Talk:Nazi Germany/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've begun here by reading through the peer review, and given the level of detail there the commenters focused on, I don't imagine this will have any difficulty meeting GA standards. I've made it perhaps halfway through the article in the comments below; hope to finish later this afternoon/evening. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A few tiny things:

• Hague Convention needs DAB Y
• "Using propaganda, a cult of personality was developed around Hitler" -- dangling modifier (i.e., who is using propaganda) Y
• "The wording of the law also opened the door for the Nazis" -- slightly idiomatic; try to rewrite per WP:IDIOM ("allowed"?) Y -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article's a little long. This isn't a problem for an article of this importance (for GA anyway), but FWIW, here's some sentences I think could be cut or in some cases moved to explanatory footnotes. Don't worry about replying to any of these, it's not an issue for GA-- just for you to take or leave.

• "The NSDAP continued to eliminate all political opposition." Y
• "Workers were desperate for an economic turnaround." Y
• "In one rural area, German soldiers were attacked with pitchforks by local residents when they tried to stop the advancing Americans" (seems like a fairly trivial incident) Y
• "On 22 April, Hitler announced he would stay in Berlin until the end and then shoot himself.[106] As the Red Army drew closer, both Göring and Heinrich Himmler attempted but failed to seize power from Hitler.[107][108]" Y
• " Goebbels and his wife Magda committed suicide the next day, after murdering their six children.[112]" N
• "Some 22,000 citizens died during the Battle of Berlin.[120] "
• "The German Red Cross still maintains that the death toll from the expulsions is 2.2 million." Y Moved to a note
• "More such districts, such as the Reichskommissariat Moskowien (Moscow), Reichskommissariat Kaukasus (Caucasus), and Reichskommissariat Turkestan (Turkestan) were proposed in the event that these areas were brought under German rule." Y Moved to a note
• "The process of nazification extended to sports clubs, choirs, and volunteer groups, who had their leadership replaced with Nazi sympathisers or party members. By June 1933 the only organisations not in the control of the NSDAP were the army and the churches.[15]" -- these sentences occur almost identically in different sections--I'd suggest cutting them from "government" since the examples here aren't really government examples anyway. Y
• "Röhm favoured a "second revolution", which would tear down industrialists, big business, and the Junker aristocracy, and eliminate Prussian control of the military.[193] To fulfil this goal, he intended to assume command of the army and absorb it into the ranks of the SA.[194]" Y
• "; its size was reduced by 40 per cent over the next year as it was converted into a sports and training organisation" Y -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2! Thanks so much for taking on this review. As you can see, my friend Kierzek and I have dealt with some of the above suggestions. Kierzek will be helping further as the review goes on. I have ticked off the completed items for my own reference. I think we should leave in the material about the Goebbels suicides and the murder of the children as there's a tie-in with material about mass suicides further down. -- Dianna (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the fast responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Continuing under a new header for clarity. This is really a terrific article, btw; it does an excellent job of covering social and cultural aspects of Nazi Germany as well as the better known military/atrocity angles. I learned quite a lot from reading it (hope that doesn't disqualify me as its reviewer). Please feel free to revert any of the tweaks I've made directly to the text if you see any you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Small suggestions:

• "By spring 1934" -- probably better to say "early" or a month here per WP:REALTIME, a subcriterion of 1b Y
• "by autumn 1944" -- ditto Y
• "By 1939 around 250,000 of Germany's 437,000 Jews emigrated to the United States, Palestine, Great Britain, and other countries" -- is it correct to put the US at the top of this list? My understanding was that the US was not terribly good about accepting Jewish refugees--but perhaps it was still better than others.
  • The maps on pages 556 and 558 of Evans 2005 show the US as accepting 102,000 immigrants, Argentina 63,500, the UK 52,000, Palestine 33,390 (they were the top four, according to these two maps). So it's correct to put the US at the top. I will amend slightly and put these top four in order.
• I don't think this is a GA issue, but the images get a little cramped around the wartime economy/Holocaust section. MOS:IMAGELOCATION calls for text not to be between facing images, as happens on my display in "Wartime economy". I'd suggest cutting the Speer image and moving the IG Farben image to its place. In the Holocaust section, the Zboriv image could perhaps be removed. While both very good images, btw, if two images are used for the Holocaust section, having two firing squad images in Ukraine may be mildly redundant; other aspects, such as gas chambers, camps, etc. might be pictured here. Y We have a Featured Picture of the crematorium at Auschwitz.
• "But the law only loosely enforced" -- missing a "was", presumably. Y
• "by the summer of 1933" -- per the above -- "mid-1933"? Y -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible cuts: Again, these are side suggestions only, and not relevant for GA. Feel free to take or leave, no response needed unless you're interested in discussing.

