Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 11:33, 29 June 2015 [1].

List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot[edit]

List of people killed or wounded in the 20 July plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was nominated and then quickly withdrawn as I was not aware you are not allowed to have several FL-nominations running at the same time. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People present at the 20 July plot
Outcome   Victims
Slightly injured
8
Injured
10
Seriously injured
2
Killed
4
  • Quick Comment The column "Notes" needs a better (more descriptive name), and should be sortable. Also, isn't it the custom to have the name column sort by last name and not first name? Mattximus (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but "Notes" is the name most used in lists for such a section. Also, it doesn't matter by which system you list them as long as they are systematically listed. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still do believe that notes needs to renamed, since the graph above even calls this "Outcome" which is slightly better than "Notes". For consistency, they could both be notes (doesn't make sense) or both be outcome. Regardless the column needs to be sortable.
  • "Outcome" would be better.
  • Also, what is the difference between "injured" and "slightly injured" and "seriously injured"? I think these categories need defining. How did you come to these terms in the first place? Maybe we can just cite that source?
    • Everybody present at the conference were injured. However, the degree of injury is not known to all those present, and those people are referred to as simply "injured" whereas the others are known to have been either slightly or seriously injured. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess what I'm getting at is, who decided that one is "injured" and the other "slightly injured"? How did you distinguish between the two?
  • What is meant by "In the end, faith had been merciful to Stauffenberg"? I don't understand that sentence.
    • Most of the plotters were tortured during Gestapo interrogation, publicly humiliated during the People's Court trail, and then killed in very gruesome ways. Stauffenberg experienced none of this as he was shot by firing squat almost immediately upon arrest. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you wrote, but that sentence I quoted does not make any sense in the English language. Faith isn't a thing that can be merciful. Faith means a reasoning for the proof of something without using evidence. I'm still not sure what you mean by "faith had been merciful".
Mattximus, please considered throwing in either a Support vote as I've responded to all your points. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still count 3 critical changes that need to be made. I also should review carefully for grammar, I can find at least one issue on a quick look "General Günther Korten, General Rudolf Schmundt, Heinz Brandt and stenographer Heinz Berger were given a state funeral". Mattximus (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus, Jonathan Martin (writer) Tim Newark (historical advisor) (2009). Attempts to Kill Hitler at the Wolf's Lair (television documentary). World Media Rights states specifically who were killed, seriously injured and slightly injured. The rest are regarded as being simply injured. I've corrected several grammar edits and curbed the whole "faith had been merciful" sentence. Also, I've changed "Notes" to "Outcome". Please consider throwing in a vote now. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support it but Jonas consider using the word, "casualties" instead of "outcome" and is there anyway to improve that info box as far as presentation? Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean improve the infobox? This list has no infobox, just a lede image and the sum-up bar! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the "People present at the 20 July plot" - "Outcome" box (which is an info. box for the reader). Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly do you want me to improve it? It's a pretty simply box if you ask me! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per my previous review. I have now done a minor c/e and made a MOS edit also [2]. Anotherclown (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is a little out of place now. I believe the article is much better now, but there are still a few issues. The outcome column must be sortable, and if you got "injured, slightly injured" from the video, that reference should be cited at the column heading. There is also prose that needs to be cleaned up, with a good copyedit. The text is largely passive, which makes for challenging reading, and there are many redundancies that could be cut for clearer prose. For example "As Stauffenberg had seen the huge explosion with his own eyes", "with his own eyes" is redundant. "which formed what was known as Army Group Centre", is it not known as that anymore? When did it change names? Lines like " Pure chance had come to Hitler's rescue" is not encyclopedic and needs to be more clearly stated. I will support once the change is made, and the prose tightened up. Good work on the article! Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough people have already given a support vote so there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment, but thanks anyway! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked the prose. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cheers Kierzek, reads better now. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure if your last comment "Enough people have already given a support vote so there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment" is very wise Jonas. There are never "enough supporters"! In order for the article to progress you need the general consensus of those willing to review an article/list. It can take only one oppose among many supporting for the article/list to fail here. Please take every comment seriously and try to address them adequately. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • MisterBee1966, this list will be promoted to FL-status if enough is in favor of that, exactly the same as move request and RfD discussions are being decided - by consensus. Mattximus has only commented and not yet decided to either support or oppose this nomination, but even if he or she did choose to oppose, that would be one not in favor and three in favor, meaning the list would still be promoted. Also, as this nomination was opened on 19 June, I assume people who are interested in commenting or voting has done so by now. In fact, I've already asked SchroCat to promote it! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Very well, I oppose on grounds stated above. Nominator's statement "there is no need for me to act upon your latest comment" means they are not taking this process seriously, and this article is not ready for promotion. Mattximus (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your choice, although it would be worth noticing Kierzek already acted upon your comment and tweaked the prose! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Unfortunately not, several of my key recommendations have not been implemented. Especially the prose ("with his own eyes") and referencing (source for "slightly injured" vs just "injured") that must be made explicit are critical before this is passed. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Mattximus, Kierzek have tweaked the prose according all your comments now and I've sorted out the "slightly injured" vs just "injured" problem by adding the AV media cite to all "killed", "seriously injured" and "slightly injured" people. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The outcomes column should still be sortable. I can't see the citation for that column either, where did you put it? This is vital, you can't have unreferenced material in a featured list. And also the prose is not changed, but is getting much better. It remains oddly passive. Just look at the opening sentence for the first three paragraphs, every sentence in the first paragraph, second, third and fourth sentence of the next paragraph. A copyedit needs to be made to bring the prose to featured level. These three major concerns remain. Mattximus (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I'm done editing this article to satisfy you; if you can't see that I obviously added the citation in the ref part of the table you must be the only one! I've edited enough on Wikipedia to know what a good prose is and this is a good prose. Oppose all you want. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                          • In-between working on some other articles today, I did some further ce work. Kierzek (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Withdrawal was at the request of the nom, who "ain't gonna wait almost week" for the article to proceed. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_people_killed_or_wounded_in_the_20_July_plot/archive2&oldid=669173718"