Wikipedia:Peer review/Night of the Long Knives/archive1

Night of the Long Knives

This article deals with a pivotal event in Nazi Germany, and therefore modern history. I have added 30 citations from some of the standard works on Nazi Germany, uploaded four pictures from the public domain, and added content necessary to explain the event accurately.

I think that this article now meets featured article status, but would like to have your suggestions before it is nominated for featured article status. I am using University of Chicago Manual of Style citation- and reference-style.

Any article dealing with Hitler invites controversy, so I have tried my best to adhere to NPOV and keep the article accurate.

Thanks.--Mcattell 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:BirgitteSB

• Lead: Doesn't properly summarize the entire article. Nothing from Aftermath.

Expanded the lead paragraphs. Done

• • The name "Night of the Long Knives" is a reference to the massacre of Vortigern's men by Angle, Jute, and Saxon mercenaries in Arthurian myth I am left wondering how it came to be called "The Night of the Long Knives". The planners called it "Hummingbird" but who started using this name and when? With the British allusion I imagine it is an English name, but it it would be good to explain this. Done

The phrase "night of the long knives" predates the purge itself. It was simply a phrase in German that refers to "revenge" or maybe even "payback." I can't seem to find a reference that definitively states who came up with the code name "Hummingbird."--Mcattell 23:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hitler and the Sturmabteilung (SA): What exactly is the Strumabteilung? It is not a politcal party nor part of the army, but I can't fathom exaclty what is meant by "paramilitary orginazation". This probably can be fixed by giving a little of it's history. How long has it been around, who started it, why did they start it, and how have the goals changed over time. Maybe there needs to be a section before this one called "Background of the Strumabteilung (SA)" made from some of this section plus new material. Done

To some extent, those who want further information on the SA are going to have to click the wikilink for SA. Too much background, and the article becomes a general history of the rise of Nazism. However, I have given it more context.--Mcattell 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Röhm's "continuing revolution": I don't know if that is the best title; the sectin is as much about the army as Rohm. Maybe "The Reichswehr and the Sturmabteilung (SA)" to follow the format from the last section. Done

Section is now "Conflict between the army and the SA."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • In response, Hitler met with Blomberg and the leadership of the SA and SS on February 28, 1934. This is the first mention of the SS since the "Lead". How exactly does the SS fit in with the army and the SA? I am not sure of their affliation at this point, although I think they are condisdered part of the army during WWII.
  • Crisis mounts: Again I am not a big fan of this title. It again seems a bit sensationalist to me. Maybe something like "Pressure against the Sturmabteilung (SA)". The section seems to focused alot on all the pressure from different groups to act against the SA.

part of the army during WWII. Done  Done**By the spring of 1934, it was clear that Röhm's vision of a new Germany was incompatible with Hitler's plan to consolidate power and expand the army. Clear to whom? If it is clear to Hitler why does he need to recieve such pressure. Why does Hitler not move against the SA until he is threatened by Hindenburg? Why does Rohm feel so confident that he would give Bloomberg the memo? I think something is missing here about either Hitler or Rohm that would explain these things.

Added, "Hitler had hesitated for months to move against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to depose the Nazi regime, left Hitler with little room for compromise."--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The eventual marginalization of the SA removed an obstacle to Himmler's accumulation of power in the coming years This is getting a little ahead of the game. Can you find something about why Himmler was against the SA at the time before this event rather that in hindsight. Done
  • There are alot of new names introduced in this section and sometimes without enough context.
    • with Prussian Minister-President Hermann Göring, Propaganda Minister Joseph Göbbels, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, and Himmler's deputy Reinhard Heydrich arraying themselves against Röhm. Try to find a place to mention Gobbels again in this section. Also I think you can cut Heydrich everywhere, he is never mentioned indepently of Himmler. And as he is Himmlers deputy it is hardly significant that he is supporting him. Done

I find it difficult to really explain the roles of these prominent Nazis without expanding the article a bit much. I think readers should click on their wikilinks to learn more.

• • • Industrialists such as Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen, It would be better to just say "Industrialists" and drop the names.
    • Privately, Papen, a Catholic aristocrat with ties to army and industry, threatened to resign if Hitler did not act This need more context. Why would Hitler care if Papen resigned? Who does Papen have influennce with? Done

Added context.

• • • Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the army's liaison to the party, gave it to him by expelling Röhm from the German Officers' League, and by placing the army on alert. How is Reichenau role here independent of Blomberg? Either only mention Blomberg or explain what Reichenau did that is notable here. Done

Reichenau is now mentioned a second time in the text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hitler felt confident enough in his position to attend the wedding reception of Gauleiter Josef Terboven in Essen, Is the bridegroom's name really significant? Done

Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Purge One thing I would watch in this section is the quoted material. It would be better to focus more on the historical analysis of of what Hitler was doing at this time than his own words, since he is hardley being sincere. (i.e it wasn't really the "worst treachery in history" it was a frame-up) I don't mind some quotes, but it needs to followed what historians say about this event rather than letting the readers draw their own conclusions. This is especially true because it is assumed he is lying in some of this.

