This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
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?
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)reply
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
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?
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)reply
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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)reply