same book as footnotes; if you want to cite the same pages multiple times, use the ref name system (see Daspletosaurus refs 1, 7, 8). I usually take a look at what the newest FAs look like, see this list, and copy the best of what they do. If you need help with formatting, let me know. Walkerma 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- 2nd follow up Again thanks Walkerma for the input. I have annotated the specific issued mentioned individually. I understand you comment about too many citations from the same book and the worst I have is 4 from one book so hope that is not a problem. I looked some of the recent FAs to see the styles used and hopefully I have absorbed enough. I just wish I knew if there was a way of combining references to the same source when different pages are being referred to, not just several references to the exact same citation. Would appreciate your comments on the citations as well as the copyedits. It surprises me that no one else has weighed in on this yet. Is there a way to encourage people to get involved? Cheers & again thanks. ww2censor 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Support: All of my concerns have been very carefully addressed in admirable fashion, and I believe the article now meets the criteria. Thanks for taking the time to polish this article. Nice work. Walkerma 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Object—It's better. Polish? No, it fails 1a without a doubt. Let's look at the top.
- "issued by the stamp issuing authority"—oh ... can't we avoid this repetition in the opening sentence? And I didn't want to find another repetition in the very next sentence: "Ireland, Ireland". Then stamps, stamps, stamps, and other reps, including stamps, stamp, stamps again. I'm not saying that words can't be repeated, but it is an unfortunate feature of the text right throught the lead.
- Pity the opening para is one sentence.
- "chose to overprint the existing British stamps, with Irish text, to provide"—Does it flow better without the first comma? Remove the comma before "notable".
- "as well as with the production of eight designed series in the intervening years; nine series in all." These last four words are stuck at the end like a shag on a rock. The choice of a semicolon is questionable (an em dash would be better, but consider recasting?)
- Remove "many" and "some". When you say "were also produced", in addition to what? (Unclear.)
- "Styles of watermark"—pipe to the singular.
- "Irish-issued"—hyphen please, as for "stamp-issuing authorities".
I haven't even finished the lead; there's enough to occupy several good copy-editors for hours throughout the text. These were only examples. Tony 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up It's unfortunate, for me, that you concentrated exclusively on the lead because I just expended the lead a few days ago at the suggestion of User:Pagrashtak who reviewed this WP:FAC first. Anyway, Since your comments, I have copyedited it based on your comments and have done the same for the rest of the article and hope your critical eye will not be displeased.
- You are correct about the excessive use of the word stamp/s, but what other word is there to use? Unless you are an experienced philatelist you would not know the term adhesive label as an alternative, but I have tried to reduce its use as much as possible. Other words that reappear often are: issue or issued and series, but again I have tried to reduce their use and vary the words and make their use less repetitive.
- Revised the one sentence first paragraph
- Recast the "nine series" sentence
- "Were also produced" has been clarified with additional explanatory text
- In my copyedit I have attempted to address all your comments about the lead - hopefully the initial bad taste you got has been tempered, if not gone, and you can give the article, with the revised lead, your once over even if you do have some critical yet constructive suggestions at the end.
- Thanks for your time ww2censor 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. I got interested in this one and spent a bit of time working on the copyediting. I hope it's a lot cleaner now, with some paragraphs a bit clearer. I can't judge the content, so this is perhaps not a very strong support, but I think it's well-structured and appears thorough, and is sufficiently well-cited. I think the prose is professional though not brilliant. Overall a fine article. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment to my oppose—I disagree with the previous reviewer: the prose is barely acceptable and not professional. I took a sample from the middle: "Postage stamps: Overprints". I shouldn't be so easily able to find glitches if this is promotable.
- "... in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1912 and 1922 and continued in use in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until ...." Why do we need the same link twice in same article, let alone the same two lines? Isn't it the United Kingdom of ...?
- "the final, high value, stamps were issued."—Remove the comma after "value" and hyphen "high value" (see MOS).
- "In 1922, as an interim measure, before the first specially designed definitives were ready, a series of ..."—Remove the halting, unnecessary comma after "measure".
- Second para, Feldman states (direct quote)—attribution please.
- "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." "Several" isn't very encyclopedic. Either name a few as examples, provide the number ("at least three") and/or provide a reference.
- Third para—"The Provisional Government of Ireland (Irish Rialtas Sealadach na hÉireann) overprints were initially issued on February 17, 1922 with eight low value and three high value stamps being overprinted by Dollard and four stamps overprinted by Thom." Again, hyphens required (and there's another required in the subsequent para—you locate it). Why is "Irish" in italics (twice)? "Being" is ungrammatical and awkward; remove it?
This article should be an FA, but can't be until fresh eyes go through it and fix up the prose. Tony 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Some prose problems.
-
- "Registered envelopes have appeared in many different values and sizes." - "different" is redundant, "have appeared in many different values" is ungrammatical
- "Between 1963 and 2000 a small number of philatelically influenced items are known produced by six different users."
- "Stamps of the period may have the watermark in any of several different states of inversion" - "in any state of inversion" may be better
- "1922-23 First Definitive Series" - en dash needed
- "1 shilling airmail stamp - Vox Hibernia" - en dash needed
- Judging by a Google search, "un-overprinted" is usually unhyphenated
- Full dates in the footnotes should be wikilinked. Epbr123 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up: Thanks Epbr123 for the comments. I have corrected all the prose problems you mentioned, except for the Vox Hibernia en dash. Nowhere have I seen an en dash used for this. Neither the stamps themselves (look at the image in full size), nor ANY of the Irish stamp catalogues used as sources in the article show an en dash. Also a newsletter (06/2006 issue 13) produced by the current stamp issuing authority, An Post, has two pages given over to the airmail stamps. It does not use an en dash either. You can view the pdf here or link to it from this web page. Hope you agree with that veiwpoint but I would consider changing it if you convince me. If you see any other problems please let me know. Thanks ww2censor 02:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, either an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash should be used. The same applies to this sentence: "The designs feature the Flight of the Angel Victor - Messenger of St. Patrick - carrying the Voice of the Irish Vox Hibernia" Epbr123 10:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I don't mean Vox Hibernia should be hyphenated. Epbr123 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I misunderstood your Vox Hibernia en dash comment, but it is done now and I found one other one elsewhere. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- All fixed. Epbr123 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of my (SandyGeorgia) concerns, now all addressed
*
Comment.
