Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Vrba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rudolf Vrba

A meticulously referenced article about an important and controversial figure in Holocaust historiography. Authored the first report regarding the death camps that was taken seriously and acted upon; after the war, his accusations regarding the Zionist leadership have been used by many widely varying groups for political purposes. This article lays out all the known facts, and all the controversies regarding Vrba, giving each side fair play, and achieving a remarkable level of NPOV on a topic which is usually raised or used for polemical purposes. This is a semi self-nomination; SlimVirgin and I have essentially written it. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment—It's generally well-written, but there are a few problems.
    • In the second sentence, don't refer to him as an inmate until you've told us that he was a prisoner at Auschwitz; as currently worded, it looks as though UBC is a prison, which ... may well be the case. :)
    • Please consider closing the gap before each reference, and between references where more than one are clustered. They're intrusive enough visually without the added space.
      • The gaps between multiple references are now closed, but the gaps between punctuation and the first ref remain. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please go through and check the ambit of every reference. For example, does [13] refer to the remainder of its paragraph? (It's unclear.)
      • The refs refer to the quote or point (whatever it is) immediately before the ref. The refs don't refer to anything after them. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are snakes that need chopping up for readability: e.g., "Historians differ as to whether there is any truth in Vrba's allegations, which have revealed a fissure in Holocaust historiography between "survivor discourse" and "expert discourse," [14] the latter fiercely protected by some academic historians suspicious of the emotional, subjective approach of the survivors."
    • There are a few stubby parapgraphs; why not merge the second para of "Early life" into the first? Check other stubs.
      • Will do. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I already merged those two paragraphs. I'll look for other stubs as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "On Friday, 7 April 1944, at 2 pm, on the eve of Passover, [12] with the help of the camp underground, the two men climbed ..."—This succession of five commas can be reduced in number.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of humanity that doesn't use the US system. Tony 03:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The subsection header "How much did Vrba really know?" fails to follow the manual of style, and the "See [[foo]] section below" seem to violate the avoid self-reference guideline. Both of these served to break the flow of the narrative for me. These are pro-forma and perfunctory objections only, lest I be accused of going soft when I say "Excellent work!" - brenneman {L} 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the "see below" sections are important in an article of this length. We can try to think of another subtitle for "What did V really know." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jay changed the subhead to "What Vrba knew". SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you shorten the lead a little bit. It's too long. CG 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel it's about the right length for the length of the article, and it covers all the main issues the article will raise, as recommended by WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This was the first thing I noticed. The lead is indeed long, but SlimVirgin is right, it would suffer from any serious shortening. - brenneman {L} 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It has been shortened. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Happy to see a referenced article: if you can correct the problems mentioned above, I'll take another look. Sandy 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Meticulous, well-researched. A paragon of what a Wikipedia article should be. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please fix all the footnotes and put the categories in alphabetical order. I also thought the lead was a bit long. Sandy 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure they're all fixed; what still needs to be done? Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Which footnotes, Sandy, and what's the problem with them? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone has corrected them now. Sandy 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put the categories in alphabetical order. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost certain they've all been fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the lead is far too long - think about what would appear on the main page and cut it back; see WP:LEAD. The text of the aticle isn't that extensive to require a four paragraph lead, and it goes into far more detail than is necessary for a summary. There is a bit much emotive langauge sprinkled though the text, for example death camp appears several times. What are the items in futher reading, if they were used to write the article they should be in references, if not what are they doing there? Why are awards and films stuck down at the end of the article, can't they be worked into the text somewhere?--Peta 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The further reading section is for material that's relevant to the subject and interesting, but which wasn't used as a reference. We can try to work the films into the text. I'm not sure I would call "death camp" emotive. Auschwitz-Birkenau was known as a death camp (Todeslager) or extermination camp, as opposed to a concentration or labor camp. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've slightly shortened the lead section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've included awards and documentaries in the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All the lead needs to say is that he escaped with the report, he criticsed the timing of the release and that current historians are still in disagrement about whether he was right. The current 475 word monster is too detailed.--Peta 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The lead section should given an overview of the whole article, one capable of standing on its own. Up to four paragraphs is recommended for an article of this length. See WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The text of the article isn't that long when you take out all the citations. I would say that it is medium sized.--Peta 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's about 10,000 words. WP:LEAD recommends three-four paragraphs for anything over 30,000 characters, and it's well over that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you put your finger on what you find off-putting about the current lead? Is it a visual thing, or does it flow badly? You wrote that it was too detailed: does the detail get in the way of understanding, and if so, which details exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph goes into more detial that it needs to, the blood for trucks discussion could be shorter for example. I also don't like the long quote at the end of the fourth paragraph, that kind of analysis should really only be in the body of the text.