Talk:Le Paradis massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Le Paradis massacre has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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. A-Class
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Major Rehaul

I have done some extensive editing of this message, I welcome anyone's comments, criticisms, improvements, feedback etc. It would really be helpful. ~Mattyness

You could nominate it for a peer review? This would give you opinions from other members of the MILHIST project. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Self

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Le_Paradis_Massacre

Mattyness (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Its not bad, but there's some pretty major work to be done before this makes the grade. I'll list below the major and minor points for you to address and you have seven days in which to deal with them (if theres a concerted effort but it'll take more than seven days then I'll be happy to extend that).

[edit] Issues

  • Images. I've seen your note above regarding the copyright of certain images. Since clear copyright information cannot be obtained, then write a fair use criteria for the photos (for an example see Image:Capper.jpg). They all clearly qualify under the fair use guidelines, and should they later be determined to be out of copyright the information can be updated. The article definately needs more images, and they must be clearly annotated. I suggest the picture of the barn go in the infobox, which looks a little bare without it.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Sources. There is a good range of sources, but I have four concerns.
  • At least two books are referenced without page numbers. Page numbers are a must for these kinds of references. Where web references have page numbers then these should be given also.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Not all sources have publication information. Between the link and the date you must insert a publisher or at least the name of the web page. Others can be reorganised to fit this, such as: Le Paradis Cemetery, Lestrum, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Retrieved on 2007-12-12.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • How reliable are some of these? Books aside, [1] and this may not be reliable, please give rationales for their reliability here if you can. I am not suggesting remove them at this stage, but if something else can be used as a source in their stead, then that would be a good idea.Y Done The second reference, I added in others to back it up, but if this is still not acceptable, I can just remove it. The first website by George Duncan from careful reading by myself and factual cross-shecking seems factually correct, and well-referenced. It is also used as more of a supplementing source to the other source, however I can remove it if it is deemed neccessary. Mattyness (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)



  • Any more direct quotes? Any from Pooley or O'Callaghan would be very useful.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Prose issues

Some serious deficiencies in the prose here. I'll point out a few bits below, but the entire piece should be thoroughly copyedited again.

  • The Lead
  • "an atrocity against" should be "an atrocity committed against" and might be better written "an atrocity committed by" and go from that angle.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Commas are needed in the lead, there are too many run-on clauses.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • "However it was largely forgotten" - doesn't seem totally accurate from what is written below. It was hidden and then disbelieved, but ignored isn't quite the right phrasing to my mind.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • "their deaths" makes this page sound a little like a memorial, use "the massacre" here and watch out for similar phrasing throughout the text.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • If possible, expand the lead a little with some context - what stage of the Battle of France etc. Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Background
  • A good section, but more needed on the Battle of France here: expand the information on this so there is an even clearer picture of why the troops were in the places they were.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • More on the deaths of the Moroccan troops; the source is clearly implying a massacre, it might even be appropriate to copy its figures into the text.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Fighting and surrender
  • Make The massacre a subsection of this and call the whole thing into Massacre at Le Paradis or similar.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Try to expand on the action involved and also on the massacre itself.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • The section has poor grammar and spelling errors, this must be addressed.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The section on Possible reasoning comes across as slightly unencyclopedic. I suggest merging the parts about the ethos of the Totenkopf into Background and scrapping the rest as it is clearly inferred above. If it must go in, merge it neatly into the massacre section.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Aftermath
  • This section is OK, but like the rest of the article needs a copyedit and expansion if possible.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


  • What were the consequences of Pooley not being believed? Who didn't believe him in particular?Y Done Hmm, none of the sources actually name anyone, but I have done it to the best of my ability. Mattyness (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Trial of
  • This is the best section in the article, but some statements need modifying or referencing.


Other references need attaching to their quotes (1 space after the final punctuation).Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Again, a thorough copyedit is required.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Legacy
  • The first sentance MUST be directly sourced.Y Done Well actually removed as I couldn't source it. Mattyness (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


  • The whole section should be merged with aftermath.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Right, thats it for now. What I will do, is when you believe you have addressed the above or seven days have passed I will return here and either pass, fail or provide another review for the article. If you want more than seven days then drop me a line. Its not a bad piece but it needs substantial work done on its prose before it comes close. Good luck--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Review

I have given the article a thorough peer-review but there were several issues I did not feel comfortable changing without raising them here. Firstly I would like to commend all involved on a much improved article which I do not feel is far off now from achieving GA.

