I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently underwent a peer review and GA review. No major concerns have been flagged so far. Please share your feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
"Strachwitz was appointed ordnance officer." - it would be worth adding "in his unit" or something like that, or "was appointed as an ordnance officer"; at first, I assumed that this meant he was some sort of national-level ordnance officer.
"He had an older sister, Aloysia (1892–1972), followed by his younger brother Johannes (1896–1917) nicknamed "Ceslaus", his sister Elisabeth (1897–1992), his brother Manfred (1899–1972), his brother Mariano (1902–22), and his youngest sister Margarethe (1905–1989)" - Personally, I'm not convinced the dates add much - but they do make the sentence harder to read.
I like to keep them for now but I am not making this a show stopper. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
"After one year at Avignon he was put in a German uniform and taken to Fort Barraux." - worth adding that the Fort was a prisoner of war facility?
"In the belief that he could better politically represent his Upper Silesian agricultural and forestry interests, he applied for membership in the Nazi Party" - how good is the sourcing for this? I'm not an expert on this officer or on Rolls (the cited source), but I'm always a little nervous about how we assess the explanations that people gave for joining the Nazi Party - particularly when they were fairly right wing individuals to start with, by the sounds of it, and then joined the SS. Are you confident that this is a genuinely fair assessment of why he joined the party?
Good question! I would point out that the picture that the author draws is that of a national conservative and not right wing individual. The reason Röll states is exactly what I wrote in the article. To lessen the emphasis of the wording I suggest to write that he joined the Nazi Party and put the reason in footnote stating "According to Röll Strachwitz joined the ..." Would this work for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems a good way of dealing with it, works for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
"General Kirchner received the order for Fall Gelb..." I was having trouble working out what Strachwitz was doing during the events of this and the following paragraph. Is there anyway of pulling out more about his role?
Strachwitz was responsible for organizing the supply of the fighting troops. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
"Strachwitz led ad-hoc formation in Operation Doppelkopf (double-head)" - there's something missing here - "an ad-hoc formation" or "led ad-hoc formations"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
lime kiln and quarry in Klein Stein—present-day Kamionek—and Groß Stein, a distillery in Groß Stein and Alt Siedel some problems here. Were there kilns and quarries in each town, or one of each that was in both towns? And the same for the distillery.
According to the source both in each town. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Then be sure to clarify to ensure that the reader understands as much.
Strachwitz was back with the 1st Panzer Division You never told us which panzer unit he had transferred to in the first place.
I wrote earlier in the article that he is with Panzer-Regiment 2, which is subordinated to the 1st Panzer-Division. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
bridge and marshaled the anti-aircraft ammunitions Couple of problems here. Ammunition is plural and doesn't need the 's' and "marshalled" is used oddly. Perhaps ensured delivery of the ammunition or some such.
True, but this is a very long article and should be trimmed of extraneous details as much as possible, IMO.
In the resulting battle Strachwitz was hit and wounded in his left arm, which caused severe bleeding. His injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit. Cut out the middle bits as unimportant and consolidate the two sentences.
Strachwitz had to hand over command of his I./Panzer-Regiment 2 to Was he in command of the regiment and I. Batallion at the same time?
In the lead of the "Balkans campaign" section I wrote that he had command of the I. Battalion until October 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
He received the award together with Georg-Wilhelm Postel who had been awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on this day. Why is this important?
It helps set context and puts his awards into context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Without more info on why Postel got his award, this is pretty meaningless and should be deleted. Details about awards ceremonies are pretty unimportant, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Presentations of higher grades of the KC were group presentations. I find it an interesting aspect of the KC to know who was present at these award ceremonies. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm often bemused by the attention drawn by KC winners because there's no such phenomena in the Anglosphere. While MoH and VC winners are well covered, there's very little coverage of American DSC/Navy Cross winners or the British equivalents. Both of which were awarded in smaller numbers than the lower grades of the KC. But my main point is that it's a bit of extraneous detail that you would do well to cut, together with all the other bits about the actual award presentations, etc. Unless, of course, something notable happened at one of the ceremonies, but I don't really think that was really the case with Strachwitz.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Strachwitz has been criticized for his regiment's poor performance during the Battle of Kursk; why isn't this mentioned?
It is not mentioned because the sources do not speak of this. I am not that familiar with Kursk, I will have to consult other/further sources on this. Can you assist? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to this situation? It reads more like Karl Decker made an operational error which made Strachwitz furious. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Von Lauchert also apparently wrote a letter to Guderian detailing von Strachwitz's poor handling of the Panther units, but I don't know any further details. Perhaps Guderian wrote about the issue in one of his books? But if it's this difficult to find out what the problem was, it's probably not important enough to cover here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I bought Nipe's book and made a brief reference to Strachwitz's failure on 5 July 1943. Good point and thanks for the suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Rifle corps should only be capitalized when used with a number which makes it a proper noun.
Their attempt to cut out the Tiger I tanks from their rear was repelled by Lieutenant Günther Famula, who received a posthumous Knight's Cross for these actions, keeping the road to the supplies open. I'm not sure what's going on here and I thought that that the Tiger Is weren't being used in this battle.
Panther tanks were used offensively, while the Tigers remained in the rear. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There were few to none Panthers in this battle, it was mostly StuGs, PzKpfw IVs and Tiger Is. I've rewritten most of the Narva section as it was easier than explaining what needed to be done. As well as the beginning of the final battles section. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
exception of the artillery, air, sniper activity delete "the"
Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency  (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
Images all appear to be PD / free and have req'd info (no action req'd).
Caption for File:Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz.jpg probably would work better as a full sentence (for instance "Strachwitz as Oberst and commander of Panzer-Regiment "Großdeutschland", June 1943") - rest of the captions look fine to me.
