Talk:Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catlemur, thanks for taking this on! —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references that are written a language other than English need to mention the language they are written in and provide a translation of the work title. Same applies to the Further reading section.

I haven't come across this requirement before. I would obviously translate anything in the body of the article, but I am not sure what the purpose of translating the title would be - it does not increase the verifiability. Can you point me to it? I have added the language tag. —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does increase verifiability. If I ask you to translate the title and it turns out that the French language book you just cited is titled "How I Exterminated Jewish Vermin in Belarus: A Memoir" that puts the reliability of said source into question. If on the other hand you provide an inaccurate translation, that probably means that you may have misunderstood the contents of the source since you are not fluent in the language. Since this is an English language WP it just makes the article more readable since most readers won't be able to read the title otherwise. I have been requested to do the same in the past and I find it perfectly reasonable.--Catlemur (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, but I am afraid I am still slightly struggling to understand. Do you believe any of the sources may be unreliable? All are published scholarly sources, mostly from major peer-review journals. In terms of acting as a test for how well the language is understood, I am not sure I follow. I freely admit that I do not speak Hungarian but am able to access the French-language article cited within the Hungarian-titled edited volume, for example. The same holds for the German-language volume currently cited in the Further Reading section. I can obviously put it into Google Translate, but this is not really what you seem to have in mind. In any case, how does it work practically with the cite book template for article and book/journal titles? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't challenge the reliability of the sources you have cited, I am trying to give an explanation as to why providing a translation of the titles of cited material would be a good idea. You write the original title inside "|title=" and write the English language translation of said title in "|trans-title=". Since this is only a GAN, I am obviously not going to fail this nomination based on whether you use trans-title or not. Here is an example of another editor asking me to translate the title of a German language book in Further Reading during an A class review.--Catlemur (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access date is missing for the Le Monde article.

Added. —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple pages are cited as in the case of the citations 22 and 54, it should be pp instead of p.

Added. —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Unit commanders section, Puad's status as commander needs to be cited.

Apologies for the delay with this - I will have access to the source again in the next few days. Please bear with me! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is now addressed.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a source on Commons that supports the fact that the insignia looked the way it is depicted in File:Foreign France shield.svg

I am not sure what you mean by source. There is text in the article about an shield-shaped badge of the description. Otherwise, there are already photos available like this or this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just add the source backing the text about the shield-shaped badge to the Commons image. This way it can safely be used on other language WPs and it becomes vandalism proof in a way. You might say that it is obvious already but sadly we have to follow WP:TRUTH.--Catlemur (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyda's 2013 book on the subject is available here, there is another academic article in Russian here. I will try to add some details based on those two.--Catlemur (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Brigade Piron (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The LVF was tolerated by Vichy" - Move the Vichy regime wikilink to the lede since its a first mention.

Linked. —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"bandit-fighting operations" - Bandit fighting is a Nazi euphemism and as such is not a neutral term. Replace it with anti-partisan operations and wikilink it to Bandenbekämpfung. Mention that the Germans called them bandit-fighting operations in the "Bandit-fighting" operations, 1942–1944 section.

You are right that "bandit-fighting" was a Nazi euphemism but I think it is (usually) less misleading than "anti-partisan" operations which imply that the victims were solely partisans. @Buidhe: and @K.e.coffman: may have a more informed view to share? —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're both acceptable terms in the right context imo. But if anti-partisan is used, one has to clarify that the Nazi definition of "partisan" was ... extremely broad to say the least. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catlemur, do you have a further view on this? I think the problem with neutrality on the term "anti-partisan operation" is that it implies it is what it says on the tin - an operation against Soviet partisans rather than a larger-scale attack on the civilian population. Do you believe there is a WP:POV issue here? —Brigade Piron (talk)

"sent as reinforcements to the fighting before Moscow in November and December 1941" - The "fighting before Moscow" part sounds odd, please reword it. Maybe "sent as reinforcements to Moscow in November and December 1941"?--Catlemur (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "before Moscow" sounds odd, but "to Moscow" implies that Moscow actually fell to the Germans which is obviously not the case. I cannot think of an alternative which preserves this nuance! —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In front of Moscow? Outside Moscow? Near Moscow? All acceptable imo (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Near Moscow" would work. I'll make the change. —Brigade Piron (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before Moscow is also ok in my book, although somewhat archaic. (t · c) buidhe 07:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Catlemur, much appreciated! —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]