Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator EyeSerenetalk 09:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It has been extensively expanded. Referenced and cited from reliable sources, has images and an infobox as well as inline citations and has reached GAN status in the last few weeks in three WikiProjects. It is also over 33,000 bytes, has an archival box for talkpage. Has also been nominated for "On This Day..." six times since 2005. Would like to see it progress to an "A class" article. Adamdaley (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Sources/Reading – Cross-checked all ISBNs for accuracy.
- Whittell, Giles. (2011). A True Story of the Cold War: Bridge of Spies. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. London. ISBN 978-0-8572-0164-5 does not match to any known IBSN. S&S' site provides details of a 2012 edition, but no 2011 edition: http://books.simonandschuster.co.uk/Bridge-of-Spies/Giles-Whittell/9781849833271 which works on Amazon using ISBN 978-1849833271. Although I do not understand why you have cited both a 2010 and 2011 edition of the same book.. are there so many significant changes between the two versions only a year or so apart that they are both necessary? If not, just one would be better with in-line citations to one also, as your average reader is not going to own two copies of the book and want to be searching through both for citations.
- The book Abel, under further reading, is missing any publisher location info.
- Usually, references use the format Location: Publisher although is depends what style you use, so not mandatory, but helps prevent confusion, e.g. you have "Little Brown. Canada." at one point. To some, this might appear like Little Brown is a place in Canada, whereas "Canada: Little Brown" indicates it is a publisher in Canada. Incidentally, might be useful to also include the Canadian town/city for that title, if known.
- A typo in the The Venona Secrets reference says "Publiahing".
- Corporate designations such as "Ltd" or "Inc" are not usually included in publisher details.
- In your in-line citations, the format Surname, (year), p. ##. is consistent, although a comma is not required between the surname and (year). Also, (year) is normally only required when you are citing an author and are using two or more of their titles, to serve as a second designator. Again, depending on your preferred referencing style, these are not mandatory format standards, simply means for keeping it short and simple.
- Whittell, (2010), p. XI — unless the book itself uses uppercase Roman numerals, preliminary pages should normally be cited using lowercase Roman numerals, with uppercase reserved for Volumes (and in some cases, chapters).
- You've cited his imprisonment in the Lead. Currently Ref 11a, but you won't need it, as Ref 11c covers that information in the main body.
- Might want to consider using the {{cite book}} template, to maintain a referencing standard, if it suits your needs.
- Other
- SS Scythia — I could be wrong, but I think only the "SS" designation needs to be in italics, per ships MOS.
- Typo, "acitivities" under "Capture and later" section, paragraph 4.
- Word "protoege" — "Early career", paragraph 2 – would using "protégé" with accents not be better? Without accents it appears as a typo.
- Sources/Reading – Cross-checked all ISBNs for accuracy.
Ma®©usBritish[chat] 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Giles Whittell books. One is paperback and the other is hardcover. The paperback is from the local library which of course I was unable to get the article done within 3 months. Therefore bought the hardcover from Amazon. There is a significant difference in number of pages while the paperback has more pages than then the hardback. Adamdaley (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MarcusBritish - I am having worried concerns about this assessment. I do not want to point you in the wrong direction. I have concerns pertaining to the ability of yours since I do not have all the books on hand. Personally, I've worked hard to get this article to the way it was prior to tonight. There are two ways I can go about this which will only end up with only one option, that is to spend more money on books which I do not have that is listed at the bottom of the article and totally re-write the whole article. Or secondly, ask for it to be deleted which personally I know will never happen. So basically, I leave it as it and hope for someone who is willing to clean it up. For I have become disappointed in some of changes. To me, some of the changes look professional. Guess I was wrong. It was good you picked up on some spelling mistakes which I've corrected. I'm very disappointed. Adamdaley (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have concerns regarding my ability to do what? As I stated here, I know nothing of the Cold War, so I've provided a review relating to spot-checking the spelling/grammar, citations and references, and MOS adherence. All these areas are well within my abilities, and given that you need "Support" 3 reviews for an ACR, my proof reading can still lead to one of those supportive votes, even if I do not review content/context from a historical POV. You will need at least one reviewer to give it a review based on that, however. Now sure why on Earth you're disappointed.. you've had 1 review, just await 2 more.. they'll come eventually. Give it time, have patience. Don't worry about expanding it further or buying more books, it looks good to me, but I can't say more than that as I have zero knowledge of the Cold War to put the article into perspective. Hopefully, someone else can. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please allow me to have time to get the following books:
- Bernikow, Louise. (1970). Abel. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-3401-2593-4 (1982) Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-3453-0212-5.
- Donovan, James B. (1964). Strangers on a Bridge: The Case of Colonel Abel. Atheneum. New York. 711124
- West, Nigel. (1990). Games of Intelligence: The Classified Conflict of International Espionage. Crown Publishers. New York. ISBN 0-5175-7811-5.
