Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vidkun Quisling/archive1

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 by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].

---

Vidkun Quisling

Vidkun Quisling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Vidkun Quisling/archive1

Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This is a WikiCup nomination of the article on Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi collaborationist leader of Norway. The article recently passed MILHIST A-class review, and I feel it additionally meets the featured article criteria. A couple of things to note: firstly, I do not feel myself qualified to write alt text, and hence have not written any; and secondly, although as dablinks reports, Universism does redirect back to the article, it redirects to a specific section, in line with WP:Summary style. Thanks and happy reading, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You failed to transclude this page to WP:FAC. I will add it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I not? Oh, gee, sorry about that. Thanks for covering. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 93: page(s)?
• Be consistent in what information is provided for publisher locations

Sources appear to be appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the citation to Shirer; it was added a long time ago and I couldn't find it in the "snippet view" of Google books. The statement was also explicitly in the Time reference anyway. I have also standardised the locations. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot check—issues I was only able to spot check online sources. Yourieff 2007 is clear. "Justice—I". Time Magazine is clear. Cohen 2000 p 279. "He was cremated and his ashes interred in his native Fyresdal." is close paraphrase, please reword. What can reassure us regarding close paraphrase in relation to offline sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Parts of Dahl's book are available online at Google Books. I have used a few Norwegian books as sources for details, dates, etc., but never for real prose, so the only unintentional close paraphrasing would come from either the Dahl or the Høidal biography. My local library has copies of the English translations of these books, so I can of course do a spot check sometime. --Eisfbnore ^talk 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have reworded that phrase (not sure who added it, it certainly wasn't me). In terms of reassurance, I suppose one indication would be the heavy level of copyediting the article has received and another would be the high level of condensing the Dahl biography received; but I agree your best bet would be to compare some Dahl items to the preview of Dahl available on Google Books. (Incidentally, all Høidal citations come from the snippet view of that book available on GB.) Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll selectively spot check those two sources in a bit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments:Oppose for the moment. The research looks sound, and the article seems very comprehensive. My problem is with the prose, which does not look up to FAC standard. I have only read the first third of the article, so the list that follows is by no means exhaustive. Someone needs to give the whole article a thotough prose check.

Lead

• "The son of a Church of Norway pastor, Quisling blended Christian fundamentals, scientific developments and philosophy into a new theory he called Universism". This sounds as though you are recording an achievement, but in the main text it is clear that this theory gained no significant ground. It would be better to modify: "he attempted to blend"
• "Before ... before" in the same sentence: "Before going into politics, Quisling proved to have strong military potential before joining the General Staff in 1911". As he didn't enter politics until 1930, the sentence doesn't work anyway.
• "For this he was awarded the British Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." The correct wording is "For these services he was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." - and you need to say who appointed him.
• "vicious" is POV

Lead in better nick now. I don't entirely agree with your argument (below) about Universism, but I'm not pressing the point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Background

• "On 1 November 1911, he joined the army General Staff and was sent to Russia in March 1918 as an attaché at the Norwegian legation in Petrograd..' " You cannot just ignore seven years of life (and a world war) by means of a simple "and".

Much better as written now, but your mention of "peace movement" requires a little explanation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Travel

• "Quisling left Norway once more... followed in the next line by "Quisling left Norway once again..." Vary your phrasing
• "Quisling found the situation much improved and consequently of less interest..." Why of "less interest"?

"less satisfying" would be a preferable phrase to "more boring" (which sounds a little Gauche). Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Quisling apparently married Pasetsjnikova in Kharkov on 10 September 1923, although no legal documentation has been discovered." So what is the basis for the assumption that they were married on that date in that place?

My concern here has not been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Paris, Ukraine and Norway

• Why did Quisling go to Paris? Was he taking, in modern parlance, a "gap year"? You mention "a further temporary discharge from the army", but I don't remember reading anything about a previous discharge.
• "Increasingly bitter over his treatment by the military, he eventually took up a post in the reserves on the reduced salary of a captain, and received a promotion to major in 1930." This information might be better given in a footnote, to avoid disrupting the chronology.
• "their stay": No "their" has been established in this paragraph
• "Quisling's stay in Paris did not last long, and in late 1923 he started work on Nansen's new repatriation project in the Balkans, arriving in Sofia in November." This conflicts with your earlier statement: "...from the summer of 1923 onwards they spent a year in Paris." (my emphasis)
• "Although Quisling promised to provide for her, his payments were irregular and missed a number of opportunities to visit her." Grammar.
• "Back in Norway, and to his later embarrassment..." This sentence goes on and on, and must be split into at least two. How is "to his later embarrassment" worded in the source?
• We have "Movement" and "movement"

