Wikipedia:Peer review/Albert Speer/archive1

Albert Speer

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for FA soon and I could use feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These initial remarks relate to the lead and first two main sections. Further comments will follow later.

• Lead
  • The "listen" icon is awkwardly placed within the date parentheses
  • "the", before "ministerial office", is redundant
  • You say he served "most of his time" in Spandau. Wasn't the whole of his sentence served there? No other prison location is mentioned.
  • According to this, Baldur von Schirach showed at least some degree of penitence.
  • The "however" in para 2 is redundant - test by replacing it with "Despite this", and it makes no sense.
  • Suggest lose the comma after "1966" in para 3.

• Early life
  • 1st para has too many short, choppy sentences. The prose flow would improvr if some of these were combined.
  • Same problem occurs in mid-2nd para. "It was there..." should be replaced with "where", after a comma.
  • "He became Tessenow's assistant". Can you clarify this rather vague role - did he join the academic staff, was he a sort of PA/dogsbody? What did he do?
  • Also, you need to clarify the nature of the "relationship" with Rudolph Wolters. I assume that this was professional, but perhaps "relationship" isn't the best word to use - it certainly reads strangely, especially as you use the same word with reference to Margarete Weber.

• Nazi Architect: General - this section is almost 2000 words long, and since it is linked to a main article I think you should reconsider the amount of detail, with a view to shortening it in accordance with "summary style".
  • "...because his students urged him to" is an awkward prepositional sentence ending. Suggest something like: "...only on the urging of his students"
  • Also, in what sense were they "his" students? This touches on the lack of clarity noted above, in relation to his role as Tessenow's assistant.
  • The sentence ending "...many of whom had become corpulent in office" needs a citation
  • "Part of the land for the boulevard was to be found by building two major railway stations..." etc. This part is somewhat over-explained. Why not just say: "Part of the land for the boulevard was to be found by replacing an existing railway line with an underground link".

OK, I will continue the review later. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to work on these comments. I'll change "relationship" to "friendship" re Wolters. Speer began his sentence on the day sentence was pronounced, so he served nine months in Nuremberg and nineteen years and three months in Spandau. All of these will be addressed, not a problem. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented them. I cut back only slightly on the Nazi architect section, but I made significant cuts in the Berlin paragraph. The Nazi period is really the period people care about with respect to Speer, and we need to be showing what Speer was doing with his time at all times, so I don't want to totally get rid of any paragraph. As for the question about the students, I've clarified. Using today's terminology (which I do not do in the article), Speer was Tessenow's TA. Tessenow only taught a couple of classes a week and Speer, using Tessenow's lesson plans, taught the rest. Speer says about this, "I taught for him . . . I really taught nothing that came from me, I copied him." In Sereny, where Speer talks about why he went to see Hitler, he uses the words "my students" Judging from the way Speer describes things, though he does not address this point, he likely handled most of the interaction with the undergrads, and it is logical for him to think of them that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing with the review:-

• Minister for armaments
  • "...Speer recounts the meeting between him and Hitler, and that the architect was reluctant to take on the ministerial office, and only did so because Hitler commanded him to." This sentence is a bit clumsy, with too many "ands", and another prepositional ending. I suggest it could be simplified to "...Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, only doing so because Hitler commanded it".
  • "...was not yet geared for war production" Shaould this be "not yet fully geared..."?
  • "No sooner than five..." ?? "No fewer than five..."
  • Suggest "sought the appointment of Hanke"
  • "In January 1944 Speer fell ill and would remain away from the office..." Unnecessary subjunctive mood. "...and was away from the office" would do just as well, or better.

• Nuremburg trial: No particular comment

• Imprisonment
  • Either here or in the previous section it should be clarified who the "four occupying powers" were.
  • Para 3: what was the book of major importance that he had completed by 1954?
  • Avoid repetition of the "early release" phrase in the final paragraph

• Release: No particular comment

• Legacy and controversy: I suggest that this section should be slightly reorganised. The first brief paragraph should become a short subsection entitled "Architectural legacy". The second short para (beginning "Speer's actions involving Jews...") should be transferred to the next section entitled "Actions regarding the Jews". "Knowledge of the Holocaust" will form the third and final section.

• Knowledge of the Holocaust
  • Suggest that "Speer" in second line becomes "he"
  • In the quote, what is Speer referring to when he says: "These seconds..."?
  • The statement in quotes: "Golhagen's accusations would certainly have been more convincing" should be preceded by something like: "According to historian Joachim Fest,..."
  • In the brief paragraph that begins "In 2007..." Speer's name is repeated five times (3 times in one line). The personal pronoun needs to be used to avoid over-repetition.

General comment: I've done a bit of fiddling with commas - probably more could be done. In general this is an important and engrossing article. I found the prose a bit uneven - very compelling in parts, a bit clunky and awkward in others. Perhaps a thorough copyeditor could smooth things out a bit. Definitely a good FAC candidate after a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. At this point, I'm going to close the peer review, and when I've made the changes I'm going to start the FAC. I really appreciate your work in what is a long article. Let me know if I can review one for you sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)