Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Basic GA criteria edit
- Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
- Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
- Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
- All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
- All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
- Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
- No original research.
- No copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
- Neutral.
- Stable.
- Illustrated, if possible.
- Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Placed on hold edit
I was not aware when I picked this article out of the GAN list that it carries a POV banner. That needs to be resolved before I can even begin a formal review. I would therefore like to hear from other editors including Alaney2k, Casliber, Dapi89, Hawkeye7, K.e.coffman, Sturmvogel 66, Sunrise and Szzuk if the banner can be lifted. If there is no consensus on this by the end of next week, I will fail the GAR. If the banner can be removed, I'll commence the review. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, CaroleHenson, Eddie891, Editoneer, Harrias, HickoryOughtShirt?4, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, Kingsif, Lee Vilenski, MWright96, MarioSoulTruthFan, Mujinga, Peacemaker67, The Rambling Man, Usernameunique and Vami_IV. Sorry to bother you with this but given your interest and involvement in the GAN drive, I wonder if any of you would like to comment on the issue which is currently delaying this GAR. Some of you might have encountered similar problems. If so, please join the discussion below. Thanks for your time. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. I ignored it in the WP:Germany Article alerts because I am way out of my depth here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I share the opinion of the user above. Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
- This is not the time or place to relitigate the FAR. Last time I checked the article had been delisted from FA due to POV issues, which have yet to be addressed. Therefore, the banner seems appropriate to me. I would also note that consensus is NOTAVOTE. buidhe 02:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- The banner must be removed when any of the following apply:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- Nos 2 and 3 apply here, so the banner must be removed. The article was not delisted from FA due to POV issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @User:Buidhe: Yes it is. That is why we're here. Dapi89 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @No Great Shaker:, you are clearly correct that the GA can not be passed with the banner in place. As mentioned, this is not the place to rehash the FAR per say. However, in the course of your review, you will have to make your own judgement regarding the neutrality of the article per WP:GACR #4. I suspect that and WP:GACR #5 will be the critical factors in this review; if the banner is removed without agreement, then it will just be replaced etc. As you have done, encouraging a discussion about the removal of the banner on the talk page (not necessarily in this review) is probably the only realistic starting point. Harrias talk 12:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Harrias. I'll wait until Saturday to see if the banner has been or can be removed. All the best. The drive looks to be going very well, btw. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reading through the extensive above comments and reading the article, it seems to me that while there were (valid) NPOV complaints at one point, Hawkeye7 has made efforts to improve the article and respond to comments, and it has become far more neutral during the process from when the FAR started. I particularly note that the first sentence now mentions he was convicted of war crimes, the nicknames are removed from the lede, when the memoir is sourced it is usually mentioned, and new sources have been incorporated. I will also note that I haven't read the whole article through, but from skimming and reading sections, I get the impression of Kesselring as a generally talented soldier who did make mistakes and mess up. At the same time, he was undisputedly a war criminal, and I think the article now is as neutral as it needs to be. I should further note that I am not an expert on the topic, and there are undoubtedly complaints editors have that will not be resolved. However, Hawkeye and others have made great strides towards improving the article and I personally find that now the article is in sufficient status to remove the tag. It seems all involved editors hope to improve the article, but somewhere along the way they have begun talking in circles and are both frustrated with each other. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll also add that the subject is evidently controversial (some edit disputes and the whole Nazi commander thing) – a finer comb may need to be run over neutrality because of that. Thanks for asking for more opinions, always good to check, and if you're comfortable continuing the review, the judgement on its current neutrality is for the reviewer :) Kingsif (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- It seems to me that there *were* NPOV concerns, which have largely been addressed. I concur with Kingsif that keeping the old POV tag is not now appropriate, and that all that is required is for the GA reviewer to consider the article as it is today and to judge whether it now passes the GA neutrality criterion. I think therefore that the tag should be removed and the reviewer permitted to continue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also believe that the NPOV issues have been addressed and the tag can be removed. If any editors disagree, let them identify the specific issues that concern them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- (Responding to ping. ETA: I see that I ended up missing the deadline by 24 minutes with respect to the main question, but I think that my points should be relevant regardless.)