If "Movement" is part of the organisation's title, e.g "Norwegian Labour Movement", the capital is required. General reference the "movement" need no capitalisation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Other random points

• "Quisling had arguably become..." Argued by whom?
• "in order to" is an unnecessarily verbose formulation
• "went so far as to say that" is non-neutral language

Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some done already (some by me, some by Ian). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Good responses to most of my points, so I've struck the oppose. I note that further ce has taken place. Unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed readthrough but the article is certainly moving in the right direction. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I meant to respond to some of your points for which no change was made, but then didn't. I apologise. "peace movement" is as much detail as we get in Dahl, the only copy to which I have full access. Obviously I can guess at what it means--I assume Norway's movement was similar to other countries'--but it would be a little on the OR side. Any thoughts on the best way forward? Regarding the marriage, the date is inferred from the fact that that's when they celebrated their wedding anniversary (mentioned in the next couple of sentences); not sure about the place, I assume that that biographers have assumed they got married near where they lived and worked. There were a couple of sources online that used "Labour movement... the movement", but I see those are really outnumber, so I'll change to "labour movement... the movement". Thanks for you comments. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Prose review/copyedit

• I copyedited the article during its MilHist ACR but that was quite early on and some things have obviously changed, so I'm happy to do so again.
• Re. Brian's points above, I've actioned many of these from a prose perspective in the course of my copyedit. Others, however, require a familiarity with the sources used and those I've left to Jarry.
• The only one where I disagree with Brian is his very first point re. Universism. Whether the movement was successful or not, if Quisling used these elements to derive his philosphy, then I think he indeed "blended" them (rather than "attempted to blend") and therefore the original wording is fair. I note Jarry's changed it in the lead but "blended" remains in the Universism section and they should be consistent -- IMO the original wording.
• Completed my copyedit and almost ready to support on prose. Outstanding points as far as I'm concerned, apart from the above:
  • Quisling remained a target for scandal, unable to prove his credentials as an orator -- Why would lack of credentials as an orator keep you a target for scandal? Do you mean he couldn't properly defend himself in speeches, or what?
  • That Quisling understood the realities of the final solution is suggested by some authors without evidence. -- The "without evidence" phrase seems a bit sudden, and if indeed "some authors" (who?) have suggested it without evidence then I think the point needs to be gone into a bit further or at least reworded.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no view on "blended" vs "attempted to blend", and I await further comment on that issue. All the other issues outlined above have now been resolved, I think. Re "How is 'to his later embarrassment' worded in the source?", Dahl writes that "[Quisling] got involved in something he would later come to regret deeply: his association with the revolutionary leaders of the Norwegian Labour movement" (page 289). I feel the article conveys the same emotion despite the slight difference in word choice. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your responses to my points (and to Brian's) but re. the "blended" vs "attempted to blend" bit, while I don't feel that strongly on it either, it should be consistent in both lead and main body -- if you can choose one or the other for now I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone back to "blended". It may carry slight overtones of undue success, but it's technically correct. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Works for me. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

comment - Hey, I've stuck in a few alt texts, may do some more later if I have time and no-one else has got there first. Coolug (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've stuck alt texts in for the remaining pictures. Coolug (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - for what it's worth, I think this is an interesting, thorough and well written article that meets the featured criteria. Coolug (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. A few minor quibbles, none of which affects my support but they might, perhaps, be looked at.

