Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vedem/archive1

Vedem
An amazing article, a gem of hope, a document of human struggle, worthy a film in fact. oscar 01:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Waerth 01:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Though I wrote this article, I am voting for it because of Petr and all the boys who made Vedem possible. When I first heard their story, I thought about Wikipedia. Here were a bunch of young people with a dream. They wanted to document what they saw around them and share it with posterity. In many ways, that is just like us, but they did it, quite literally from hell. For me this is a chance to make sure that their message of hope in the face of all adversity continues to survive. Danny 01:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * apart from the quality of the article itself, concise and comprehensive, that is exactly why i nominated it :-) oscar 02:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Antandrus 02:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A little known part of the history of the Holocaust that Wikipedia can help bring to wider audience.  Great work! Googie man 02:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is what wikipedia is all about. --Jimbo Wales 02:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No references (the single link is obviously not the only source used). More elaboration on the magazine's content would be nice. The first image has a questionable copyright status: Danny uploaded it as being a "photo of dead boy died in 44" (although a fair use argument would be rather easy). No lead section - the first paragraph is a summary of the magazine's history from 1942 to 1944, information that is not elaborated further in the article, rather than a summary of the entire history of the magazine. No sections (I'm reading right off of What is a featured article). ugen 64 02:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No lead section/TOC/headings, no references. I just did a brief check on Amazon's search-inside-the-book, and there are quite a few works mentioning Vedem and putting it in context. I expect such additional context and background information from a featured-quality article. The images are lacking accurate and policy-compliant licensing information (NB: with regard to the photograph of the boy, it does not matter when the boy died, but when the person taking the photo did).--Eloquence* 02:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * support. If the article had normal subject matter I would agree with Ugen and Eloquence, but I think this story is worth promoting further.  Two quesitons.  Does "Shkid" mean "sh*t" in Czech?  What happened to the fifteen survivors?Dinopup 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Some answers to your questions. Republic of Shkid is actually a Russian term (Республика ШКИД or Школа социально Индивидуального воспимчя именчь Достоевского -- Republic of Social Individual Upbringing [named] after Dostoevsky). The original was a school established by Anton Makarenko (1888-1939) for youths orphaned by the Russian Revolution. Most of the boys in Terezin Shkid came from secular, socialist backgrounds, and would have been very familiar with Makarenko's school, which highlighted collectivism (the barracks were organized by them as a collective), discipline and physical labor (two major features of life in Terezin). From what I have learned, most of the boys remained in Czechoslovakia, though some likely left for Europe, America, or Israel. The four cases I know of remained there. Danny 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Danny - could you add these details to the article? I think it would benefit from them. →Raul654 20:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two ways to treat an article on a worthy topic differently from other articles. The POV way is to give that article special treatment in the featured article selection. The NPOV way is to give it special attention and to make sure that it is of the highest possible quality. I prefer the NPOV way, which I think ultimately does the subject greater justice than just trying to get it promoted on the Main Page.--Eloquence* 05:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Eloquence, your statement above is redundant and therefore unncessary, as you've already pointed out that you oppose this article's nomination for featured article. Furthermore, you really contradict the principles of NPOV which you so strongly espouse by making such a patently negative and POV statement.  Therefore the above statement from you strikes me as something more personal and combative, than anything really about defending the integrity of Wikipedia.  Then again, that's my POV, do or don't do with it what you please.  But really, enough already.  Googie man 02:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Googie man, please assume good faith. Eloquence's comment discusses the principle involved, it doesn't at all repeat what was in his vote, and I don't find it redundant, or combative either. I hope you'll want to strike out your response—which is basically five lines taken to say "Oh, shut up!"—after sleeping on it.--Bishonen | Talk 08:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this article fails to meet basic FA requirements as outlined by others above. Also, as per Dinopup's questions, it is not comprehensive enough yet. Worthiness of subject matter is not a reason to grant FA status, just as trivial subject matter is no reason to deny it. Filiocht 08:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same objections as others. Way too short, not comprehensive. This thing was published; a lot more could be written about its contents. And did it have any effect on the world? --SPUI (talk) 13:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I sectioned and rewrote it a bit. I too would love to see more information; a little background on the boy and the man looking after those kids, a little more on Home One, the size of the whole barracks; more about other people involved in the magazine, the initial date of publication in Paris.  Where are the other surviving pages now?  etc. +sj  +  15:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. KingTT 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons stated by Ugen64, Eloquence and Filiocht. Great subject matter; but it needs to comply with the FA criteria just like any other article.  &mdash; mark ✎ 10:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - good, so far as it goes, but I am not convinced that this ic comprehensive: much more can and should be written. It may benefit from a time on Peer review. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This does not even meet a basic and obvious present or not present requirement of having references. Are the above supporters who cite the subject's inspirational quality to them and so on familiar with the criteria for a featured article? 119 19:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. The article does state its references, albeit in the text. Not a surprise that sources are limited given the topic. Dbiv 20:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Viajero 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Length alone should not disqualify. Trödel| talk 22:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)