- FWIW, while the article was certainly much worse in the past than it is now, I think the current version still has major problems with neutrality. Some of these are structural: e.g. as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, I doubt the sources support using such a large fraction of the first paragraph for describing his military decorations. Many others have to do with presentation and emphasis: e.g. despite his war criminal status being included in the first sentence, it is presented as an afterthought, de-emphasized by the framing and use of the word "subsequently". Still others are related to how the source material is described: e.g. the second major example from my FAR comment, which still remains in the article. (In that case, the sentence was later edited to include another source, but according to the ES the reason was unrelated. While I don’t have access to the new source, if it addressed the issue then the sources would be contradicting each other, and the core issue still exists regardless - in fact, it was actually exacerbated by the edit, since the action was further de-emphasized by pushing it later in the sentence.)
- It doesn’t look like there have been any significant edits to the article since the FAR was closed on 9 December, at which point the issues had not been resolved (by definition - otherwise it would have closed differently). Also, given the content of the discussion, I’m not sure how it’s possible to claim that the delisting didn’t involve neutrality issues. As such, I’m not really sure why it’s been renominated to GA. While it's true that the tag can be removed by default when there is no active discussion on the talk page, that also means that removal of the tag does not imply that the issues have been resolved. It’s also true that the important thing to consider is the status of the article in the present, but the content of previous discussions can still inform the evaluation. It’s possible that a GA review could fix the issues (emphasis on "possible"), but addressing everything would need a great deal of work, probably dozens of hours of detailed research. In addition, given the amount of opposition that was faced by the changes that already went through, I expect that the same would continue to occur. Sunrise (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Review edit
With the POV banner removed, I'm happy to commence a full review. I've ticked the article as stable and will mark other criteria as I go along. I'm already collating points that will need to be addressed and I'll present a full list of these later. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion above. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Numerous points have arisen and I've listed them below on a section-by-section basis. Please see my overall comments at the end. Thanks.
Lead section edit
1. Change Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders, and one of the most highly decorated,... to Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most highly decorated commanders,... Given all the controversy about POV, I think expressions like "most skilful" should be avoided unless they are a direct quote from source.
Kesselring's reputation is very high. I could easily source such a claim. But removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
2. The link to Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten is misleading because that article is about the original Weimar ex-servicemen's league which was dissolved in 1935. Need some clarity on the group that Kesselring presided over: e.g., was it a phoenix group or something completely unrelated that happened to choose the same name? See also the comments below about this organisation.
3. As a summary of the article, the lead is a good introduction.
Early life edit
1. 4th Royal Bavarian Division is piped to 2nd Bavarian Foot Artillery Regiment but there was a 2nd Bavarian Landwehr Division so is the linkage correct?
2. The regiment was based at Metz and was responsible for maintaining its forts. He remained with the regiment until 1915, except for periods at the Military Academy from 1905 to 1906, at the conclusion of which he received his commission as a Leutnant (lieutenant), and at the School of Artillery and Engineering in Munich from 1909 to 1910. This entire piece of factual information is sourced to Kesselring's autobiography and there are a total of 27 references to that work. I don't believe the autobiography of a convicted war criminal can be regarded as a reliable source and this leaves me with a problem when I come to WP:GACR #2b. I note, incidentally, that the use of autobiographical information was an issue at the FA review. I would like to see independent sources cited for the information about Metz (unfortunately, Fortifications of Metz doesn't help) and Kesselring's career to 1910.
- Being a convicted war criminal doesn't make you dishonest or unreliable. Substituted a reference to von Lingen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
World War I edit
1. In 1916 he was transferred again, to the 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery. The link is to the 6th Royal Bavarian Division but piped to 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery. As there was a 3rd Royal Bavarian Division, clarification is needed.
- The piping is correct. No clarification is required. The 6th Royal Bavarian Division article clearly states that the 3rd Bavarian Foot Artillery was part of the division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
2. General Staff is generic. Should be linked specifically to General Staff (Germany).
3. His experience here informed his subsequent anti-communist political outlook. Use of "informed" here looks awkward and somewhat out of context: I think "shaped" would be a better word.
Between the wars edit
1. In the Reichswehr section, consolidated onto should be consolidated into.
2. The Luftwaffe was not formally established until 26 February 1935. Suggest a link to Luftwaffe on its first use in the narrative.