  • Prose. I have made extensive edits to the article to improve the prose. Problems I found included some very wayward tenses which I standardised to present tense as normal and some unusual punctuation which I have pruned. There is also an unfortunate proliferation of redundant clauses which I have attempted to cull but may not have got them all. I also have some comments aboout the recent edis by Awotter. Whilst your/his involvement has benefitted the article, I have a few problems with some of the work done. The lead was looking OK until it was broken up into shorter paragraphs. Short paragraphs are untidy and uneccessary and I have merged many of the shorter ones together to make the article more tidy. There is no need to put explinations of complicated terms in parentheses - this is what Wikilinks are for. Parentheses look unencyclopedic when used this way and I would strongly discourage their use.


  • The lead. Awotter has moved two paragraphs (now the final two paragraphs) into the lead. These are not needed here and provide much too great a level of detail for the introduction. They need to be moved down the page to where they originally were or at least somewhere more appropriate. It migh even be worth merging parts of them into the parapgraphs above and scrapping the rest as most of what they say is repeated below.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Well I basically reverted the edits to the lead, with just a few minor changes. Please review.
"It migh even be worth merging parts of them into the parapgraphs above and scrapping the rest as most of what they say is repeated below." That's why they are called summaries. I recapped the main sections of the article and simplified the lead. All of the issues I raised about the lead are still valid and were worth addressing instead of simply reverting all that was done. Your opinion isn't the only criteria for what should or should not be in the article.Awotter (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Moroccan soldiers. I mentioned in my previous review that I felt the actual statistics from the article used to source the section on the killings of Moroccan soldiers would make this part flow better without resorting to weasel words. I'm repeating this suggestion because I think its important to explain the section properly.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Why were the Germans ordered to retreat from La Bassee?Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Were the British using dum dum bullets or was this a lie? Mattyness (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Well, you can't really say it either way. Pooley and O'Callaghan say they didn't, Knochlein says they did, and I lack any sources from other German soldiers. I will do some research, but I cannot promise that I can answer this question.


  • Sourcing, I'm still not sure about the way this article is sourced. I have left Fact tags where I think a specific citation is needed, the citation should then be moved from the end of the paragraph to where it is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) I have cited the whole article thoroughly with some new books.

Whoops I pressed save instead of show preview, sorry. To continue:


  • Images. The best image for the head of the infobox is the one of the barn wall against which the soldiers were shot. The picture of the house must have a better fair-use explination given for it if it isn't to be repeatedly deleted. Please look into whether this is possible. The other images are excellent.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


  • The notes below by Shimgray are interesting and I would like to see his findings incorporated into the article as well.Y Done Mattyness (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats it for now, if there are any further suggestions I'll drop them here, good work to all involved and I hope to be able to pass this soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, I feel happy enough to pass this for GA now, but I think the article still has problems which shoul be addressed, certainly before it attempts to gain any other status awards and probably if it wants to remain at GA as standards continue to increase.
  • The main problem here is the prose, which is still very patchy. This is especially true of the sections on background, the regiments and the battle of La Paradis. This all needs tightening up as there are still redundant phrases, patchy detail and some weasel words. More information should be taken from the sources to expand the events and context here.
  • There are a few minor problems as well, for example duplicate sources are not yet bonded as per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once.
  • Is this appropriate to incorporate into the article? Major Ryder at Commonwealth War Graves Commission? Just a suggestion.
The above problems should be dealt with as soon as possible, but as of now, I am happy to pass this as a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion, I also recommend taking this back to peer review once the first review is finished ands asking specifically for help with copyediting. Good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Scots involvement

The 2nd Norfolks were adjacent to 1st Royal Scots, which we mention in passing; there]s a cited note on Royal Scots mentioning that:

The adjacent unit, the 2nd Royal Norfolk Regiment, had almost one hundred men taken prisoner and later shot by their captors in the "Le Paradis massacre".[93] Recent research has suggested that around twenty Royal Scots may have suffered a similar fate.[94]

The source is a newspaper article here, quoting Sebag-Montefiore, who seems reliable enough; there's also a quoted reference to a Royal Scots NCO who reports a [second] group of his men being reprieved from execution at the last minute. Shimgray | talk | 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

The article at this moment [2] is very well done. I do have some concerns with the lead paragraph and will change the minor issues. The date, and place need to be emphasized (and simplified) in the first sentence. It has too many links that can be added later and the information should move from the general to the specific (ie British soldiers/BEF—German soldiers/Waffen SS to specific unit) and the language is too complex (hors de combat, Obersturmbannführer, etc.). This paragraph "The incident was the worst mass murder of Allied troops during the Battle of France, and one of the worst in the whole of the Western Front. The massacre was hidden, and then disbelieved until after the war, when the massacre was investigated by the War Crimes Unit." should probably be be in the lead paragraph worded slightly differently.Awotter (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German photographs

The article states that the Germans took photos of the massacre victim's bodies before they were buried. Are any of those photos available and copyright-free so that they can be used in the article? Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked but to no avail. Mattyness (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FritzKnoechlein.jpg

Image:FritzKnoechlein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)