- Which also will include the paperback edition of Giles Whittell which I originally got from the local library which started me off with this article. Adamdaley (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, get whatever you feel you need. However, there is nothing in my review that requires a physical copy of any books.. a few typos and minor suggested corrections to your citation style cannot be verified in the books, as I have made no review of the content per se. Whilst another reviewer may make suggestions that require further reading and expansion, my support will be given based on correction of typos, clear citing, etc. Therefore I am unsure why you made those numerous minor fixes and then reverted them, given that they do not require books for verification, whatsoever, but are in fact mostly standard Wiki compliance tweaks for readability, etc. You say you "do no want to point me in the wrong direction", but I have already been through ACR and GAR in the past, I know the procedure, so I'm not aware that I even need to pointed, usually the reviewer points the nominator in given direction, not vice versa, as part of the collaborative process. So I'm still unclear as to your disappointment, etc.. the review is sound, I am wholly confident in that respect. I'm sure the closing coord will be too. Your concerns over my assessment are noted, but you did ask for this to be assessed asap, so beggars can't be choosers, and my assessment is hardly low quality or degrading. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MarcusBritish - I am having worried concerns about this assessment. I do not want to point you in the wrong direction. I have concerns pertaining to the ability of yours since I do not have all the books on hand. Personally, I've worked hard to get this article to the way it was prior to tonight. There are two ways I can go about this which will only end up with only one option, that is to spend more money on books which I do not have that is listed at the bottom of the article and totally re-write the whole article. Or secondly, ask for it to be deleted which personally I know will never happen. So basically, I leave it as it and hope for someone who is willing to clean it up. For I have become disappointed in some of changes. To me, some of the changes look professional. Guess I was wrong. It was good you picked up on some spelling mistakes which I've corrected. I'm very disappointed. Adamdaley (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for over-reacting last night. I appreciate your helping me. Why I was so dissappointed I am a perfectionist, and was annoyed with myself for not picking up errors. As for having both the paperback and hardcover of "Bridge of Spies", I started the article with the paperback from the library, prior to my buying the hardcover. Hence I included both books Bibliography section as the page numbers were different, in hindsight I should have used the one book. If you go to Giles Whittell "Bridge of Spies" 2011 Paperback. The paperback appears on their website it could have been an Australian edition, though the publisher's information indicated UK. This is why you were unable to verify it. I am prepared to change the references/citations using only the 2010 hardcover edition. I appreciate your assessment being neither "low quality or degrading". One more question is why I have mentioned two ships/boats in the article SS Scythia (once) and RMS Queen Mary (twice), whereas only one seems to be causing confusion for me. You think only the "SS" should be in italics, however AustralianRupert has changed it to "SS Scythia". Adamdaley (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, the relevant policy link is Wikipedia:MOSITALICS#Italic face. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert, I knew it was one or the other, MOSSHIPS has similar examples which I have noted in the past. Adam, apologies aren't necessary, I appreciate that many of us get a touch of OCD or perfectionist behaviour, including myself, when tackling things; we all miss the odd typo, so it's always helpful to have a proof-reader in addition to using a spell-checker, which aren't infallible. I use Firefox's built in checker, and switch between UK/US dictionaries to help me spot things during editing, but still make mistakes, as html/wiki markup always shows as errors, and it can be tricky to spot typos amongst them. Yes, I would recommend you use just one edition of the book, seems like the 2011 was a Limited edition, and does not appear via Amazon just yet, possibly a publisher-only order and won't be included until sellers try to flog it second hand. In that case, better to use the edition which is easier to find internationally. It would also prevent someone, a user or bot, flagging the article as an unverified source at a later date, because it is uncommon. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. Hopefully a couple of other reviewers come along. I can't review, though, because I was involved pretty extensively in copy editing at GAN. For what its worth, I think your review contains many good points that will stand the article in good stead. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert, I knew it was one or the other, MOSSHIPS has similar examples which I have noted in the past. Adam, apologies aren't necessary, I appreciate that many of us get a touch of OCD or perfectionist behaviour, including myself, when tackling things; we all miss the odd typo, so it's always helpful to have a proof-reader in addition to using a spell-checker, which aren't infallible. I use Firefox's built in checker, and switch between UK/US dictionaries to help me spot things during editing, but still make mistakes, as html/wiki markup always shows as errors, and it can be tricky to spot typos amongst them. Yes, I would recommend you use just one edition of the book, seems like the 2011 was a Limited edition, and does not appear via Amazon just yet, possibly a publisher-only order and won't be included until sellers try to flog it second hand. In that case, better to use the edition which is easier to find internationally. It would also prevent someone, a user or bot, flagging the article as an unverified source at a later date, because it is uncommon. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 11:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, the relevant policy link is Wikipedia:MOSITALICS#Italic face. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for over-reacting last night. I appreciate your helping me. Why I was so dissappointed I am a perfectionist, and was annoyed with myself for not picking up errors. As for having both the paperback and hardcover of "Bridge of Spies", I started the article with the paperback from the library, prior to my buying the hardcover. Hence I included both books Bibliography section as the page numbers were different, in hindsight I should have used the one book. If you go to Giles Whittell "Bridge of Spies" 2011 Paperback. The paperback appears on their website it could have been an Australian edition, though the publisher's information indicated UK. This is why you were unable to verify it. I am prepared to change the references/citations using only the 2010 hardcover edition. I appreciate your assessment being neither "low quality or degrading". One more question is why I have mentioned two ships/boats in the article SS Scythia (once) and RMS Queen Mary (twice), whereas only one seems to be causing confusion for me. You think only the "SS" should be in italics, however AustralianRupert has changed it to "SS Scythia". Adamdaley (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MarcusBritish ... I've decided to ask you to close the current "A-class" assessment of this article. I'm waiting on other books, and I've come to a certain point in the article where there are references/citations not refering to anything. Therefore, I am going to have to wait for the books, which are on their way and I am going to get another one tomorrow in Sydney which a bookstore has. Adamdaley (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.