Jump to content

Talk:Warsaw Ghetto boy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 7 November 2018 (→‎"Although it is in the public domain because its author is anonymous": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Opening statement

I am reviewing this article as the WikiProject Germany Coordinator, and am on good terms with the article nominator, Catrìona. On the topic of the article for review, I have done some token work on the SS man in the picture, Josef Blösche

In every review I conduct, I make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —Vami♜_IV♠, 00:38 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Citations 6 and 19 are the only foreign-language references without the |language= parameter. Replace "Notes" and "Citations" with actual headings. —Vami♜_IV♠ 00:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done

Notes A and D can and should be reduced to the article prose. A specifically could be the final sentence in the Lead, and D in parentheses after the portion of German text it translates. —Vami

  •  Done

Note A (new, different from above) and B: Can you include the source of each quote in the note? Like, Haaretz: "One of the most compelling and enduring images of the Holocaust" —Vami

plus Added

Background

Can you add more context on the Warsaw Ghetto? —Vami♜_IV♠ 09:28, 18 October 2018

plus Added
Excellent, thanks. –Vami
  • The hopeless act of defiance became Not NPOV.
Changed to a direct quote.
  • For comparison, Delete.
minus Removed

Photograph

  • Participants on an Internet forum Two notes: Change "Participants" to "Users" or "Members", and credit the internet forum.
 Done
  • ("Now \'43") Delete quotation marks and replace with italics, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of works.
    • Occurs to me now that the section of the MOS I linked says "or in quotes". —Vami
  • Cusian may have claimed to have taken the photograph. "May have claimed"?
An article was published in which he claimed to have taken some photograph in the Stroop Report. The newspaper published two images to go along with the story, including this one, but it wasn't clear from the article whether Cusian was actually claiming to have taken this photograph.
  • The court did not accept this excuse. NPOV: change "excuse" to "defense".
 Fixed
  • soldiers; the Split sentence.
 Done

Identification

  • Star of David armband "Star of David" is linked, but could you link Yellow badge?
Yellow badge is linked, piped to Star of David. Expanded pipe to cover armband to be less eastereggy.
  • the Łowicz Ghetto; in 1941, the ghetto was liquidated and its residents sent to Warsaw. Consolidate. Consider: the Łowicz Ghetto, liquidated in 1941 to Warsaw.
 Done
  • An anonymous Holocaust survivor No name, no bolded text.
 Done
  • but since he said that the photograph had been taken in 1941 and other details do not match, this claim has not been taken seriously. Assumed gender? Consider: but because of the claim that the photograph was taken in 1941, and other erroneous details, this claims has been dismissed.
Source states that he was an anonymous man from London.
  • Matylda Goldfinger-Lamet[23] [...] Einsatzgruppen[9] MOS:REFPUNCT
Not sure how this applies here. MOS:REFPUNCT to my knowledge only covers cases where the punctuation is right next to the reference. I'd prefer to keep the ref tags where they are for maximum verifiability.
The only exception to punctuation before citation is dashes. However, I don't see "punctuation must proceed references" so maybe I interpreted this section of the MOS wrong. –Vami
  • Blösche appears in several of the photographs in the Stroop Report, which were used as circumstantial evidence in the prosecution against him; tried in East Germany, he was convicted of the murder of 2,000 people and executed in 1969. Split sentences.
 Done

Lead

Reviewed and good to me. —Vami♜_IV♠ 11:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No official title

