Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anschluss/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Anschluss
I only partly contributed to the article, however it has a good structure and features both historical events and a deeper analysis of the Anschluss. Themanwithoutapast 14:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Its a comprehensive and interesting article. However, I'm a bit sceptical with respect to the section Understanding the Word: Legacy of the 1938 Anschluss, which reads like a subjective assessment about issues that are still controversial. I would thus suggest that the article should first undergo peer review. Martg76 16:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- The issues are controversial, but attempting to assess them does not imply that their presentation is subjective. I have only recently replied to concerns of this sort on the discussion page — if you would care to state your objections more substantially with a view to improvements, please feel free to join either there or on the peer review page. I would also like to have peer review complete before putting the article up for assessment of the exmplarity of its virtues. Buffyg 12:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I already raised some concerns on the talk page around May 9 (although not in great detail), but when this page was suggested for featured status, I was surprised to find that my edits show up neither on the talk page nor in its edit history. I will try to make some more substantial remarks when I have more time at hand.Martg76 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- I took a look at the talk page because I had a vague recollection that you had made remarks previously, but I didn't see anything major. It is possible that someone accidentally clobbered your remarks by invoking edit against a previous version. If May 9 is the correct date, it is possible that any of the remarks made that day or since erased yours. I was a bit surprised to discover that this can cause subsequent edits to be lost; I would have that the versioning mechanism in wikipedia would have some way to handle potential forks like these... Buffyg 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I already raised some concerns on the talk page around May 9 (although not in great detail), but when this page was suggested for featured status, I was surprised to find that my edits show up neither on the talk page nor in its edit history. I will try to make some more substantial remarks when I have more time at hand.Martg76 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Another article which apparently skipped Wikipedia:Peer Review when it most definetly shouldn't. Mainbody note - use Wikipedia:Footnotes. Too long section names. External links = references, not formatted accoring to Wikipedia:Cite sources. Pics are few and strangely spaced - I am sure more can be added, for example from German Wiki. The current article *looks* bad, and is rather short - I am sure it can be made more comprehensive, again likely by translating a much longer German Wiki article. I would like to see info on how exactly it helped German military and economy, on how it fitted into the growing Western appeasment foreign policy (not even linked from the article) and what was the world reaction to the event, and on how it influenced Munich Treaty (it most definetly put pressure on Czechoslovakia, by increasing German borders with them and showing Hitler's power, AFAIK). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- First I'd like to point out, I was kind of confused with the rules of suggesting an article for featured article and thought peer review and status of featured article candidate could be done in parellel. In reference to the remark on "incorporating" the German wiki content of the Anschluss - well that might be a problem, because the german wiki article on the Anschluss does not exist - there are just a couple of paragraphs within the "history of Austria" article. To the critisism on the substantial mattters - well I will try to include them (especially foreign press statements - I thought I did include them, but... ahmm... apparently I forgot). The pics are few, because - although I searched a lot for some with clear copyright status, many are still copyright-protected (not sure what you mean with strangely spaced). To sum it up - I concur that it would be better to have a peer review first (sorry about my mistake in procedures here). Still, I think the article has the basis for a FA. Themanwithoutapast 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Strangely spaced - if possible, they should be evenly spaced with one next to lead. But perhaps this is only my personal esthetic POV :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, actually, most of what we do here (suggestions, objections, discussion, etc.) belongs in WP:Peer Review. Ideally, articles in Peer Review are the ones with a "basis for a FA", but that aren't quite ready yet. When your article lands here, there shouldn't be much left to correct (relatively speaking, of course, improvement is always possible). Phils 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a PR should be a formal requirement of any FAC? Discuss in talk, plz.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
