Talk:My Opposition/Archive 1

message: Here is an example of the type of "context" I think would be helpful for the reader:
Censorship in Nazi Germany was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. All media -- literature, music, newspapers, and radio broadcasts -- were censored, in an effort to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. On 14 April 1943, upon reading that the (court, Volksgerichtshof (or People's court)?) had imposed the death sentence to listeners of a non-censored overseas radio broadcast (in the newspaper, with Newspaper name if available), Kellner wrote that:
Ten years in the penitentiary for a "radio crime." According to the newspaper that was too little for the chief justice. He sent back the verdict to the original court and demanded the death penalty. Just think: the death sentence for listening to a foreign broadcast on the radio. It cannot be imagined in the rest of the world that there would be given such a punishment for listening to a German broadcast on their radios. This horror regime has given itself a gruesome monument unto the distant time. Will there be retribution for this some day, Mr. Chief Justice?[23]
This sets up the atmosphere in which Kellner was living without putting words in his mouth and without interpreting, and (to me at least) the passages take on far more meaning with the contextual information than without.--DO11.10 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various entries section 

message: Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria.
As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time.   My comments are as follows:
*This was a hard article to assess for the following two reasons:
# It had to meet the requirements of not being Original Research – especially given that one of the major contributors is the grandson of the diary writer, and
# The nature of its content provides a strong possibility that it could breach WP:NPOV.
In relation to these points; I am happy to continue to assess it because it does not for the most part, refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. It is clear that many others have published analysis or synthesis of the diaries pages and so it does appear to advance its own position, simply because it states the facts of Kellner’s diary (and thus his opinion at the time of its writing).  
That said I note some of my suggestions are a reflection of removing any further possible doubt as to absolute authenticity of the article content and the tendency to remove doubt over Original Research.  Please note this is not to say in any way that I have doubt but rather to reflect the (adapted) adage that Justice (in writing an article) must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
I make these comments therefore so future editors can see the transparency of the process in full.
As the assessor I will require a number of minor adjustments as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template  after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.
# Wikilink the first (rather than a later) occurrence of the following words (where possible): Holocaust; propaganda; fascism, anti-Semitism; Führer; America; England; Giessen 
# Remove this sentence (The film interweaves the stories of Friedrich Kellner and his grandson, the creation of the diary and the decades-long attempt to make it public.) as it is detailed in the sister article and does not belong in the lead of this one.
# I may be mistaken but the part of the sentence that says (but he believed his diary could serve as a warning for future generations to oppose dictatorships and their totalitarian ideology.) does not seem to relate accurately to the reference (and may therefore be an instance of uncited POV)?  It should be removed.
# Similarly this part of the article (When he gave the diary to his American grandson, he told him:"Use the diary as a weapon against dictatorships and fascism and terrorism. There will always be people of bad will; therefore people of good will must be prepared to oppose them."[9]) appears to reflect original research (given the author is RSKellner) and therefore should be removed so as to not fail WP:OR – I note that IMHO removal of both this and the part directly above will not deduct from the overall article itself. 
# Moving the image (Friedrich Kellner Diary. Volumes of the diary.) up to the top of the paragraph – just under the sub-heading  The Diary may give a better aesthetic flow to the words surrounding it.
# Check and adjust spelling and or grammar of: (rearmed); (and allowing Germany be become a totalitarian state). (second part, but what is wrong with rearmed ?) Comment - my mistake rearmed is in all my dictionaries as re-armed but it appears able to spelled in the way you have also.
#Reference (via inline citation) as much as is appropriate and possible the section titled (Reception of the Diary) – which at this stage is totally devoid of any such referencing. This mirrors, to some extent, the External Links section.  Should the External Links section be removed, or is it okay to keep it?  Comment there is no harm in keeping the external links - especially where such links are not spam.
# I think the line that states (diary serves as a foil against such attempts to distort history) is dangerously close to POV and should be rewritten – and also with another choice of word than ‘foil’.
#I think a section titled See also with the two sister articles (and some others) will probably tidy the article up a little more.
# I suggest adding the following category to the article: My Opposition (the Friedrich Kellner diary)- it was already in this cat, did you mean to suggest a different one? Comment my mistake - late at night when I assessed and did not see that one.
#Finally – in terms of opening up the article to better scrutiny for editors and readers alike – I note that inline citations (currently numbered) 14-20 and 23-26 are referenced directly to the diary.  As the diary is not (it appears published or available) I strongly suggest that where possible these inline citations should be double cited to the individual web-pages that are found  here which has direct links to the following list of Excerpts from Kellner’s Diary 
*October 23, 1941 
*October 28, 1941 
*December 8, 1941 
*December 15, 1941 
*July 29, 1941 
*December 10, 1942 
*March 28, 1945 
*March 29, 1945 
*May 1, 1945 
*May 6, 1945 
*May 7, 1945 for the two entries that matched this list.
All of that said, for the most part, an excellent job and if you just fix all of the above suggestions within seven days and let me know I will pass it. If there is a good reason to not complete some of my suggestions let me know and if they are appropriate suggestions I will adjust my thought process rather than just fail the article.  Please let me know on my talk page when you finish or if you have any questions.  Cheers --VS talk 07:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment – on hold [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|35px]]