3. Inconsistent spelling of "divebomber". No hyphen in this section but two later uses are hyphenated.
4. Göring gave him command of Luftgau III (Air District III) in Dresden. According to this article, Luftgau III was Berlin. Dresden was Luftgau IV.
- Luftgau III was in Dresden from 1935 to 1937. It moved to Berlin in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
5. German scientists succeeded in proving otherwise. The link to Battle of the Beams is fine but, for readability without having to use the link, the sentence should be completed with a mention of radio navigation.
6. On 2 June the RLM relented... This is the only time this abbreviation is used and it should be attributed to the Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) when that is introduced (line 2 of Luftwaffe section).
Poland edit
1. Need to introduce Alexander Löhr with a link.
2. Having made the comparison, say if Luftflotte 4 was also under von Bock's command or was it attached to von Rundstedt's Army Group South?
3. Does reference 32 cover the whole paragraph including the quoted remark by Kesselring, or just the last sentence? In fact, that sentence would be better without the remark because the location of the factories is immaterial.
4. ...he contributed Fliegerdivision 1 to Battle of the Bzura. Insert "the".
5. Kesselring attempted to crush Polish resistance by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw in the final week of September, with the military campaign virtually over; Polish resistance was confined to the Hel Peninsula, Warsaw and Modlin. The comma and semi-colon are confusing the meaning. Amend to Kesselring attempted to crush Polish resistance by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw in the final week of September. With the military campaign virtually over, Polish resistance was confined to the Hel Peninsula, Warsaw and Modlin.
6. 10 percent of the city's building. Plural.
7. The bombing killed between 20,000 and 25,000 civilians, and may have killed as many as 40,000 people. Figures need to be clarified. Does it mean that between 15,000 and 20,000 military personnel may have been killed in addition to 25k civilians? Or, does it mean that the total death toll (all people) was probably much higher than the official 20k to 25k estimate?
8. For his part in the Polish campaign, Kesselring was personally awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross by Hitler. Independent source needed to verify this.
France and Low Countries edit
1. Move the first image from left to right. It disrupts presentation of the third paragraph. Moving it will not impact the lower image.
2. Not sure about the Wilhelm Speidel in this image: could he be Hans Speidel (although he wore spectacles)?
- No, it is Wilhelm Speidel (General) alright. Hans was his younger brother.
3. ...advancing from Antwerp and interfering. Change to advancing from Antwerp to interfere.
4. Change "near and in Paris" to "in and around" or "in and near".
5. The abbreviation OKL has not been attributed. It is used twice in the article.
Battle of Britain edit
1. No need to specify that Brussels is in Belgium.
2. Netherlands is overlinked.
3. Initially responsible for the bombing of southeastern England and the London area, but as the battle progressed, command responsibility shifted, with Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle's Luftflotte 3 taking more responsibility for the night-time "blitz" attacks while Luftflotte 2 conducted the main daylight operations. The sentence needs to be copyedited. Try: Kesselring was initially responsible for the bombing of southeastern England and the London area but, as the battle progressed, command responsibility shifted and Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle's Luftflotte 3 took more responsibility for the night-time "blitz" attacks while Luftflotte 2 conducted the main daylight operations.
4. London is overlinked.
5. Göring overruled them, he was sure... needs a conjunction: Göring overruled them because he was sure...
6. Air superiority is overlinked (this might well be the case with similar terms throughout).
7. Kesselring in particular, did not understand how the RAF fighter defences worked, and after the war, continued the naïve assumption Fighter Command could simply have been destroyed in dogfights. Poor use of commas. Syntax is becoming a problem throughout. Change to: Kesselring in particular did not understand how the RAF fighter defences worked and, after the war, continued the naïve assumption Fighter Command could simply have been destroyed in dogfights.
8. The first phase of the battle–the Kanalkampf (Channel Battles) was marginally successful. Incorrect use of an endash. It needs two endashes or two commas.
9. Instead, they fought their own private campaigns. Hardly "private" given that they were both accountable to Göring.
10. Furthermore, Fighter Command did not commit its reserve during the main attacks as the German command predicted–and popular histories contend. Does Alfred Price actually assert that popular histories contend the point or is this an OR opinion? I would remove it as it is in any event a trivial point. No one is interested in what "popular histories" might say unless it is both factual and relevant.