• ", who were viewed as being inferior to the Aryan master race and part of a Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy" -- already well-establishedY
• "One suggestion was a mass forced deportation of Jews. Continued deportations into occupied Poland were rejected by Hans Frank, Governor of the General Government;[248] the harvest was poor in 1941, and he was unwilling to accept any more "useless mouths".[258] Adolf Eichmann suggested they should be forced to emigrate to Palestine.[248] Franz Rademacher proposed that they should be deported to Madagascar, an idea dismissed as impractical in 1942.[248]" -- I wouldn't suggest cutting this, but I wonder if it could be shortened to a sentence: "One suggestion was a mass forced deportation of Jews to Poland, Palestine, or Madagascar."Y
• "and members of the Polish underground got word to their government in exile in London as to what was happening. When reports of the genocide reached Britain, Churchill and the Allies concluded that the best plan was to concentrate on winning the war as quickly as possible" -- allied responses to the Holocaust may be slightly off-topic here;Yagreed.
• "Citing the Aryan Paragraph, they demanded that all Jews employed by German churches be dismissed from their posts." -- seems like a comparatively small number of people affected compared to other events in the article Y
• "including Martin Niemöller, one of the founders of the Confessing Church; he remained confined in concentration camps almost until the end of the war" Y
• "Several Nazis were environmentalists.[341] Himmler made efforts to ban the hunting of animals, and Göring was an animal lover and conservationist.[342][343]" Y
• " Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, repeatedly protested these violations of the Concordat, but to no avail. " (though context on Pacelli should be combined w/ next sentence) Y tweeked
• "Politically undesirable teachers such as socialists also lost their jobs. " --following sentences make the required conformity clear Y
• "These findings were largely forgotten after the war, but interest resumed in the 1950s, when American and British researchers began re-examining the question." Y
• The paragraph on medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates may be more detailed than needed for this overview; I wonder if you might reduce it to simply the first sentence and the last. Y trimmed
• "The current animal welfare laws in Germany are adapted from laws introduced by the National Socialist regime" Y
• "Drawing in part on existing ideas and legislation, " Y
• " The legislation provided a framework for long-range planning regarding the use of natural areas and allowed for the expropriation of privately owned land to create nature preserves" -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Y tweaked
• Not an issue for GA, but is http://www.axishistory.com/about-ahf worth including as an external link? It describes itself as "basically one-man project by myself, Marcus Wendel," which suggests to me it's not a major scholarly resource; FWIW, I'd suggest cutting it, but I could be missing something here. Y -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. -- Dianna (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur, your suggestions have been very helpful. --Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Very glad it's been a help! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor prose point above.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See minor WP:WTW point above re: seasons.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	On a superficial pass, the article appears complete; also, article has received extensive review without persuasive complaints of omission.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	At 78kb, article is a little long, but not unreasonably long for a major topic. I suggested some very small cuts above, but there's very little fat here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Talk page is active, as you'd expect for a top-importance article, but no significant warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Okay, have to sign off for a bit now, but it appears this is very, very close to GA. Due to the complexity of this topic and the number of editors who appear to be actively following this one, I'm going to hold off for another 2-3 days before giving a final pass; I want to make sure we give at least a brief window for others to chime in if they like, in case I'm missing anything obvious.

Thanks again to all involved in bringing to the article to this point! It's a terrific accomplishment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All right--all my issues seem to be resolved. Anybody see anything else? Otherwise, I'll pass this at some point over the weekend. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since no one else has raised any issues, I'm passing this as a GA. Congratulations again to you both (and any other contributors) on an outstanding revision of a highly popular, vital article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking on this important work. -- Dianna (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Outside comment

• The audio file of the Horst Wessel Lied is blatant neo-Nazi propaganda, delete it.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't think its inclusion endorses a pro-Nazi POV any more than the Star Spangled Banner on the page USA endorses pro-American propaganda. I'll leave it to more regular editors of this page to work out whether it does, indeed, belong here (I realize there are other issues involved), but I don't see it as a problem for the GA criteria on first glance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

the Horst Wessel Lied is banned in Germany because it is Neo-Nazi propaganda. The significance and meaning of this song has apparently has gone over the heads of the folks who edit here.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No reason to get emotional here. They are written about in all major histories of Nazi Germany. With that said, I think a link to both "Anthems" is sufficient without the audio files and it will save bytes, as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There are good reasons to get emotional here, millions died and many people alive still remember the horror of Nazi Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Offering links to the relevant articles is as effective as offering ogg files of the anthems, imo. If people want to hear the songs they're readily available on the Commons or YouTube. -- Dianna (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing to stop us sharing the views of German and Austrian legislators on the publication of Horst-Wessel-Lied; there's also nothing to stop us from disregarding non-ubiquitous laws that have no place in countries without a history of Nazism or Nazi occupation. It is true that Horst-Wessel-Lied will be a "top hit" for neo-Nazis, but I fail to see how this is of any relevance here. It's an historical piece of music - it's not something that portrays the Third Reich in an overly or unnecessarily positive light (except in the eyes of a German-fluent neo-Nazi) - and, dare I say it - it's less offensive than some of the photographs on this article. I myself find the photo of starving prisoners 'offensive' - but it's history, and it shouldn't be watered down for anyone. I agree with what Boson has said in that it's likely that only a small number of people will have any interest in Horst-Wessel-Lied, and I agree that a link to the song on the article for Horst-Wessel-Lied would be equally appropriate, but I stand against deletion of the OGG partly out of principle (let's not water down history), and partly because the argument for removal just isn't strong enough; articles on countries (and 'periods' within countries - even the evil ones) have sound files in their infoboxes.Surlyduff50 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)