Agreed. Done.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hess even volunteered to shoot the "traitors" himself This is the first mention of Hess. It needs context. Done

Hess is now mentioned twice in the text.

• • Gestapo officers gunned down those loyal to Papen, First mention of the Gestapo, needs context. Done
• Tone: Overall the writing is a little sensationalist in tone.
  • Hitler hurried off to Neudeck to meet with Hindenburg. Nothing is mentioned of where his was or what he was doing that makes this important. Was Neudeck a far distance to travel? Did he cut short a vacation? Why is it imporant to say "hurried off to Neudeck" rather than "Hitler met with Hindenburg". Is something significant about Neudeck? Done

Changed text.--Mcattell 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The frantic planning of the past week had come to this. wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Done

• • One of the followers present recounted spittle dribbling from Hitler's mouth as he spoke. Not really relevant. Done

• • to loose the death squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims a bit melodramatic. Done

• • it appeared that no law would constrain Hitler in his use of power. This fratricidal bloodletting could be seen as a harbinger of the violence that characterized the Nazi regime, from the use of force to establish an empire of conquest, to the later abattoirs of the Holocaust. again melodramatic. Done

• Partial list of victims I really dislike this sort of list. I think anyone notable should be discussed in the prose under "Purge" as some already are. Done

Overall I think this article is well-done. The big concerns I have are style and the lack of context in places. I imagine your are very familiar with this time period so just the mention of a name means a great deal more context-wise to you than the average reader and it is probably hard for you to see where more is needed. Push yourself to explain the importance all the small things even when it seems self-apparent to you. I would be happy to look it over again if you like.--BirgitteSB 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment With the edits you've done today, Mcattell, this article is definitely impressive, and worthy of its GA status. Great details and background information, while at the same time short and to the point. As far as I can see, you did not 'beat a dead horse' about any one subject in the article, instead giving fair attention and balance of material to each issue of the background, lead-up, purge, and aftermath. Great job.--PericlesofAthens 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by User:LordHarris

• Hi, looking through I definately agree you need to expand the lead in line with Wikipedia:Lead. Done

Expanded lead.

• The references all appear good though I do have one problem - mainly that they are all from a few sources and a lot from Third Reich in Power. I think IMO to go beyond GA, to FA level you need to incorporate a wider variety of references from multiple sources. The references you have are fine but I do feel that there is a large literature on the subject, with authors varying in opinions and facts etc?  Done

There are now more than a dozen references. Evans and Kershaw are the most recent and critically acclaimed (via scholars), so they are used somewhat more than others.

• I think you could expand the category section at the bottom - there must be more than one category? Done

Did it.

• Also in regards to the SA propaganda poster, can you expand the image caption? The same goes for some of the other images. See Wikipedia:Captions for more details. Good work though!  DoneLordHarris 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• The scrolling ref box won't do well at FAC; somewhere on one of the talk pages of FAC or WIAFA you'll find links to guideline reasoning for why they shouldn't be used. (If you can't find it, I'll got looking for it.) Besides that they won't mirror well on other sites, and don't show in printed versions, they render me unable to analyze and help with your footnotes the way I usually do (I go to the printable version, copy the footnotes, and put them into a spreadsheet to help identify missing instances of named refs that should be used -- the printable version is invalidated by the scroll box). For example, here, named refs aren't used:
  • 61. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.
  • 62. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company, 520.  Done
    • That should be shortened and combined to one ref via named refs: Kershaw (1999), p. 520.  Done
• There's no need to repeat all of the Reference info in the footnotes; it just chunks up the article size and makes it harder to edit. I prefer author (date), p. xx. The rest of the info is already given in References and need be repeated in every footnote.  Done--Mcattell 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• There's an ISBN finder in the user box on my talk page that you can use to fill in ISBNs on the books.
• Very pleased that See also and External links are minimal; I prefer the strict order of appendices at WP:LAYOUT, as it gives top billing to Wikified content (See also before refs and external links). Done
• The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 ... example ... WP:MOSNUM, month day combos are wikified. At about 4:30 on the morning of June 30, 1934, ... full dates are wikified. By the spring of 1934, Röhm's vision ... solo years are not wikified. Review throughout. Done
• Prose analysis is not my strength, so I didn't thoroughly read the article; I read enough to see that the prose is certainly FA standard. A few minor fixes and you should be on your way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)