Talk:Paper Brigade

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paper Brigade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 20:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Article is definitely off to a good start. Some initial thoughts. —Ed!^(talk) 20:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Duplicate links are acceptable in the manual of style. Looks like there aren't any external links, and no disambiguation pages. Good work!

Lead section

• Additional context to establish the timeline of the article needed. Typically, the lead section should be an at-a-glance summary of everything else in the article. What year was it first formed?

  Added! Copper Dreamer (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Content

• Is there any idea of a total number of people in the Paper Brigade? If this isn't clear it should be referenced in article.

  There isn't; I'm not sure how one would best phrase that. Any suggestions? Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  @Ed!: any thoughts on the remaining questions and points? Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Any estimation on the initial scale of the archives? Article indicates how many works were saved, but not any sense of scope.

  I can't find a good reference - to be honest I suspect there isn't one, since the archives prior to the brigade's activities had been expanded to include any vaguely-Jewish book the Nazis could find in Lithuania. Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Caches are only briefly alluded to. Any word on where they were located? If not, would be good to indicate the sources don't specifically say where.

  Yup; now clarified! The locations in the YIVO attic, houses, bunkers etc are the same as the 'caches' - I've made that clear. Copper Dreamer (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps a section is warranted where you explain what the collection contained. At the moment much of this content is spread around the article, and one concise explanation of the collection overall, what kinds of works it contained, languages and other kinds of explanations would help immensely set up the article.
• Was the archive housed in one building? A library? A specialized structure? Its initial physical location isn't made clear.

  Contextualised somewhat. Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Some sense of where the works are today is needed as well. Any museums, collections or places where works are stored that can be found today? Any word on what kinds of special or unique works survived only though this archive? Any sense for what works or people may have been inspired by them?

  Yivo, as mentioned in the last sentence; should I incorporate it into the lead? Copper Dreamer (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The eventual fate of the people involved in the Cache recovery should be made clear as well, to go with the fate described in the first content section.

References

• ISBN numbers needed: Biga; Collins; Dolstein;
• For non-book sources (including any of the above) if you don't have an ISBN, an OCLC number should go. I believe Fishman 1997 and Weeks both need one.

  Mostly done both of the above, but I can't find the Forwards OCLC. Copper Dreamer (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Collins ref was published in 1983 according to bibliography listing but 1984 according to footnotes. Can you make sure they're consistent?
• Publisher needed on both Kuznitz and Shavit

  Done! Copper Dreamer (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ed!: thank you for the review! I'll try to make the changes in the next couple of days and apologise for the delay. Copper Dreamer (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • One final point before I think it's good: Collins & Rothfeder is cited as both 1983 and 1984. Which is it? At the moment it's showing an error on my page. —Ed!^(talk) 03:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me now. Passing GA. —Ed!^(talk) 01:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments by Lingzhi

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: what is this in reference to? Copper Dreamer (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• In reference to these, which you would see if you used the scripts:
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (1 with; 4 without);
  • Collins, Donald E.; Rothfeder, Herbert P. (1983). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation.
  • Fishman 2016, p. 166–67. P/PP error? p. 166–67.
  • Collins & Rothfeder 1984, p. 30. Harv error: link to #CITEREFCollinsRothfeder1984 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Fishman, David E. (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Publisher; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks! It just looked like you were sending pretty cookie-cutter notices to a range of places and I did not know from your message whether there were indeed issues with the page. Copper Dreamer (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)