User:Fifelfoo/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Fifelfoo. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

Comments from Fifelfoo

Read for: 1b weighting, 1c(completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check [3, online only]), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

1a: style
1b: comprehensive (weight)
1ca: Research completeness
1caa: what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
1cab: where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against seminal HQRS?
1cb: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include? Historiography section
1cba: Military science section
1cc: Checked for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Appears good. / Issues:
1cd: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". The problem areas in this article could be: ; ; and, . When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources as weighty?
1ce: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / colour // ethnicity // nation // race // indigenous issues? In this article I'm particularly thinking of: ; ; and, .
1cf: Plagiarism style check
1cg: Plagiarism spot check [3, online only]
1ch: Spot-check if claims are in sources [10?]
1ci: search for seminal texts, see if included
1d: neutral
1e: stable
2b: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?
2c: citation check for consistency
2ca: p. pp.
2cb: too long page range
2cc: manual pp. nbsp
3: media: quotes
4: spin out sub-articles

Comments from Fifelfoo Fifelfoo (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. All material likely to be challenged by a reasonable person should be referenced, which probably translates to a density of at least one citation per paragraph. In particular, any figures (for example, casualties or unit strengths) and any direct quotations must be cited to a reliable source. Special arrangements apply to the lead section (see WP:LEADCITE). A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. The article reflects all major threads of scholarship, reports both sides of a conflict even-handedly, and contains an appropriate amount of context. At the same time, the article should not become the equivalent of a 900-page personal account of a platoon-by-platoon level of a specific conflict. Be detailed, but concise. A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. The combination of introduction and table of contents should present a logical overview of the article's contents, and make navigation easier for people would do not wish to read the entire article. A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. We're looking for professional standards of English, with the emphasis on brevity and clarity. We do not expect 100% MoS-compliance, that can be achieved with a technical copy-edit immediately prior to FAC. However, we do expect articles to handle linking, date formats, referencing and citation, national spelling varieties, and measurements and distances consistently. A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. This is about balance. The idea here is to ensure that articles are neither solid walls of type nor picture books. An appropriate mid-course is that a shorter article would contain at least two or three images and a longer one up to a dozen. All images or media files need to be appropriately and correctly licensed.