• Background
  • Following recall – definite article omitted?
• Travels
  • a young and inexperienced peddler's daughter – two points here: it is ambiguous (who was young and inexperienced, father or daughter) and the OED admits "peddler" but prefers "pedlar".
• Paris, Ukraine and Norway
  • General Staff&nbasp;...Something has gone awry here
• Russia and the rouble scandal
  • Prytz's firm Onega Wood – Why the italics?
  • In the autumn of 1928, Quisling's wife joined him – have you established that she was his wife?
• Defence minister
  • Quisling retained his post as Defence Minister – post gets capital letters here but not elsewhere
• Popular party leader
  • Quisling called for the Prime Minister to stand down – ditto
  • Though Quisling remained unable to prove his credentials as an orator – you mean he wasn't one?
  • approximately two per cent of the national vote, and about three and a half percent – per cent (yes please) or percent (yuk!)?
  • and it ultimately failed – ultimately?
• Fører of a party in decline
  • After the underwhelming election results… – delicious prose, but isn't "underwhelming" a touch informal for an encyclopaedia article?
  • Without a leader in Parliament – upper or lower case for "parliament"? You use both in the article and ought to be consistent.
  • when they had only fielded candidates in half the districts – clearer as "when they had fielded candidates in only half the districts"
  • four thousand dollars – and other monetary references here: I like the way you have rendered the sums, but the WP manual of style would have us render it 4,000, i.e. in numerals.
• The coming of war
  • Minister of Domestic Affairs – upper/lower case (ulc) again
  • Nazi intelligence officers who tapped him for information – rather slangy term?
• German invasion and coup d'état
  • Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold …President of the Parliament… Government – ulc?
• Head of the government
  • cultural programs – sudden incursion of American spelling
  • the country harbouring the king-in-exile, England – it grieves me to say it, but England has not been a country since 1707
  • to the country … whom he no longer saw – which rather than whom?
  • The executions were later seen as a watershed moment, dividing the occupation into its more innocent and more deadly phases. – citation needed for this.
• Minister President
  • That February, Quisling – new section so best to restate the year
  • A similar débâcle emerged – do débâcles emerge? And do they need accents? (the OED prefers them without)
  • Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler – does the subjunctive add anything here?
• Arrest, trial and legacy
  • "fine line between truth and falsehood", and emerged from it "an elusive and often pitiful figure". The quotes here could do with an inline attribution.
  • An October appeal to the Supreme Court was thrown out – slangy: perhaps "rejected"?
  • The court process has however been judged as "a model of fairness". – You might say in the text who so judged it.
• Personality
  • "Quisling was a dictator and a clown on the wrong stage with the wrong script." – Better to say in this sentence who said this.

A top flight article, in my view. Well balanced, clear, good prose, and comprehensively referenced. Tim riley (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all done, only a couple of disagreements. For me, "underwhelming" is fine, but if some strongly objects then I'm happy to change it. I believe "four thousand" is actually supported by the MoS; or, at least it was, when I last checked (4000 looking too precise; whilst four thousand is a short phrase in words, unlike three thousand nine hundred and seventy six, say). Most of the ulc (or should that be ULC?) issues I agreed with, with the exception of Minister of Domestic Affairs, and others where I have retained the caps when using it as a pseudo title ("Prime Minister Tim Riley said..." vs "Tim Riley, the prime minister, said..."). I hope this is a logical distinction.

I quite like the "would be" in "Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler", because it wasn't clear at the time that it was his final trip. It wasn't as though they planned it to be, as it were. Everything else changed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Support already assured, and quibbles above now struck through. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped during the A-class review, at Vidkun_Quisling#World War II. I've reviewed and tweaked the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions need some fixing - complete sentences should end in periods, "(pictured)" is not needed in the place that it's used, etc
• File:Quisling's_office_at_the_Royal_Palace_1945.jpg and File:Quisling_library.jpg - does Norway have freedom of panorama? What is the copyright status of the furniture, artwork and architectural details of the rooms? Are these rooms open to the public? Finally, the template on the image pages suggests attribution is required - is this the case? The same attribution template appears on File:Villa_Grande_Quisling-5.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Captions fixed. Norway has FoP for buildings but not artworks where they are the main feature of a photograph (clearly not the case here). Furniture would only attract protection if were an "[phttp://www.kopinor.no/en/copyright/copyright-act artistic work]". The closest example provided is "pictorial woven tissues and articles of artistic handicraft and applied art"; clearly very unlikely to apply to furniture in this context. Architectural flourishes are too insignificant to attract protection, surely. Will check attribution later. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the template in question is fairly clear that the archive has asked for attribution, but that there is no legal requirement to give it. We ourselves quite clearly attribute both photographer and archive, all things considered. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have now gone ahead and removed the attribution template, as is it is definitely not required (Wilse died 62 years ago). Must have had copied it from somewher else. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A better term than today (per MOSDATE#Precise language) is needed:

• Today, quisling has become a synonym for traitor.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are there four articles in "See also"? FAs should be comprehensive, meaning typically articles worthy of mention are linked within the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

MOS check needed, see my edit summaries. Also, why (1931–1933) instead of (1931–33). Military time is mixed with non-military time. I stopped there, samples only, thorough check needed, also WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- we don't use "today". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sandy. I have made the language of the "Quisling as a noun" section quoted explicit and cited it. I assume you mean 24 hour vs 12 hour? I have rectified that. I have no preference of 1931-1933 vs 1931-33.

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MOSNUM with reference to "two thousand pages", however.

