Talk:Malin massacre

GA Review

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

Nominator: Birczenin (talk · contribs) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

For me this article does not deserve to be singled out because it is somewhere between a B and a good article, you have to correct the mistakes in it and remove the pictures which perhaps infringe copyright, and with these mistakes I do not mean encyclopaedic because it is written excellently, but look for better sources, and if there are none then we can just acknowledge it, but in my opinion something else has to be done. so @Birczenin you need to work on it some more. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. More to follow.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose relies heavily on names of people (some of which are historians) which I presume the reader would not find notable outside of this account. I recommend going through the article and deciding which names are really notable. "According to McBride both Polish and Ukrainian police[22] officers were most likely involved in the crime, and the collaborationist police unit operating in Malina may even have had a multinational composition.[23] The contradiction between the 'Polish version' and the 'Ukrainian version' of the tragedy is explained by Malina's tendency to suppress from memory the facts of crimes committed by people of his own nationality." - Is Malina a person or a place? [corrected] "Ukrainian authors, on the other hand ... accuse only Poles (or Uzbeks as well) of aiding in the crime" conveys the meaning better if it is amended to "aiding the SS in" "lists the names of only Czech victims" - should have 'the' between only and Czech [corrected]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This is quite a bit of background for the topic at hand. The separation of genesis and background in unorthodox. I propose that you combine hte two section and significantly cut down on the history. [done] Lead section could use some expanding but I recommend doing that at the end. [done]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"The fact of the crime was first mentioned in UPA leaflets in September 1943" -- verified "after being locked in barns, mainly in Josef Dobry's farmyard, were burnt" -- verified, however the ref should go to page 6 "374 Czechs, 132 Ukrainians and 26 Poles." -- verified, the article seems to mostly speak of individual victims as belonging to a single national identity. The parts of McBride that are cited do the same. However, I would expect a priori for some of the victims to have multi-cultural identities. Maybe there is material that supports that notation? Curiously, there seems to be more weight given to potential multi-cultural identities of the perpetrators. Is "Genocide committed by Ukrainian nationalists against the Polish population of Volhynia" in Polish? I am having trouble finding an English copy. "History Teaches a Lesson, published in 1986, the Soviet publisher committed forgery by correcting the content of the document (Bishop Platon's letter) so that it identified "Ukrainian nationalists" as the perpetrators of the Malin crime" - cites page 25, should be 27 [done] "The version stating that the village was pacified in retaliation for supporting the Ukrainian nationalist underground, according to Jared McBride, is not supported by any evidence" -- verified
	2c. it contains no original research.	Claims are well sourced. Spot checks will double check this.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig sees no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Multiple times the article references the need for German sources. Do these sources not exist? Why are they not included in the article? I would expect some weight on discussion not only of the national identity of the victims but the religious identity as well. For example when investigating the motivation of the massacre quotes like this one, from McBride, peak my interest: "While there are no specific accounts of Malyn’s Czechs harboring Jews, postwar Jewish testimony routinely mentions the heroism of Volhynian Czechs in helping Volhynian Jews." Or, "One of the reports curiously blamed a “Jew doctor” for “provoking” the Germans into attacking the village, after which he managed to escape to Olyka. On the contrary, the aforementioned doctor was burned alive—along with his wife and two children—during the massacre." McBride makes a point on page 21 that it is not surprising that Ukrainian civilians/police would be involved in the crime given the ratios of Germans to Ukrainian civilians. I think some summary of this would aid a reader that is not familiar with that history and help serve to discredit the idea that the "German Fascists" acted alone
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	"Volhynia during German occupation" Is presumably from the McBride book which is presumably not creative commons license. I don't think this can be reproduced without the publishers consent? - update, I see the original is CC-NC-ND the uploads should be re-tagged with the correct designation.[copyright infringements corrected and removed] Same with "Church during Malin Massacre" and other works from McBride [copyright infringements corrected and removed]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Looks good
	7. Overall assessment.	The writing still needs some work. The nominator asks for the GAN to be transferred. I encourage @AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam to reopen it when he is ready

Finding Sources

In response to @AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam comments on the GA review I am starting this section as an attempt to search for more sources. Unfortunately I only speak English (and Italian which I doubt will be useful here) so my searches are limited to english