11. Correct "dive- bombers".
12. Correct "reoccurring".
Invasion of the Soviet Union edit
1. No need to hyphenate "airfield-construction". Contextually, it is two words.
2. Correct "percent" (two words).
3. Air supremacy overlinked already and there are two more instances here.
4. Does reference 102 account for everything in the paragraph to that point? I think another citation is needed for the first two sentences.
5. Kesselring's air fleet provided instrumental support in the battle of Bialystok–Minsk and Battle of Smolensk. Copyediting needed.
6. A sudden transfer of his air power north to Luftflotte 1, decline in strength, bad weather and resurgence of the Red Air Force in his sector, led to the Kesselring–Bock combination's defeat at Yelna in September. Copyediting needed.
7. ...but the attacks violated German doctrine, diverted from the army support sphere, and dissipated the concept of schwerpunkt (focus point). This looks as if it has just been copied verbatim from somewhere and it doesn't make sense without some attempt to explain what it all means. What, for example, was the German doctrine?
- Probably the use of bombers on strategic targets. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
8. The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on impeded air operations even more. The use of "on" is confusing. From October until when?
9. The penultimate paragraph of this section amplifies what I said earlier about inconsistent syntax. There are three sentences with similar openings: On 3 October, it claimed...; On 7 October 690 sorties were flown; and On 10 October 537 missions resulted.... The first one is syntactically correct, the other two are not.
10. Correct "withrawal".
11. Air supremacy again overlinked.
12. ...periods of close air Support along the Eastern Front. Decapitalise Support.
Mediterranean and North Africa edit
1. Only in January 1943 did he form his headquarters into... What was the reason for this delay? Should the sentence say: Only in January 1943 was he able to form his headquarters into...?
- No, he was able to, but saw no reason to do so. As the article says: most German units were under Italian operational control. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
2. ...but this was of little importance at first as most German units were under Italian operational control. Is that correct?
3. There is a loss of narrative flow between the second and third paragraphs because the actual introduction to Malta is in the first two sentences of the third paragraph and therefore someone reading the second paragraph who does not know about Malta during the war will wonder how an island on a trade route is relevant to an article about a German general. The information in the second paragraph needs to be worked into the third paragraph and the whole piece then tidied up so that the reader sees a logical flow of events.
4. Correct "desperate straights". It is "straits". You could say "dire straits".
- Changed. Probably an error in the original; Williamson Murray is an American. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
5. The term "1st Free French Brigade" is not strictly correct because the 1st Free French was actually a division consisting of three independent brigades and the one at Bir Hakeim was the 1st Independent Free French Brigade (1e BFL), which was commanded by General Marie-Pierre Koenig.
- The division was broken up but later reformed as 1re DMI. 1re BFL fought at Bir Hakeim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
6. Kesselring was more impressed with the results of Rommel's capture of Tobruk on 21 June, for which Kesselring brought in additional aircraft from Greece and Crete. Independent source needed for this.
Tunisia edit
1. The delay endied any prospect... Spelling.
- Typo. Corrected.
Sicily edit
1. Replace reference 158 with independent sources.
2. Replace reference 160 with an independent source for the U-boat information.
3. Third paragraph needs independent sources to replace reference 164. Does Citino help?
- No, but I can replace all but the bit about Luftwaffe doctrine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Allied invasion of Italy edit
1. The image in this section is labelled: "A German PAK near Salerno". PAK needs to be defined as an anti-tank weapon. Can this one be identified as, for example, a 7.5 cm Pak 40?
- Don't want to try identifying from an image. Replaced PaK with "anti-tank gun". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
2. I Parachute Corps is a redlink. Unless it is likely to become an article fairly soon, remove the link.
- No. See WP:REDLINK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
3. The last sentence of the first paragraph should be removed unless there is an independent source.
- It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
4. The last two sentences need an independent source (reference 184).
- It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Salerno edit
1. Remove first sentence unless it can be independently sourced.
2. Is the last sentence of the first paragraph correct? Does the cited source actually credit Kesselring with misleading Eisenhower?
