Talk:Duquesne Spy Ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
An entry from Duquesne Spy Ring appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 May 2007.
Wikipedia
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Seal
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject FBI.
Department of Justice Seal
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance
Archive
Archives
/AfD debate (result:speedy keep)


Contents

[edit] After Jail

fascinating...but what happened to these people after they got out of jail? - Diana

Duquesne died in 1956 while in prison at Welfare Island. One source states that all others were paroled by 1951.Ctatkinson 06:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Though the pictures are nice, it would be better if they could be better aligned with the paragraphs that describe them.RSido 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • They line up OK if you view at a resolution below about 1024 x 768. Anything wider than that and you run into trouble. It might be overkill to add <br style="clear:both;"> after each person to force a break. - Gobeirne 04:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentences

The longest sentence for spying for the Nazis was 16 18 years. Jonathan Pollard got life for spying for an ally, Israel! Too Old 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • There must be a problem with your source. Fritz Duquesne and Herman Lang both received 18 year sentences on espionage; Carl Reuper, Paul Scholz, and Franz Stigler each received 16 year sentences. All 5 of these men were convict Nazi spies and members of the Duquesne Spy Ring. Ctatkinson 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Registration Act

The article states that Duquesne received 2 years for violation of the "Registration Act," but the only such acts with Wikipedia articles are from Ireland and X-Men respectively. Anyone have any information on this act, perhaps enough to throw up a stub? -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like the full name and link were given later in the article. I changed it so the first instance of "Registration Act" gives the act's full name and the link, and added a disambiguation notice to Registration Act. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copied material in article lacks proper referencing.

This article seems well-written and for the most part well-sourced. However, two references suggest material in article is copied from a published source ("incorporates text from"). Whether the 2 sources are public domain or not, such material needs to be referenced properly: copied text needs quotation marks and in-line citations. Currently, the good work of wikipedia editors to write other text in the article is insulted, as it is not separated from the improperly sourced copied material. Why not identify the copied text, put it in quotes and source it properly. Then the tags about incorporating text from public sources would not be needed. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This question is already archived in the Village Pump discussion in May 2007 -- plesae review this article's archived page. To quote Dhaluza:
"Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record."
----71.178.240.70 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you please provide a specific link to that archived discussion? There are multiple May 2007 Village Pump archives, I am noticing. And, it would be nice if u would log in and sign your posting. doncram (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Rating of Article / poor referencing issue. Downrate again, explained here.

The bulk of the article is 33 profiles of individuals in the spy ring, with photos for each. This text and photos appears to be cut and pasted entirely from a source given in the article. I compared the 200+ word passage for Paul Fehse, one person picked at random, and find no differences between the article and the source. The source is noted, which is better than not noting it, but the fact that its exact wording is copied is not properly credited, as the copied words are not put in quotation marks or block quotes. Or, perhaps better, the article should be short and should include an external link to the available source. As it is now, this is bad referencing, in my view, and should make the article fail the WP:MILHIST B-CLASS-1 rating of the quality of its referencing. So I am downrating it on this point and dropping it from B-Class rating. Please don't change the rating without performing some analysis of the article yourself and considering what I have put forth here. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Before downgrading, please review the May 2007 discussion that resulted in this article's speedy-keep. To quote the decision:
"The result was speedy keep. The subject of basis on this nom has been discussed at the village pump. The result of the discussion was that all federal government information is under the public domain, making the premise of the nom invalid. Put simply by Mangojuice: "it's free content, used properly with attribution, and the topic is certainly encyclopedic."
----71.178.240.70 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is helpful to consider previous discussion (although specific link to the AfD discussion would help, as would signing your post). Although I haven't found the AfD discussion, it seems to me that you are reciting argument against deletion of the article for its lack of originality or whatever, which does not seem to address the issue of quality rating of the article within WP:MILHIST. Specifically I believe the article does not meet the B-Class-1 referencing standard within the WP:MILHIST's B-class rating criteria set, and I raised that to the Talk page of WP:HIST, in general terms and in specifics with respect to this article. That discussion was recently archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 73#Copied material in Military History articles, and quality ratings. Additionally, I now notice peer review sometime after the AfD which provides support for the downrating, in reviewers' concerns about the referencing. All these support my having downrated the article from B to Start within WP:MILHIST. doncram (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The AfD discussion was archived and it can be found in the archive above. Before taking punitive actions against this article, please review the AfD discussions already held on this subject:
"Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record. Dhaluza (talk09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"
-- Ctatkinson (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)