If there's no official title for this photograph, why is it italicized? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ: The title was used in (only) one of the sources cited in this article (the Time Maganize source). Photographs are not covered in MOS:ITALICTITLE. How do you think that it should be formatted? Catrìona (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make the lede an encyclopedic definition but the edit was reverted.
  • If photo titles aren't italicized, the title of this article shouldn't be.
  • If this photo isn't titled "A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw", then the article title shouldn't be italicized regardless of how photo titles are formatted.
  • If this photo is titled "A Jewish boy surrenders in Warsaw", then that should be the subject of the lede sentence, italicized or not depending on how photographs are formatted (but should be consistent with the article title and infobox title).
WP:BOLDAVOID wouldn't stop any of those implementations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JHunterJ: The problem is that a plausible, unofficial title is put forth by one RS, but is not used in any other source. Since it's not the official or widely accepted title, it doesn't seem right to use it in the first sentence, formatted as if it is widely accepted. Photographs aren't covered in MOS:TITLE (as far as I know, the MOS does not state how to format them). However, most of the titles in Category:World War II photographs are italicized, so it seemed reasonable to italicize this title. Since the article has to be called something, it seems best to use a name that is in RS rather than make something up, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm willing to consider it. Catrìona (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, it seems right to use the title of the article, formatted as if it's the title (there's no special formatting to indicate "widely accepted", and certainly it would not indicate that any more than using it as the article title). So, if that's the unofficial, not-widely-accepted, but still best-from-the-limited-options-available title of the photograph, the suggestion is still https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Jewish_boy_surrenders_in_Warsaw&diff=865829233&oldid=864845141 . -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, "I'm willing to consider it" skirts close to WP:OWN.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Warsaw Ghetto Boy" is another possible option as an informal common name, used in a number of books. Somewhat similar to Tank Man.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support "Warsaw Ghetto boy" as that seems to be a commonly used term (it is unsettling that the first Google result for "Warsaw Ghetto boy" is Institute for Historial Review, a Holocaust denial website). I wasn't intending to imply WP:OWN, only that I chose the current title for lack of a better alternative. Catrìona (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title should be "Forcibly pulled out of bunkers" (not italicized but in quotes), as it is the translation of the original German subtitle given to the image in the Stroop Report. The current title implies weight given to the boy in the image, but most of the article isn't about him specifically. TarkusABtalk 03:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Actually, the reason that the image is so compelling is because of the boy (stated in multiple sources), and the article is intended to give a balanced overview of the subject, so it naturally covers more than the boy. We shouldn't highlight the Nazi POV as the reader's first engagement with the subject. None of the sources use the Stroop Report caption as their main title, presumably for this reason. In contrast, the current title is represented in reliable sources: The Boy by Porat, L'Enfant juif de Varsovie, etc. Catrìona (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK that makes sense. Could we perhaps avoid bolding Warsaw Ghetto boy in the lead, and remove the image caption? These make it seem like it's the official name of the image when there isn't one. Maybe open the lead with "A boy in the Warsaw Ghetto holds his hands..." and then remove the image caption all-together. The lead is the caption effectively. TarkusABtalk 04:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: I would not object to your suggestion. I would have left the image without a caption, but I couldn't figure out how to have the image display well without a caption. Catrìona (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes. The image framing looks a bit unorthodox but I think it's an improvement. You can do as you wish. TarkusABtalk 04:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout

@Daniel Case: Since you have such strong feelings about the image layout in this article (the GA reviewer did not object) perhaps you could point to the place in the MOS where it says that left aligned images cannot be placed directly under headers? I have used this style in lots of articles and no one has objected yet. Catrìona (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: You're right, I thought it was there but it isn't (I think it may be implied somewhat in MOS:IMAGELOCATION's clear choice of the right as the default side for images); I may have confused something from an old discussion with something the MOS actually states.

However, as a general rule it's considered sloppy design, or at least it was when I worked in newspapering. You want the reader's eye to go straight from the section hed into the text. I would challenge you to find any competently run newspaper on the racks, anywhere a language is written to be read from left to right, where a left-justified image comes at the beginning of an article but under the headline (if you have to do that, you make the hed shorter or smaller until it fits in the space next to the image. The fact that you indicated you prefer alternating placement, as I do, suggests that you understand this idea (not everyone here does), since that plays off the way our eyes traverse the page.

This excerpt from a "design for beginners" manual, in describing flaws in a webpage, never says this explicitly, either, but note that its example of an improved page puts all the text directly under a shorter hed, where the original had a wide hed with two pictures on the left and text starting in the middle.

It doesn't mean anything that the GA reviewer didn't have a problem with it; most people who review GAs don't know much about this sort of thing and don't bring it up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MP 34 submachine gun?

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for your edit to this article. Unfortunately, the content in the lede must reflect that in the body, and it is probably too much detail for the lede anyway. If you have a reliable source for this information, I would be much obliged if you would cite it in the "Photograph" section of the article. Catrìona (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Photograph" section does not show the gun, why would it go there? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Although it is in the public domain because its author is anonymous"

While this is what Struk says [1]: "The most elementary of copyright laws states that the creator must be identified before copyright can be held". But I am not sure if she is correct. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Обстрел Вестерплятте.1939.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westerplatte Sucharski sabre.jpg. To quote a user (with whom I disagree, but that's not the point): "Photos taken in 1939 and published anonymously would have still been under copyright on the URAA date, so their copyrights would have been extended in the US. ". Anyway, to say that anonymous works cannot be copyrighted is clearly wrong, otherwise we wouldn't have commons:Template:PD-anon-70-EU. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warsaw_Ghetto_boy&oldid=867689608"