- No, the cited source (and the article) clearly says that it was entirely inadvertent. Not for the first or the last time, Eisenhower was misled by being able to read the German codes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
3. Re-link Allied invasion of Italy to Operation Avalanche (beginning of second paragraph).
4. The Apennine Mountains ran down the centre of the Italian Peninsula, and therefore the rivers and gorges radiated down to the sea on both coasts. They still do so convert this sentence to present tense.
5. Correct "...and allowed the them to conduct..."
6. Change Allied artillery was reduced in effectiveness due to the poor observation of well-concealed German positions to Allied artillery was reduced in effectiveness due to poor reconnaisance of well-concealed German positions.
- "Observation" is the correct military term. Linked to Artillery observer.
7. This was the narrowest part of the Peninsula. Decapitalise.
8. Change This was the narrowest part of the Peninsula, and could be held with the fewest German and Italian troops.[194] Kesselring estimated that his positions could be held with just eleven divisions, with a couple of mobile divisions in reserve... to This was the narrowest part of the peninsula, and could be held with just eleven divisions, with a couple of mobile divisions in reserve... Repetitive as is.
9. Remove last sentence of fourth paragraph.
10. Provide some context for that lengthy quotation by Hitler at the end of the fifth paragraph. When, where and to whom did he say all that?
11. Hitler ordered Rommel and his Army Group B headquarters to move to France to take charge of the Atlantic Wall and prepare for the Allied attack that was expected there in the spring of 1944. This statement needs to be reconsidered because Rommel was appointed in early 1944 and the Germans had no real expectation of when D-Day might be, so to specify the spring of 1944 is speculative.
- As the source (and the article) says, it was expected in the spring of 1944. This was a reasonable and accurate estimation given the English Channel weather. In fact, D-Day was delayed until June by a shortage of landing ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Cassino and Anzio edit
1. Two instances of reference 204 need to be replaced by independent sources, especially the second point about Canaris.
- Replaced one. The other says in his memoirs. What is unusual is that Kesselring admits to being out-generalled and beaten. While the historians point the finger at Canaris for poor intelligence, Kesselring did not blame him. It is truly unusual for a general to do this; most blame external factors for defeat, generally external ones like the weather. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Independent source needed to replace reference 207.
3. Lieutenant General overlinked. Throughout, check all links to military ranks.
4. Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, obsessed with the capture of Rome, failed to take advantage of the situation. Need a citation at the end of this sentence given the opinion it contains about Clark. Presumably 218 will suffice?
5. Need an independent source for Kesselring being tipped off by Göring.
- He was not "tipped off"; he was informed by his superior. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Actions affecting population and cultural objects edit
1. Consistency needed re "booby trapped" and "booby-trapping". Use the hyphen in both.
2. Amend "a superb observing point over the battlefield". Try "viewpoint" or "observation post".
War crimes edit
1. Subsequently, massacres were carried out by the Hermann Göring Panzer Division at Stia in April, Civitella in Val di Chiana in June and Bucine in July 1944. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 248 no longer exists.
2. Eitel Friedrich Möllhausen is a redlink needing attention.
3. Reiner Stahel. Use correct name here, not the redirect.
4. Amend spelling of "labor" (twice) as British spellings have prevailed thus far in the article (harbour, armour, etc.).
5. The first paragraph is written in a convoluted way with little regard for syntax and narrative flow. Too much has been crammed into individual sentences. Needs to be rewritten with better source attribution (e.g., the background stuff on Kappler needs a specific source).
6. On 9 October Möllhausen was advised by Ribbentrop, that the Roman Jews were to be deported on the basis of Hitler's instructions and that he had not to interfere in any way. This is poor English and must be rewritten. On 9 October, Möllhausen was informed by Ribbentrop that the Roman Jews were to be deported on Hitler's orders and that he must not in any way interfere.
7. Two days later, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the head of instructed Kappler to fulfill the orders regardless of difficulties or repercussions. Head of what?
- The SD. Trimmed this whole section bacvk to focus on Kesselring. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
8. On 16 October 1,259 Jews were rounded up in Rome. On 18 October 1,007 of them were sent to Auschwitz concentration camp. Syntax: insert a comma after each date to properly introduce the main clause.
