The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it successfully underwent a MILHIST A-Class in April this year and I believe it meets the FA criteria. In 1941, Hungary participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon. This article explores what happened when the Hungarians occupied then annexed those territories between 1941 and 1944. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Tony (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Comments
Image Review
Comments - Dank ( push to talk)
When I first reviewed this article I found instances of close-paraphrasing, and I opposed for that reason. Since then, the nominator has comprehensively fixed all the sections I found with potential problems. I have looked through several additional sections and compare the article's text to the text in the source, and I have found no other close paraphrasing problems. I am convinced that this is no longer an issue. (The other issues I brought up have also been addressed, though they were less important.)
I would be willing to do a full review now, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The nomination has been open a long time now, and has received plenty of comments from others. Preliminarily, I would say:
But these are only suggestions I hope are helpful, and this is not a full review.
For now I will neither support nor oppose. If this nomination is still open this weekend, and if it would be useful, I'm willing to do a more full review. I've collapsed my former review below. – Quadell ( talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Former review
|
---|
First, there isn't a map that clearly shows the borders of the Backa, Baranja, Medimurje and Prekmurje regions. The maps show where the occupied territory was as a whole, but the difference between Backa and Baranja, or between Medimurje and Prekmurje, is never shown. In an article about these four territories, that's a rather serious omission. A map should be included to show the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the four occupied territories clearly delineated, and the borders of Hungary.
Secondly, there is a consistent sourcing problem in the article. There are a few statements that are not supported by the sources, such as in "Resistance and repression", where I can't find any support for the statement that time in a concentration camp was "usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". But far more often, there are cases of close paraphrasing, where the material in a single source is altered in a superficial way and copied into a paragraph of the article, reproducing many of the characteristic phrases. This sometimes leads to the POV of the source being reproduced, unchallenged, in the article. Sometimes a subject or term was previously defined in the soure, and so is suddenly mentioned in a given paragraph there, and in those cases the same subject or term appears to come out of nowhere in the article, undefined. Here are some examples.
I believe there are other instances of close copying, but these were simply the ones I found before I knew I could not support the FAC. In my opinion, every section of the article needs to be reexamined, compared to the sources, and made to appropriately amalgamate and summarize the available information without inadvertent plagiarism. I don't believe anyone involved acted in bad faith, but I don't think this represents the best of Wikipedia at this point either. – Quadell ( talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
|
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it successfully underwent a MILHIST A-Class in April this year and I believe it meets the FA criteria. In 1941, Hungary participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon. This article explores what happened when the Hungarians occupied then annexed those territories between 1941 and 1944. Peacemaker67 ( send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Tony (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support Comments
Image Review
Comments - Dank ( push to talk)
When I first reviewed this article I found instances of close-paraphrasing, and I opposed for that reason. Since then, the nominator has comprehensively fixed all the sections I found with potential problems. I have looked through several additional sections and compare the article's text to the text in the source, and I have found no other close paraphrasing problems. I am convinced that this is no longer an issue. (The other issues I brought up have also been addressed, though they were less important.)
I would be willing to do a full review now, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The nomination has been open a long time now, and has received plenty of comments from others. Preliminarily, I would say:
But these are only suggestions I hope are helpful, and this is not a full review.
For now I will neither support nor oppose. If this nomination is still open this weekend, and if it would be useful, I'm willing to do a more full review. I've collapsed my former review below. – Quadell ( talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Former review
|
---|
First, there isn't a map that clearly shows the borders of the Backa, Baranja, Medimurje and Prekmurje regions. The maps show where the occupied territory was as a whole, but the difference between Backa and Baranja, or between Medimurje and Prekmurje, is never shown. In an article about these four territories, that's a rather serious omission. A map should be included to show the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the four occupied territories clearly delineated, and the borders of Hungary.
Secondly, there is a consistent sourcing problem in the article. There are a few statements that are not supported by the sources, such as in "Resistance and repression", where I can't find any support for the statement that time in a concentration camp was "usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". But far more often, there are cases of close paraphrasing, where the material in a single source is altered in a superficial way and copied into a paragraph of the article, reproducing many of the characteristic phrases. This sometimes leads to the POV of the source being reproduced, unchallenged, in the article. Sometimes a subject or term was previously defined in the soure, and so is suddenly mentioned in a given paragraph there, and in those cases the same subject or term appears to come out of nowhere in the article, undefined. Here are some examples.
I believe there are other instances of close copying, but these were simply the ones I found before I knew I could not support the FAC. In my opinion, every section of the article needs to be reexamined, compared to the sources, and made to appropriately amalgamate and summarize the available information without inadvertent plagiarism. I don't believe anyone involved acted in bad faith, but I don't think this represents the best of Wikipedia at this point either. – Quadell ( talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
|