Talk:World War II Radio Heroes

this is a university assignment
This article is for a school project. Please do not delete it but help us improve! Wexlax20 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

comments
okay, good start. Please do use the proper citation form I've told you about. I fixed two, but as you add more, you can do them properly, please. I'm not sure you can say "minor" listeners. They may have been "minor" in Lisa's book, but their experience with others might not be so. I suggest either renaming that or deleting it. I'm not exactly sure of the point to listing all the listeners anyway...Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not part of the GA review, since I've done minor work on the article myself. However from Berg's description I note there is more material in Spahr's book that could be covered. For example, the US government actively discouraged such monitoring because it felt the POW broadcasts were propaganda intended to weaken the morale of relatives and friends of missing men. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Louie, I was thinking of adding other things too but wouldn't that then make this a book report rather than a book review?Wexlax20 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP book articles are not really "reports" or "reviews". In the case of non fiction books, they are essentially dispassionate descriptions based on material that reliable, independent sources have published about the book. You can describe what's in the book, just avoid adding your own opinions ("a powerful tale" etc.) into the mix. Quoting reviews is fine if the reviewer is an independent, published source. ("Technology writer Fred Osterman called the book "a well researched and powerful tale"). Don't quote the publisher or author's own publicity blurbs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This still needs expansion and clarity. There are many many typos. I'm concerned about the long lists of names and what the purpose of these are. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the GA Review. I have just spent a long time changing what you recommended and I have also added information concerning how and why Lisa went about her search. I also added information about the actual book such as publishing information, quality, ect. Please let me know if I need to improve on anything else. Thanks Wexlax20 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We have tried to fix all of your suggestions to the best of our ability. If you have any other comments please let us know, we are trying very hard!!Nicocorn20 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

review and evaluation
This is much better. I've made some "tweaks". You'll need to add page numbers from where you cite Spahr's book. I've "cloaked" some of the text that seems extraneous. Perhaps at a later date it will fit better into this article or a different one. The point is to keep the material focused on Spahr's work. Did we ever learn how many POWs were affected by the radio heroes? Did we ever learn if Spahr is planning another book? always refer to her as Spahr, or Lisa Spahr, not Lisa. You have the following tasks to do:
 * 1) add page number references to Spahr's book.
 * 2) proofread at least one more time.  I found many typos and spelling errors, some of which I corrected.  Punctuation goes before the footnote reference, not after.
 * 3) find additional citations (Spahr would be best, or others) as suggested in text; the more you can link to Spahr the better.  If you have consecutive pages, use this formatting  then following
 * 4) make sure all references are consistently formatted.  There should be no bare links--all links should be encased in brackets as I showed you in class.
 * 5) Make sure all dates are consistently formatted: 15 April 2010 (write out the month).  Some of them are 15 April 2010, and some are Apr 15, 2010, etc.  The month must be written out.
 * 6) address the details of the review (above), particularly  this one: "I feel the article could cover details of how Spahr hunted down the listeners, rather than just listing them. How did she go about this? Did she travel widely? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a review. There should also be details of publication date, publisher in the article as well as the infobox. Also sales details if possible. There are some very good suggestions on the article talk page."

Let me know where else you three have contributed. This is much improved. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvements ahead
After the student has gotten their grade for this article, I plan to remove a significant amount of "filler" (WP:OR) that was added, I assume in good faith, to "bulk the article up." A majority of the photos are unrelated and erroneous; german prisoners of war, a parabolic antenna used for moonbounce communications, unrelated citizens band radio equipment, a Morse Code sound file and chart, etc. These will go. I also plan to remove "sales details" such as book prices, retailer websites, and ordering information. This was likely a misunderstanding of a request to add sales figures; generally something that's noted for best selling books, but does not apply to this book. Also removed will be lengthy but off-topic diversions, such as one regarding electromagnetic waves that seems to be trying to connect amateur radio operation with "ticking noises" (the telegraph?). The article also confuses the capabilities of licensed radio amateurs, some of whom listened to short wave broadcasts during the war years, with unlicensed people who listened to short wave as a hobby (i.e. SWL's). Since the foreign broadcasters such as Radio Berlin did not send news of POW's via morse code (or ever broadcast in Morse code) the characterization will also be removed. I'll do a rewrite that corrects this misinformation and adds a substantive discussion of the problems faced by SWL's covered in Spahr's book using the only comprehensive review of the title by Jerry Berg. The article will be much shorter as a result, however I feel it will better conform to our policies and be more accurate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made a significant edit and restructure based on the points described above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)