The place for "See also" in an FA is not something I am familiar with. All of those issues and their intersection with Vidkun Quisling is comprehensively covered, but their topic is such that they may still be of interest to the reader. What is the prevailing thought on whether to include that sort of S.A. or not? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The theory is that, if they are worthy of being included in See also, for a Featured Article to be comprehensive, they should somewhere be mentioned and linked in the article-- otherwise, why are they there? Or, why aren't they mentioned and linked in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all properly merged in and "See also" deleted. Also, I changed the date ranges to two digit second terms per the MOS. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support—RJH (talk)

  Comment—For the most part, this lengthy article satisfies the FA criteria and I'm leaning strongly toward support. However, there were a few points that left me asking questions:

  • "...although his weight problem eased during 1944." This issue of his weight suddenly came up and it left me wondering when this problem originated.
  • "...Quisling be treated like any other murder suspect." It does not clarify the murders was he charged with.
  • I did find the statement that "he combined humanity with moral seriousness" to be a bit odd, if not disconcerting, given his ambiguous marital status, his overt racism and some of his other negative preferences mentioned in the text. Is this a quote?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey RJH. I have reworded the weight section slightly to give the date the problem started (1942).

Okay, I fixed the format issue. Thanks. RJH (talk)

Regarding what murders he was accused of, Eilifsen is mentioned later in the same sentence. I would move it forward, but I'm not sure I have a cite for that. I guess it was just "murders in general", as it were, with regard to perceived war crimes in Norway.

I see. Well it's not quite perfect, but it resolves the issue. Thanks. RJH (talk)

That paragraph should be read as "To his supporters, ... he combined humanity with moral seriousness". Now I come to think of it, I think I went there with Dahl's exist words (all three of them: "humanity", "moral", and "seriousness") because I didn't know how to paraphrase. Now, though, I think I can paraphrase it. I went with "Balanced and gentle to a fault, he cared deeply about his people and maintained high moral standards throughout." What do you think? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I added "they believed" to add continuity. RJH (talk)

Support I can easily not participate here, since Jarry and I are both in the CUP – in fact, we're in the same pool – but I can't ignore the nom's good work and outstanding fruit. ThatPeskyCommoner a few weeks ago used the GAN process of the article to help me with my Neil Armstrong GAN, and I know what teamwork between the Jarry, Chzz, and Pesky can produce. Good luck Jarry! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(Partial?) source spot-check I know spot-checking your own articles is highly irregular, but time ticks, and hopefully this will ease an independent verification. I have randomly selected references 23, 56, 115 and 133. Here goes:

• Reference 23: Dahl, p. 57. Used to source "asked members of the movement whether they would like to know what information the General Staff had on them with no response. Although this brief attachment to the extreme left seems unlikely given Quisling's later political direction, Dahl suggests... [some direct quotes]". First off, the direct quotes are clearly correct. Secondly, the first sentence is in Dahl as "Quisling asked... whether [the Communists] might be interested in obtaining information on what the General Staff did and did not know about revolutionary work in Norway". The introduction to the second sentence relies on context from the rest of the book, combined with "amateur overtures to the left" (conclusion: no close paraphrasing, fine but not perfect WP:V verify my findings).
• Reference 56: Dahl, pp. 93–97. Used to source a whole paragraph (conclusion: slight paraphrasing issue in the first sentence, perhaps, otherwise fine; fine for WP:V verify my findings):
  • "Despite the new programme, some of Quisling's circle still favoured a cabinet coup." parallels Dahl "the possibility of engineering a coup from within the cabinet was seriously considered by Quislings circle of associates"
  • "He later said he had even considered the use of force to overthrow the government but, in late February, it was the Liberal Party that brought them down." parallels Dahl "Quisling himself commented with hindsight a few years later 'For me the issue was whether I should use force[']... it was leaked that the Liberals were planning to bring down the government... [on] 23 February" (that they did is very strongly implied in the next paragraph).
  • "With the assistance of Hjort [EDIT: I have added 'and Prytz'], Nordisk folkereisning i Norge quickly became a political party, Nasjonal Samling (NS, literally "National Unity"), ready to contest the forthcoming October election." parallels Dahl "The following week he resumed the reconstruction of the Nordic Folk Rising.... the organisation was turned into a political party... Prytz and Hjort were both eager to let the new enter the [October] election campaign independent of any alliance ... The impatient Hjort was particularly anxious to [...] From May onwards, this was their tactic... Nasjonal Samling - National Unity, NS -..." (can't check the very last part, not shown on Google books).
  • Some more sentences I shan't/can't analyse in detail.
• Reference 95: Høidal, p. 609. "and he committed Norway wholeheartedly to German plans for enforcing total war." can't access online / couldn't find in snippet view
• Reference 133: Justice—I. Time Magazine already checked by Fifelfoo above.

Okay, not much there in the end to compare, but it's a start. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should note that I am going away from a week from tomorrow, though I have notified Eisfbnore and hopefully (s)he will be able to mind this FAC while I am away. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we have got six supports, two spotchecks, one source and one image review. What more needs to be done? Eisfbnore ^talk 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Image review still lacking, but I can't force reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.