--Peta 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The third paragraph is about the heart of the dispute, so it can't really be shortened. The fourth paragraph deals with how historians are responding to his allegations, and Yehuda Bauer is probably the leader of the group of historians who are critical of Vrba. The long quote from him sums up the feelings of those who talk about survivor v expert discourse, which is that the survivors know what happened to them but they are too distressed, and not knowledgeable enough, to attempt to analyse it and place it in context. And yet, of course, they do, and this leads to clashes with the academic historians, who may not have the personal experience of the Holocaust, but who do have the overview, or at least that is their argument. We could cut it out, but we'd lose the summary of an important aspect of the dispute. I like this lead because there's a paragraph devoted to each of four important points: (1) who he was; (2) what impact his report had; (3) the controversy and what it's related to; (4) what historians have said about it. It would be a shame to lose one of those, in my view, although I did slightly cut the long quote you didn't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I again agree that the lead is of the appropiate length, and that it follows the guideline. - brenneman {L} 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellently referenced and presented. Well done. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Balanced, heavily referenced, image support. I have no problems with a longer WP:LS if the topic warrants this. JFW | T@lk 07:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. Outriggr 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "As his job involved him being present"—Ouch. Try "As his job involved his presence". I find the caption for "selection" to be too small and far too long. Can you integrate most of it into the main text? PS It's a good article! Tony 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. :-) I tweaked the "involved him being present" sentence; reduced the image cutline; and increased the image size slightly. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a model article. Although it won't be of interest to many readers, it shows that Wikipedia can match the standards of Britanica. I think it also exemplifies the spirit of NPOV and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there an infobox possible? Why are there many references begenning with "__________"? Please use citation templates for references. Date wikilinking needs to be done consistantly. Apart from the Wikilinking issue, there is inconsistancy in using comma between dates. Avoid using words like "allegedly" (see WP:WTA and copyedit). Avoid using FA-star in templates used in the articles. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The citation templates are just a nuisance. It's far easier to write out citations without them. The line represents the name of the author in the preceding example: it's used to avoid repeating the same name over and over. Which dates are not linked in a consistent way, and can you give an example of the comma inconsistency? There's no reason to avoid using "allegedly." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Changing to Strongly abstain till issues are cleared on the talk pages. The citation templates are not a nuisance. They exist to provide uniformity to article citations and usability of the article while interacting with machines. If any new person comes in and adds reference, there should not be any problem for him/her to understand how to go about it. Also, with use of citation templates, the references become machine readable. For example, see Persondata to see how that specific template is used. It is not a citation template, but I am providing its link as the usage is well documented. What's easy is not always the right way, and I strongly suggest that citation templates be used. I am not aware of the line representation in citations, and hope that you have confirmed that it is an encyclopedic way of writing it. In "Early life and arrest" section, fourth paragraph has unlinked "June 30" (See MOSDATE). Similarly "April 10" in "Escape" section. Find other similar instances (there are many others). The article text has dates with no commas, while the references consistantly have commas (another reason why I strongly prefer citation templates). Also, all web-references need last accessed date. If possible, I would suggest separating the "Notes" section from the "Inline citation". Note: All issues mentioned by me are not objections. My objection is for the many issues mentioned, so please don't respond that a specific one is not a reason to object. Even those that are not are suggestions that will make the article better. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your various points: (a) There's no requirement to use citation templates; one good reason not to is that they're not flexible and can't, for example, handle the need not to keep on repeating the author's name; (b) the only dates that the MoS suggests linking are complete dates so that date preferences work, and so I'll make sure these are all linked; (c) I still don't know what you mean about the dates and the commas, but I'll take a look; (d) I don't know what you mean by separating notes and inline citations. The notes are the inline citations. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I still can't see what you mean about dates. April 10 in the Escape section doesn't include a year and therefore doesn't have to be linked. Also, I can't see what you mean about commas being used in the References section but not in the text. Can you give an example of a full date with no comma? (I'm assuming you mean the comma between 31 and 2006 as in July 31, 2006, which should also have a comma when linked, if your preferences are set for the U.S. way: July 31, 2006). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is not a requirement, as I said in the note above. But using it would have solved another problem of inconsistant commas that I mentioned. Dates like "June 30" should be wikilinked. Quoting from WP:MOSDATE: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." (italics mine). As it is clear from the quote above, partial dates "should normally" be wikilinked. I see no reason why this article should be any exception. Notes and inline citation are completely different. See Rabindranath Tagore for example, that goes a step ahead by using inline references inside notes. I hope you didn't miss my pointing out of requirement of last accessdate of external links. It is something that's essential. Coming back to your arguement about use of ciation templates, you don't need to use the full template everytime, again see Rabindranath Tagore. So the flexibility part doesn't come into picture. Hope this clears up your doubts. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then someone has changed the MoS recently because that's not what it's meant to say. Only full dates need to be linked. You may link others if you want to, but most people don't. Last access is not essential. The citation templates are not even recommended to the best of my knowledge; they are just an option, and one that many people don't like and don't use. See WP:CITE, which is the guideline for citations, and which this article, to the best of my knowledge, adheres to. Can you please point to an example of the inconsistent use of commas you've mentioned twice? By the way, what did you think of the actual article? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The citations in this article all follow a standard and uniform format. Citation templates are not even recommended, and are a huge nuisance; they're a special language that must be learned to insert citations, yet they add no particular value, and are extremely inflexible. They certainly don't allow for the kind of lengthy, complex, and nuanced footnotes used in this article. It astonishes me that two people can write an 11,000 word article on a complex topic, using dozens of high quality references and hundreds of footnotes, yet the only comment other people can make is to oppose it as a featured article because it doesn't use a fiddly citation template, and follow their preferred date style. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Slrubenstein and all of the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)