This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dora trial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Dora trial was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Dachauer Dora-Prozess from de.wikipedia. |
The German version is rated "Excellent", so my plan is to translate carefully to retain intent and citations. I will make mods for clarity, wikification, English encyclopedic style, and word flow between sections. Because the original is very large I started it as a stub - when complete I'll comment here. Ultracobalt ( talk) 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone translate the roles of the accused ? I am not a german speaker, so would be uncomfortable copying from altafista. -- RichardMills65 ( talk) 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops I forgot that part. I reworked the table of the accused, did I get the information translated you were referring to? -- Ultracobalt ( talk) 08:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
With same tables, photos, references as original. The 51 refs are also in same order so reviewers can make comparisons, but they are not formatted consistently in the original so a detail-oriented person should go thru and fix up. I expanded the summary, added subsection headings, and more wikilinks also. The article is now READY for review. --- Ultracobalt ( talk) 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for quick review! I went thru it again to: touch up word flow, add a final short section from original with new ref, format bibliography (but not inline refs) to Chicago Style, add external links, add categories, add standard nav boxes to end. It should now be ready for submission to GA. --- Ultracobalt ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead:
Background:
Legal basis:
Participants:
Trial:
Later Mittelbau:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dora trial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Dora trial was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Dachauer Dora-Prozess from de.wikipedia. |
The German version is rated "Excellent", so my plan is to translate carefully to retain intent and citations. I will make mods for clarity, wikification, English encyclopedic style, and word flow between sections. Because the original is very large I started it as a stub - when complete I'll comment here. Ultracobalt ( talk) 22:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Could someone translate the roles of the accused ? I am not a german speaker, so would be uncomfortable copying from altafista. -- RichardMills65 ( talk) 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops I forgot that part. I reworked the table of the accused, did I get the information translated you were referring to? -- Ultracobalt ( talk) 08:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
With same tables, photos, references as original. The 51 refs are also in same order so reviewers can make comparisons, but they are not formatted consistently in the original so a detail-oriented person should go thru and fix up. I expanded the summary, added subsection headings, and more wikilinks also. The article is now READY for review. --- Ultracobalt ( talk) 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for quick review! I went thru it again to: touch up word flow, add a final short section from original with new ref, format bibliography (but not inline refs) to Chicago Style, add external links, add categories, add standard nav boxes to end. It should now be ready for submission to GA. --- Ultracobalt ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead:
Background:
Legal basis:
Participants:
Trial:
Later Mittelbau: