Talk:World War I reparations/GA1

GA Review

Closing as failed. MrClog (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: MrClog (talk · contribs) 01:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reviewing in the coming 7 days. --MrClog (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article can certainly pass the GA criteria, but the comments below need to be addressed. Please place an indented reply to a comment when you believe it is fixed. You have 7 days to address the comments, though this can of course be delayed if you've already done significant work to address the concerns but still need a bit more time. --MrClog (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: Do you plan to further address the concerns? --MrClog (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did plan on it, however I lack the time at present. I understand this will result in the GA nom being failed, which is regrettable. I do thank you for your review and the effort.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. Once you have time and renominate it, shoot me a message on my talk page. Closing as failed. --MrClog (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

General

(1a) Why is "German Government" consistently written with the capital "[G]overnment"?
My understanding is it requires a capital as it is being referenced specifically, as a proper noun and not in a general way as a common noun. Open to corrections though.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

(2c) Cite 8 (Schmitt 1960, p. 101) doesn't seem to support the sentence to which it is attached.
While the other sources are more to the point in supporting this sentence, Schmitt does to a lesser extent: "The war came to an end

in the autumn of 1918 because the Central Powers, one after another, defeated in battle and overtaken by revolution". I dont think it would be a big deal to remove it though, without undermining the sourcing of the info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(3a) Brezina 2006 discusses the political pressure that the Allied leaders faced at home from voters for harsh reperations. It would be a good idea to (shortly) mention these pressures as part of the background.
I made a couple of tweaks based off the source and the pages cited. Does this work? Was there additional information that you found in the source that you believe should be included?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German Reaction

(6a) (1) The picture's source link does not work. (2) For a public domain claim based on the author having died more than 70 years ago, the name and date of death of the individual that took the picture must be identified. (3) The current claim (died 70+ years ago) is not valid in the United States, while all images on Wikimedia Commons must be in the public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin. I assume the picture was created before Jan. 1, 1925, in which case that would be a proper public domain claim for the U.S. (but needs to be added).
I have updated the wikicommons pageEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(2c) Cite 27 (Albrecht-Carrié 1940, p. 15) does not support that it was the objective of "both the politicians and historians".

Evolution of reparations

Initial demands

(2c) The second paragraph relies fully on primary sources right now; please add secondary sources as well.

London Schedule of Payments

(2b) Cite 46's page numbers are impossible as the source starts at page 231.
(1a) This section repeatedly quotes directly from secondary sources. I find it confusing as to why and who is being cited without looking at the sources itself and it may pose a copyright issue.

End of reparations for Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Turkey

(1a) (again) This section repeatedly quotes directly from secondary sources. I find it confusing as to why and who is being cited without looking at the sources itself and it may pose a copyright issue.

Dawes Plan

(3a) "French troops were to withdraw from the Ruhr" - Why only the French troops?

Young Plan

(3a) "However, they considered the plan a temporary measure and expected a revised plan at a future date." - Why did they?
(3a) "5.8 million voters" - How many voted in total?
I have updated this section in an attempt to address both points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

End of German reparations

(1a) "In effect, therefore, America paid reparations to Germany—four times more, in price-adjusted terms, than the U.S. furnished to West Germany under the post-1948 Marshall Plan." This sentence as a whole confuses me; why would the U.S. pay reparations to Germany?
I have tweaked that sentence to be more clear, and I have also added in an additional quote that makes a similar point: the US basically paid the reparations via loans to Germany.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

(2b) Which source are the 2020 US$ amounts based on?
It is using the following template: Template:Inflation EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Effect on the German economy

Hyperinflation

(1a) The article should shortly explain what gold Marks and paper Marks are (especially what the difference is).
(4) The article spends significantly more time elaborating on the view that the reparations did not cause the hyperinflation. Is this in line with the current consensus among economists?
At the time of writing the article, it was my understanding that it was the long-held consensus. I will review for additional material.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.