WP:TWL Searches

• Malin massacre - I don't see anything useful not even the sources that are already covered
• Malin Russky - ditto
• Malin 1943 - ditto
• Malyn massacre - ditto
• Malyn 1943 -ditto

Cambridge University Press

• Malin massacre - ditto
• Malin Russky - ditto
• Malin 1943 - ditto

Mohr Siebeck

• Malin massacre - ditto
• Malin Massaker - ditto
• Malin 1943 -ditto

Nomos

• Malin massacre - ditto
• Malin Massaker - ditto
• Malin Tschechisch - ditto
• Malyn massacre - ditto
• Malyn Massaker - ditto

Given this I am impressed the sources covered here were even found .

I then turn my attention to WikiData

I wonder if these sources from Malyn Raion are useful?

Now we are way out of my depth but maybe these pages are useful?

• https://uk.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
• https://uk.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Very open to other ideas Czarking0 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All right, and one more thing, I'm taking down some of the photos that infringe copyright. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Totally fair, I actually think the photos can be reproduced under creative commons; however, the copyright tag the author used in the upload is wrong so fair to take it down Czarking0 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose to extend the conversation because I see that @Glaube has taken to correcting, I will do the same this article has a lot of potential to become good so it should be exploited AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I am traumatised and do not want to work on wikipedia any more, I am passing on my articles to AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam I hope you will take care of them, because it is obvious that you know a lot. (after a private conversation on discord, I agree publicly here) Birczenin (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope you'll be back even in a few years AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the article as it stands be C class?

I have pointed out issues in the GAN and it has been a few days since response. I think as it currently stands the article may be closer to C class than the B it is given. Curious what others think

Should the Names Be In English?

The article was original written with names like "Malin Czech". I believe this conforms to the MOS. Other users have modified it to use more polish spelling. This is intuitive to me. Is there a norm or guideline to point to? Czarking0 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the same, but I think the Polish spelling should stay, but this sentence belongs to birczenin, if he answers, because he got blocked on the Polish wikipedia and has not been active since. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you expand on why he was blocked? I am thinking of failing the GAN for low activity in response to my comments. However, your recent revisions made me leave it open. If he does not plan on returning I am ok to fail the article and you could take it over? Czarking0 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In the sense he left because he was terribly trashed on the Polish wikipedia, good then I will take over and correct all the mistakes right away and everything should be fine, give me a few hours. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

Generally all typos have been corrected but I don't really understand what these passages are about could you explain in advance thank you:)

• The prose relies heavily on names of people (some of which are historians) which I presume the reader would not find notable outside of this account. I recommend going through the article and deciding which names are really notable.
  • "Ukrainian authors, on the other hand ... accuse only Poles (or Uzbeks as well) of aiding in the crime" conveys the meaning better if it is amended to "aiding the SS in"

AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czarking0 I forgot to mention you AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first point, I will collect here some names. This is to highlight how many proper names are used throughout the article. Proper names are burdensome on the in experienced reader because they need to start remembering a bunch of new words (the names).

Malynsky, Rakovník, Žatec, Louna, Władysław Siemaszko, Jared McBride, Sydir Kovpak, Commissariat Dubno, Ostrożec, Olyka, Jaroslav Procházka, Josef Dobry, Bedřich Činka, Procházka Commission, Zamczysko, Olga Trichleb, Ludmila Činková, Pyany, Ołyka, Grzegorz Motyka.

As an exercise you could go through each of the names and ask yourself. Why are these names notable to the reader? If I did not use the proper name would the notability of the facts I am trying to convey be lessened? My guess is that in many cases if you did away with the names the facts would be equally notable.

Take Bedřich Činka as an example. Why is it particularly notable that villagers were burnt in his barn? If instead the text was "Bedridden patients from the hospital in Malin Czeski were dragged to another local barn and burnt to death". Would that be less notable? Removing proper names like this makes it easier for the reader to understand the article as a whole rather than spening a lot of time trying to remember who each of these people are.

Also is Jaroslav Procházka really the same guy that has this WP article?

For the second point, I think it is unclear whom is being aided. Czarking0 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay fine when I find the time I will correct the whole article and re-nominee it and mention you thank you for pointing things out:) AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)