9. Some, 6,806 Jews were arrested. And here in the same paragraph is a rogue comma.
Central Europe edit
1. The title of this section is misleading because the content is about operations in Germany after the Rhine crossing. Change title to "Germany: March – May 1945". Central Europe is broadly understood to be the area between Germany and Russia.
- Central Europe is the area between the Rhine and the Vistula, and is the official US name of the campaign. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
2. Replace reference 258 with an independent source. The information is certainly correct but a reliable source should be cited.
3. Given the desperate situation of the Western Front, this was another sign of Kesselring's proverbial optimism. Kesselring still described Hitler's analysis of the situation as "lucid", according to which the Germans were about to inflict a historical defeat upon the Soviets, after which the victorious German armies would be brought west to crush the Allies and sweep them from the continent. Therefore, Kesselring was determined to "hang on" in the west until the "decision in the East" came. Entire piece needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.
4. Replace both instances of reference 262 with independent sources.
- It says "claimed in his memoirs" I think that is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
5. Replace reference 267 with an independent source.
Chaotic surrender edit
1. He testified at the Nuremberg trial of Göring, but his offers to testify against Soviet, American, and British commanders were declined. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 248 no longer exists.
2. Qualify OSS, which occurs only once in the article.
3. Remove sentence sourced to reference 269 unless there is an independent source.
4. Apart from one short sentence, the whole of the penultimate paragraph is sourced to Kesselring. There is a considerable amount of information here that must be available in reliable sources.
5. Replace reference 274 with an independent source.
%2B(center)%2Bwho%2Bmotored%2Binto%2BBerchtesgarden%2Band%2Bsurrendered%2Bto%2BMajor%2BGeneral%2BMaxwell%2BD.%2BTaylor%2Bsmiling.jpg){kind=link}
Trial edit
1. Kesselring was arraigned on two charges: the shooting of 335 Italians in the Ardeatine massacre, and incitement to kill Italian civilians. Sentence needs to be re-cited as reference 286 no longer exists.
2. Although the court accepted the legality of the taking of hostages, it left open the question of the legality of killing innocent persons in reprisals; the distinction between the two would later be clarified in the High Command Trial. Remove reference 286 which no longer exists; 289 will suffice.
3. No introduction or linkage to Kurt Mälzer, who is mentioned five times throughout.
4. The first trial, held in Rome, was of Mackensen and Mälzer. Mackensen was called von Mackensen and that is the form used elsewhere in this article.
5. Willy Tensfeld is a redlink so remove linkage unless an article will soon be created.
Commutation and release from prison edit
1. Replace reference 306 with an independent source.
2. Capitalise "German high command".
3. Manstein → von Manstein.
Later life edit
1. Kesselring's memoirs were published in 1953, as Soldat bis zum letzten Tag (A Soldier to the Last Day). The English edition was published a year later as A Soldier's Record. Kesselring's contentions that the Luftwaffe was not defeated in the air in the Battle of Britain and that Operation Sea Lion—the invasion of Britain—was thought about, but never seriously planned, were controversial. Entire piece needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.
2. The entire paragraph which begins Kesselring protested what he regarded..., including five quotations, needs to be re-cited as reference 260 no longer exists.
3. Change "in the hospital" to "in hospital".
4. As already noted among the lead comments, qualification is needed of Der Stahlhelm because it was not the original organisation as implied by the link in the lead. It says here that it was a "right-wing veterans' association", presumably created after WWII.
5. Citation needed immediately after the "normal military operation" quote. That is a controversial statement which should be cited directly, not at the end of a lengthy paragraph.
6. Citation needed immediately after the "unjustly smirched reputation of the German soldier" quote. See also point 2 above re this paragraph.
7. Change "in a sanatorium in Bad Nauheim in West Germany" to "in a sanatorium at Bad Nauheim in West Germany".
Baton edit
No comments.
Footnotes edit
All useful and all verified.
Notes edit
1. There is inconsistency in referencing format with some book titles not being italicised: e.g., nos 45, 94, 236, etc.
2. Another inconsistency is in several failures to use a comma after the author's name: e.g., nos 22, 100, 108, 115, 117, 120, 123, 124, etc.