The phraseology seems counter-intuitive to me here: "After the Armistice with Germany in November 1918..." this would seem to me what the allies would have called it. A German, like the subject of the article, probably wouldn't have though. Perhaps just say "After the Armistice in November 1918..."
"...had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and now, in May 1936...", consider more simply :...had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and, in May 1936..." (not really sure "now" is correct as you are writing 78 years after the fact).
There look like there may be some missing commas in this sentence: "At the end February 1940 the commanding general of the 1st Panzer Division Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) Rudolf Schmidt was replaced by Generalmajor Friedrich Kirchner."
"...The Stab established the headquarter..." should be "headquarters"
Redundant language here: "They reached the Danube at Pančevo only to find the Pančevo Bridge crossing the Danube destroyed." Consider rewording more simply as: "They reached the Danube at Pančevo only to find the bridge there destroyed."
"Strachwitz injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit...", consider instead: "His injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit." Otherwise you need an possessive apostrophe 's on Strachwitz.
"...but are estimated by Mart Laar to at least 30,000 men for all purposes..." → "...but are estimated by Mart Laar as being at least 30,000 men." (I really don't know what you mean by "for all purposes").
"...Strachwitz attack on its left flank was preceded..." → "Strachwitz's attack on its left flank was preceded..."
Some parts of the "Personal life" section repeat information already present above. Is there a reason for this? It seems redundant. Suggest removing the section entirely and working the information into the rest of the article in chronological order (specifically the After World War II section). (suggestion only).
I would like to keep it as is, if I may, acknowledging that it is bit redundant. I find it easier to look up since it is very much outside of his military career. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy to wait and see want other editors think about this section before a decision is made of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
"Strachwitz died on 25 April 1968 of lung cancer in the hospital of Trostberg..." → "Strachwitz died on 25 April 1968 of lung cancer in hospital in Trostberg..."
Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Will re-read the article once these have been dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough review. I beleive to have addressed the bulk of your comments. Those not addressed I did not understand. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Gday I've done a copyedit to fix the remaining issues that I saw - pls see my edits here  and revert any that you disagree with / changed the meaning of your writing unintentionally. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Anotherclown: How are things looking to you now after MB's changes following your comments (and Dan's/Parsec's)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Gday - I honestly do not understand the rationale behind the personal life section which repeats some information already presented in earlier in the article, while the rest could easily be presented chronologically in the other sections and the section done away with. That said the article is quite good in my opinion, so I neither support nor oppose its promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe this to be a question of style. I have written articles with an explicit personal life sections (see Werner Mölders or Ernst Lindemann; both articles are FAC today) and without (see Helmut Lent also FAC). I therefore conclude that breaking this info out is not inherently wrong (at least it was never raised before), but as said, a question of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to addressing this request, if this is mandated by popular demand. However, I checked WP:MOSBIO and MOS:LAYOUT. Unless I overlooked something, it is not mandated. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
That is only half the issue identified though. As I said this section repeats information you presented previously in the article, and is therefore redundant. Whilst the use of a dedicated "personal life" section may indeed be a question of style (hence why I didn't oppose), repeating information isn't. Would really be surprised if that would pass at FAC - but I have been wrong in the past and will be again. Anyway I'm not requesting you do anything - I just haven't added my support due to the current form the article takes. If others are happy with this then there is nothing stopping its promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That's fair. Let's see how it turns out. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
by popular demand I removed the section and integrated the content into the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth pinging Anotherclown to see if his concerns are now addressed fully for him to support the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"He emphasized many sporting activities": I don't know what "emphasized" means here.
"Strachwitz ordered a messenger with the gathered information to break through to the German lines and make a report, which the messenger achieved.": Strachwitz dispatched a messenger, who broke through to the German lines and delivered the intelligence they had gathered.
"Now, their progress slowed by a wounded comrade and wearing civilian clothes, they were caught by French forces.": Their progress was slowed by a wounded comrade, and they were caught in civilian clothes by French forces.
It might be worthwhile to include a sentence or two on the Schlieffen Plan and the general situation in 1914 - many readers won't know why the assassination of an Austro-Hungarian archduke would prompt Germany to invade France (through Belgium).
It's better, but part of what I was getting at was the alliance structure in 1914 - most readers will follow up through the bit about Russia mobilizing, prompting a German mobilization, but will not understand why the bulk of the German Army went to France instead of Russia. It might be best to split the bit about the Schlieffen Plan into its own paragraph at the start of the section (at add it to the last paragraph of the previous section) and add the basic logic of the plan - that France could be defeated very quickly, before the Russian steamroller would have time to fully mobilize so Germany could fight, in essence, two one-front wars instead of one two-front war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Understood! Have another look if this now meets the needs, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I made a couple of small changes, since the final version of the plan avoided violating the Netherlands' neutrality. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
In general, you give the German name first followed by an English translation, except for the "Silesian Eagle (Schlesischer Adler)" - why is this?
What's the relevance of pointing out his battalion being equipped with submersible tanks in the Barbarossa section? It was already mentioned earlier and doesn't seem to be directly related to the action on 25 August.
question Before at some point the reviewers cast their final verdict on this article I would truly like some very generic feedback on this article. I worked over a year on this. I found it very challenging at times to cover such a wide variety of historic events, condense the information and put it into perspective so that the reader can follow and understand this biography (so I hope). It also required a lot of translation and investigation to find the correct and sematic English representation. Most of the feedback I received so far very much focusses on my linguistic limitations, not that I mind that, on the contrary. But what I truly wish to read from you reviewers: does this make sense to you and is the information at the right level of detail? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is very good on this count (and I would guess the others agree, which is why we're picking on small details for the most part). The only thing that really caught my eye was the background to the outbreak of war in 1914, which I mentioned above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.