There's a problem with the TOC and image layout per WP:LEAD. Bolding is used incorrectly in sources (see WP:MOSBOLD), book titles are correctly italicized automatically in cite templates, and no extra formatting is needed. External links might need review and pruning per WP:EL and WP:NOT. Dashes on date ranges are incorrect and some words that should be hyphenated use endashes (mid-1960s should be a hyphen, not an endash; see WP:DASH). If these items are corrected, and prose objections (above) are struck, pls ping me and I'll support.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up
- I am not sure what your specific concern is about the TOC and image layout. After re-reading the WP:LEAD but cannot see anything that the current setup contravenes. Please explain more fully.
- Bold book titles have been revised per WP:MOSBOLD.
- The external links could possibly have the catalogue publishers removed but besides those I cannot justify removing any others. Do you agree? (before I actually remove any)
- Dashes have been reviewed and edited as appropriate. If I have missed any please let me know.
- The prose objections are nearly finished. Just one specific concern needs checking before finishing (hopefully) final edits.
- Thanks for the review. ww2censor 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- On the TOC and the image, WP:LEAD says, "The table of contents... appears between the lead section and the first headline;" WP:MOS#Images says "Start the article with a right-aligned image. " The layout of your lead is non-standard, as you've forced the TOC to the right and the image to the left.
-
- I have moved the TOC to the left and image to the right, BUT, I think it looks terrible. The image belongs that bit further down the lead where it was and now there is a huge white space between the TOC and the right margin which really irritates me, but if MOS guidelines require it to be this way, then so be it. I prefer the previous layout !
- On External links, I do believe you should lower the linkage to stamp catalogues, per WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Are any of those sites commercial ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, actually they are commercial sites, but who else makes stamp catalogues except stamp catalogue publishers? However, most are wikilinked in the article itself so that should suffice so they are gone
Another tip: your footnotes are made harder to read than necessary by the repeated information. It's only aesthetics, but they will be more readable (and your article will be more editable) if you change this (sample):
- ^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 22.
- ^ Feldman, David (1968). Handbook of Irish Philately. Dublin, Ireland: David Feldman & the Dolman Press, p 21.
to this, throughout (sample):
- ^ Feldman (1968), p 22.
- ^ Feldman (1968), p 21.
This will also shorten the article in edit mode, making it easier to edit, as you can use the cite templates once only (in the Sources); cite templates really chunk up article size. This is not an objection: just a suggestion.
-
-
- Funnily enough I was going to combine these two Feldman ref, as they irritated me too, into one ref because they are sequential pages, but this is one of the few refs that follow one another in the {{reflist}}. I might take on the suggestion and do a reduced ref for those that are listed in the sources.
- Actually for now, I don't think so. I had a look at reducing the inline refs per your suggestion but as I am using the cite book tags, this requires the title in each tag, it think all the references need to be rewritten completely to achieve that layout, so for now I think I will leave them alone and remember for the future. As you said, it is a suggestion not an objection, so that's it for the moment. Thanks ww2censor 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Struck everything, a few minor notes left on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that prose objections are all struck; ping me after you've gotten through this, and I'll support.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's much better written now (particularly the reduction in irritating repetitions), and I won't stand in the way of promotion. But I do find little issues still. Such as ...
- What is a "semi-state" organisation? I'm suspicious that this is really code for a restructured organisation still under total control of the state. If it's governed by an act of parliament, and is not privately capitalised, it's a state organisation. Can you clarify?
-
- I found a wikilink to clarify this.
-
- "The spelling ERIE for ÉIRE could be due to hasty preparation though this is a correct, old Irish, spelling." "may have been due to hasty preparation, although this is ?the correct ..." (Please note the changes; in particular, was there one old I spelling, or a number: "a" or "the"?)
-
- Rephrased to clarify
-
- "had control of" = "controlled".
-
- Done
-
- "nine Irish definitive stamp series"—definitive? Is this a standard philatelic term? Ah, I think it is, so I hope it's glossed on first occurrence ...
-
- This is linked in the 3rd sentence of the lead.
-
- There's a lot of "due to". Tony 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I will reduce incidence of "due to" later today.
- There is still one issue from your previous comments that I want to address. It is the "Several specialised philatelic books and exhibits have concentrated on this topic." sentence.
- Thanks for taking the time to review. ww2censor 14:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Revised the instances of "due to". Also rewrote "Several specialised philatelic books" and removed exhibits as I cannot immediately verify exhibits, so could be regarded as POV. ww2censor 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose The final section, about stamp collection, is severely undercited, as there are only three citations in 4 (or 5, if you count the single sentence) paragraphs. There are passages about the history of commemorative stamps that, for all I know, are completely made up. Two full paragraphs have no references at all. -- Kicking222 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Follow up: Have added some extra inline citations for this section. Hope you approve. Any other issues please post here. Thanks ww2censor 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Change to weak support. As mentioned above, the prose is not perfect, but now that my main issue has been mostly resolved (that last paragraph is still uncited, but there's not much that really has to be cited- with that said I would prefer something there), I think the prose is sufficiently decent, in combination with the other aspects of the article, to warrant featured status. -- Kicking222 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Done--Mcattell 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)