Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 08:42, 5 October 2012 [1].

La Coupole edit

La Coupole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of three related articles (the other two are Blockhaus d'Éperlecques and Fortress of Mimoyecques) that I will be nominating for featured status. Next March is the 70th anniversary of the start of construction of the three sites described in these articles and I envisage running a triple Today's Featured Article covering all three articles (see User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb). In advance of that, I'm nominating this article for consideration as a Featured Article. It was recently promoted to Good Article status so I'm reasonably hopeful that it meets the standards required for a FA. Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current status
Support
Oppose

n/a

Comments only


Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing full bibliographic info for After the Battle
  • FN2: caps
  • FN3: the author should not be the same as the work
  • If this is the one I think it is, I took it out as unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: page(s)?
  • Not sure what you're getting at here, there's already a page number. Did I miss something? Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers/magazines
  • Done. (I've left out the locations.) Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN34: formatting
  • I think I've fixed this, but could you check? Prioryman (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irving: Windsor UK or Canada?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • I couldn't see any instances of this - could you give me an example? Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the rationale is for this? One particular page on the museum's website is used as a source, yes, but isn't it normal to have a link to the subject's website's home page in external links? If you consider what would be the most useful place for it from the reader's point of view, wouldn't external links be the most useful and logical place? Prioryman (talk)
  • Clearly not your area of interest, but the couple of lines on the modern museum, which uses the same name, are too skimpy. No mention of "Le mémorial des déportés", "le planétarium 3D" or the two circuits. I was 5 minutes away earlier this year & nearly visited, but this would not have been very helpful as to what was on offer. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been there myself - it's well worth a visit. The planetarium is new (it wasn't there at the time of my visit). I'll see if I can add some more info about it. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added some further lines about the planetarium and the memorial. Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I won't be able to have a full further look for a few days. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additions have resolved the points above; I haven't had a chance to give the article a full look-over yet. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after full read-through. I note the Irving issue, but I think he can be used here. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just to clarify, he's no longer being used. I've collapsed the discussion about him so that it doesn't cause confusion. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments about a source

Oppose While this article has much to recommend it, the repeated use of David Irving as a reference is a show stopper for FA status; he's widely discredited, and not a reliable source about anything. Note that the book you've cited is self published as commercial publishers won't touch him. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this question carefully when using Irving's book. The current edition of the book is self-published, but the original edition was published by Little & Brown in 1965 and was subsequently republished by reputable publishers. It is widely cited by other writers, [2] including very recent authors such as Zaloga. Irving has become infamous for writing revisionist works but John Arquilla comments that the book pre-dates Irving's "drift off into Holocaust denial", while one of those personally involved with the British campaign against the V-weapons sites, Reginald Victor Jones, has called it "a fine job".[3] I've not found any references that question the factual accuracy of the book; in "Creating a Memory of the German Rocket Program for the Cold War", Michael J. Neufeld says: "Irving, who was already noticeably pro-German but not yet infamous as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier [my italics], provided the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war, but it is noteworthy that, although he did much more original research than the others, he minimised the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more."[4] I've not used Irving as a source for anything to do with Mittelwerk/Nordhausen (which doesn't come into this article anyway). Note that Neufeld only questions the book's completeness, not its accuracy, but is nonetheless happy to call it "the most complete account" of the V-weapons. Irving's book is used solely as a source for translated quotes from a number of original German documents rather than historical judgements. In Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial, Richard J. Evans mentions the book but gives no indication of any controversy about it.[5] The reviews at the time of publication were highly favourable; Duncan Sandys, who headed the British committee that led the fight against the V-weapons, wrote in the London Evening Standard that it was an "authoritative account" (and quite honestly he was better placed to give that judgement than anyone else given his depth of personal knowledge). I certainly agree that Irving's later works, particularly his revisionist histories, are unreliable but there is no indication that this particular work or these particular quotes are unreliable. Not everything he wrote was revisionist. I also don't think it's realistic to exclude this source when many other professional works of recent vintage - including those used in the article - have cited it. When the book is still widely used by current historians, well reviewed, and apparently uncontroversial, I could see no good reason to exclude it as a source. Prioryman (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As part of his investigation into Irving's work, Richard Evans demonstrated that Irving was systematically misrepresenting sources in order to further his political views as early as his 1962 work on the bombing of Dresden (please see the online version of his expert report here), so it's not correct to say that he was once a good historian, but became unreliable. In the paragraph you note, Evans actually states that "despite their somewhat specialised titles, these books in many cases aroused widespread controversy". In his book Evans argues that the only reason Irving was once considered credible by non-specialists is that few reviewers and historians followed up on the citations he provided (which often didn't support his claims, or were so vague as to be useless). As such, I'm afraid that I can't support an FA nomination for an article which uses Irving as a source. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look at Evans a bit more closely. He says that Irving's books in many cases aroused controversy - not that they all did. He mentions The Mare's Nest in passing but says nothing substantive about the book other than mentioning it. He gives no indication whatsoever that it has ever been controversial or that its contents have ever been disputed. Can you provide me with a source that indicates any controversy or dispute over the book's accuracy? Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prioryman, I've actually read it cover to cover twice :) Evans' basic argument is that all of Irving's work is unreliable as a result of the systematic misrepresentation of sources which began in his first book. Please replace this with references to other works. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As noted earlier, the article is in pretty good shape. My comments are:

  • "immense concrete dome" - 'immense' is a pretty vague term, but implies that this is really vast. I'd suggest replacing this with 'large' or something more specific.
  • It is, or it was anyway. My understanding (which unfortunately I've not been able to reliably source) is that at the time of its construction it was the largest dome in the world. When you're under it, it certainly feels vast. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I'll take your word for it :) (it didn't look that big when I checked on Google Earth) Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From first-person experience, I believe part of the dome (the outer edge) is now partly covered by shrubs, so it probably looks smaller from above than it really is. As I think I mentioned in the article, the Germans sought to camouflage it with soil cover so it wouldn't be very surprising if it's less visible from the air than it might otherwise have been. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, after repeated heavy bombing" - should this be "However, as a result of repeated heavy bombing" or similar? (given that it's the bombing which prevented the site from becoming operational)
  • Yes, fair point. I've made that change. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'background' section should start with a paragraph which (very briefly) discusses the role of the V-2 missile and its technical characteristics; the current first paragraph of this section is rather jarring as it doesn't have any context.
  • Two consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of the 'Design and location' section start with 'it', and is it possible to be more specific here than 'the Germans'?
  • Did Hitler's involvement in this site's construction mean that it was considered to be particularly important? It seems pretty unusual for a national leader to be consulted on such details (but then again, Hitler was ordering individual army divisions around at this time)
  • Given the scale of the project I'd imagine it was considered particularly important, but then again, as you say, Hitler was notorious for being a micro-manager. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the intended purpose of the 'huge octagonal chamber'?
  • It's already described in the fifth para of this section: "the rockets would be moved into the octagonal preparation chamber where they would be lifted to a vertical position for fueling and arming." Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed that - I think a hint to the purpose of this room when it's first mentioned would be good though Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a brief mention of it being a "rocket-preparation chamber" to this earlier mention. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the Allies first detect this facility (eg, was it through aerial reconnaissance, intelligence collected by agents on the ground or the resistance, or signals intelligence?)
  • I'm afraid I don't have that information - it's something I would have to look into. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the start of January, Allied reconnaissance could see an elaborate system of camouflage on the hill top, installed to conceal the dome" - likewise, I presume that you mean "Allied reconnaissance aircraft" here
  • Did the German military attempt to defend this site against air attacks?
  • Plainly they did, since there are various reports of Allied aircraft being fired upon while bombing it, but I don't have any specific sources describing the air defences of the site. Again, it's something that would require further research, probably necessitating the use of primary sources. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough. From my personal experiences, secondary sources rarely cover deployments of air defence units. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body of the article doesn't note that it was the Canadian Army which happened to capture this site as stated in the lead
  • The identity of the liberators seems to have been a bit more complicated than I first thought; I've broadened it to refer to Allied forces in the lead, with more specificity in the body. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the 'Espace Naturel Régional'?
  • As far as I'm aware, the regions of France each have a coordinating body – an Espace Naturel Régional – which promotes and develops regional historic and natural parks. That's just from my own personal understanding, though; the French Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on the topic so I would guess they are not widely known.
  • "the 8,000 people who were shot and deported" - should this be "people who were shot or deported"? Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, true, not much point doing both! Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now been addressed; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Discussion on David Irving moved to this FAC's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "64° 50' and 99° 50'": Just FYI, how much precision to use depends on whether the precision is important to the story and who your readers are. I'm not going to change it, but if I were writing it I'd go with "65° and 100°" here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sourcing issue resolved
'Oppose on criteria 1c: Use of the discredited fabulist David Irving. All of Irving's purportedly historical works have been thoroughly discredited on the grounds of unacceptably poor methodology, including, but not limited to, extreme tendentiousness which in the opinion of the community of historical scholars amounts to wide scale dishonesty, analysis of causative factors that is absurd and absurdly tendentious, narrativisations that grossly misrepresent importance, adherence to a theoretical perspective that has been discredited in the discipline since 1945 and which has been demonstrated to taint the entirety of his work. These criticism are not limited to Irving's specific works in relation to the final solution to the Jewish question in Europe, but have been demonstrated to exist in all of his works. Any use of Irving indicates that 1c is not met. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me a reference to a source that demonstrates that this source, The Mare's Nest, has been discredited? It is cited by literally every single hard copy book that I've consulted on the V-weapons, including the most recent publications. What I'm seeing here is a lot of people saying that The Mare's Nest is a bad source; however, I've repeatedly asked for evidence of that and have been provided none. Give me a reference, or a link, or anything really, that addresses the reliability of this book. This is supposed to be a source-based encyclopedia. If you can't provide a source for your assertions, you shouldn't be making them. Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source, claim, article. Irving is polluted. I don't care if every other scholar and military professional cites Irving. Those scholars and professionals are capable of making a bad source good. We're not. Everything Irving himself has produced is tainted. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, you have no source. Thank you for clarifying that your opposition is based solely on your unsourced personal opinion. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose is clearly actionable—remove a fallacious and unreliable source from the article. Your choice not to action the oppose has clear consequences. I encourage you to review the good article criteria (in particular 2b and 2c). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought and obtained advice from a number of leading historians, including Richard Evans (mentioned above) on this issue. In the light of their feedback I've taken out the direct reference to Irving's book. Essentially the same information is still in the article, but cited to other sources. Hopefully this resolves the sourcing issue. Prioryman (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. I'll post a full review later today/over the weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Nick-D, this works entirely for me. Historians are capable of deriving scholarly insights from the most unlikely locations. Much like Nick-D, this does oblige me to supply a fuller review. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do my usual thing when you've had a chance to respond to Nick and Fifelfoo. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Put the titles in Zaloga 2003 and Hinsley into title case.
  • Add a space between pages in cite #3.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/La_Coupole/archive1&oldid=516135298"