3. Reference 248 doesn't exist and it has been used for two citations (see above).
4. Reference 260 doesn't exist and it has been used for three citations (see above).
5. Reference 286 doesn't exist and it has been used for two citations (see above).
References edit
1. A wide-ranging selection with ample ISBN and OCLC identifiers. Very well presented.
Images edit
1. The photos are mostly from the German Federal Archives by agreement and others are public domain or carry appropriate permission to use so there seem to be no copyvio issues.
2. The images are all relevant but some of the captions need minor attention as discussed above. Caption syntax is inconsistent, however – all sentences should end with a full stop.
3. Imagery overall is appropriate and useful.
General points edit
1. There are 55 examples of full stop outside closing quote mark and ten examples of the opposite. While the latter is (technically, in GB English) incorrect, the problem is inconsistency.
- No problem here. See MOS:QUOTEMARKS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments edit
As this article is a former FA, it may have been thought that it would qualify for GA by default but that is not the case as shown by the number and range of the points raised above. The article became a GA and then an FA back in 2009 and I can only assume that reviewing standards then were considerably lower than they are now. I have read last year's FAR and must express agreement with its outcome although that discussion focused on areas that are mostly outside the scope of a GA review.
The use of Kesselring's autobiography creates a reliability problem but the biggest issue for me as a GA reviewer is the lack of due diligence in preparation for this review. There are far too many errors of grammar, linkage, spelling and syntax. There are too many instances of technical terms used without qualification as if all readers can take them for granted (for example, while I know what a PAK was, I bet most readers don't). Several points relate to a careless use of linkage such as failure to use a link when needed or, even worse, creating confusion between the text and the linked article.
Apart from the autobiography, the sources used appear to be reliable but the impression gained of the article is that a huge number of factual statements have been gathered from those sources and then arranged moreorless chronologically within each section but without any establishment of a narrative flow. The basic structure of the article is good, however, as its sections and sub-sections are appropriate and it complies with the layout style guidelines. Reading the article, you seem to jump from fact to fact as if much of the content is a list without bullet points. In some places, as with Malta, you have to re-read a paragraph three or four times to get a grasp of what is being discussed. One of the key conditions of WP:GACR #1 is understandable to an appropriately broad audience and this article is a long way from achieving that.
The article has a readable prose size of 90 kB (14,598 words) and, strictly speaking, that doesn't breach WP:SIZERULE. Even so, given the complexity of the article and the problems posed by the issues raised above, its readability is poor. I am, I think, well versed in the military, political and social histories of WWII and so an article about a famous general holds no fears for me, especially as I'm familiar with most of the technical terminology of the time. I have to say, though, that reading this article has been difficult, certainly not enjoyable, and one of the main reasons for that difficulty is the length. I therefore recommend that the article is reduced in size by the creation of three sub-articles to split coverage of Kesselring's WWII career: 1939 to 1941; Mediterranean and North Africa; and Italy. Another possibility is a sub-article about Kesselring's trial and imprisonment. The rest can remain in this article with short overviews leading to the new ones.
Result edit
The article fails GACR #1a. While the prose for the most part is satisfactory, it does not meet the needs of a broad audience who would struggle with technicalities and length. In addition, there are too many grammar, linkage, spelling and syntax issues.
Passes GACR #1b as the lead is fine apart from a couple of points easily addressed, the layout is good and there are no problems with the other conditions.
Passes GACR #2a, #2c and #2d without problem but fails #2b because of controversial statements from an unreliable source which is used many times throughout; the use of that source has led to many statements requiring citation from a reliable source.
Passes GACR #3a in that it is within scope but fails #3b because of the WP:LENGTH issue.
- You already admitted that this is not an issue, as the article doesn't breach WP:SIZERULE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There was controversy before the review about the POV banner but my only complaint on that score is the use of Kesselring's autobiography, although I think that is primarily an issue for GACR #2b, not #4. There are only minor POV issues and those have been raised above. I think, on balance, that the article passes both GACR #4 & #5 despite the earlier concerns. The imagery is good and it passes GACR #6.
I am failing this review because I cannot justify placing it on hold again. There is far too much to be done to improve the article sufficiently ahead of a fresh review in seven days. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)