Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unification of Germany/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009 [1].

Unification of Germany edit

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because, after major revisions, it is broadly inclusive of the topic, plus focused specifically on unification, it is appropriately and amply cited, representative of a variety of widely accepted historiographic viewpoints, is well written and properly illustrated, and generally and specifically documents and explains the important factors leading to unification of Germany. In addition, it lays the ground work for problems that arose after German unification, and directs the reader to further articles on Kulturkampf, etc. I am the primary editor. In addition to informal assessments (see archive), the article has undergone several (archived) peer reviews, plus a good article assessment (listed). Thank you for your consideration. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.....the eng...lish language wikipedia? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the file is from wikicommons, and is used in several articles in different languages. Are you suggesting that I should change the name of the file? (requiring everyone else to use an file with an English name) or perhaps duplicate it, and change the title on the picture? (equally pointless...why alter the image...?) The point of wikicommons is to share files, and that being the case, we need to share languages as well. Besides, the caption is in English. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Auntieruth55 - there is no need to change the name of the file. Note that the image description page uses both English and German, so there are no problems with accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the content of the file, placenames should either be English or bilingual, unless the document is of historic significance, which this is clearly not! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this was unclear from your original post. I've switched out the file for one of far lesser quality in terms of information, but it is in English. This switch is against my better judgment, because the first file had far more information, showing far more explicitly the "kleindeutschland" solution of a Germany without Austria, which is not as clear from the new map. It seems to me that we can pander too much to people who must have everything in English; the other map was understandable even a couple of 10-12 year olds here with me now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images should be high quality and accessible, it shouldnt be one or the other The source of the licencing in the current image is missing Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality? I'm not referring to the pixels of the image, but rather its ability to illustrate the subject of the article. The picture I took out illustrates this better than the one I put in. I didn't select it off the top of my head, but rather after some consideration of what needed to be in the map, and what was unnecessary. I would MUCH rather use the deleted image than the one I have. How about if I explain what the terms mean in the caption? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we ask someone to simply create a new map based on the original map but which includes English names? We could even have a dual-language map, if you think that would be best. Ruhrfisch has created some maps in the past - he might be able to help. Awadewit (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is a good idea. Ruhrfish makes great maps. I did tweak an old map I had, though, and replaced the "questioned" map with this one. See if you like it better? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach Nua, what do you think? I thought the original map was much better. If we could get an English or English/German version of that, I think that would be the best choice. It is almost impossible to read the names on this one because the resolution is so low. Awadewit (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Okay, you need to standardize your references. Some are Location: PUblisher, year others are (Location, Publisher, year).
  • On journal articles, we customarily put the article in quotation marks and the journal title in italics. So Jürgen Kocka, "Comparison and Beyond". History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 1 (February, 2003), pp. 39–44
  • I'm unclear why you have a bibliography section if you give the full form of the reference in the notes section? Normally, when you give a bibliography section, it's to avoid giving the full bibliographical details in the notes.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an academic. We AlWAYS ise a bibliography. Are you suggesting I take it out? It includes sources that are not cited, but which I read. And I'll standardize the references now. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm more suggesting that if you have a bibliography, you just use a "short form" of the source in the notes. See Wilfrid or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. for examples. And if you did not cite a work in the article, it should go in the further reading section, not the bibliography. On Wikipedia, bibliography is only for works actually cited, and further reading is for works perhaps read but not used. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse. I looked at OWH Sr and I don't see the difference between the shortform there and the shortform in Unification, other than minor punctuation differences? Once a source is cited the first time, unless there are two or more sources by the same author I don't use the title again, just name and page numbers. I would be happy to use a shorter form in the citations as long as it doesn't involve a-b-c-d etc. I don't like reading articles with the multiple cites using the a-b-c-d, because I find them very difficult to figure out. So, withint that constraint, I'm happy to change the citations to whatever they need to be.
re the merged bibliography and the "additional sources" or whatever we want to call them, I had them separated once, and a reviewer suggested I merge them for space. so I did. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference between what you have now and what's in OWH is that OWH never uses the full citation in the footnotes. Instead they are all short form, with the full citation only occuring in the sources section. does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not really. Short form is last name and page? I did look at it. There are at least a dozen, although not all, that have the full citation. It's not consistent at all. I also separated out the "Suggested Reading" (am I allowed to use that word, even if it isn't neutral?) again ;) and I went through the citations and made sure they were as short as I could make them. I guess a question is, what is the point of using the short form, is it just to save space??? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example from your article. Footnote 1 is "David Blackbourn, The long nineteenth century: a history of Germany, 1780–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, Epilogue" but you also list the full citation in the bibliography, is there a need to list it long in the first footnote? Anything in the bibliography should only be listed in "short form" in the notes, if you list any short forms in the notes. You can also list EVERY note long form, if you wish, but right now you're inconsistent, some are long some are short, some are always short, some are long in the first footnote and short later. The idea is that you're consistent and right now it's not. And you've still got a few spots of titles not in italics (see notes 62 and 63). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you're saying. I consistently listed every footnote the first time in long form, and after that, in shortened form, as I would do in a paper or published article. I've gone through and eliminated the long form on all first footnotes, however, so this should work, I think. I'll check back after lunch (I'm on vacation right now, and have to pay attention to some others.)--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay re citations and footnotes and bibliography. I went back through the entire article, and checked, rechecked, and fixed where necessary. Each citation, the first time, has a complete listing, and after that lists the author's last name, and the page number(s). If there is more than source for an author (such as for Blackbourn or Sperber), I've listed a shortened form of the title. In the bibliography, everything that is referred to in the text is included, but I did use the shortened form (shortened according to CMS, which I gather is the MOS here). I separated the material that is not directly referred to in the article, and listed it under further reading. If a journal article is the source, I've put the journal article in quotes and the journal name in italics, as you requested. So, everything is done consistently, according to style, by the book, so to speak. Hope this works. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the bibliography, please list the publication location and the publishing house for all books. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done this, put all the publishing houses BACK into the bib. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues resolved

Oppose on criterion 3 I worked a bit on the images, but many of them need information that I cannot provide. Hopefully with some additional attention, we can retain most of them.

*File:Germanempire1871.jpg - I don't see any evidence of this map being in the PD, however I might have missed where it says that on the website. Could you point me to that? Thanks.

this one has been removed. A different one put in its place, authorship explained. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a user named Wiggy did some translations on the original map I had up, but he didn't do all of them. You might take a look at File:Deutsches_Reich1.png.File:German Reich 1871.png --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Germanempire 1871 english plus language.jpg - This is the new image. I see that the image is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0. Can you show me where on the website it says that the maps are licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 and add a link to the source on the image description page? Awadewit (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::I don't know if that's the correct license. Actually, I don't know what the correct license would be. I've changed some of the text on the licensing page. This is a WIDELY distributed map, \ in German and English. I substantially modified it by adding additional information on language overlays, and some other stuff. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add a link to the image HTML page on the image description page? That way I can start to investigate the licensing. Also, I am still concerned about the low-resolution of this map, as I stated above. The words are very hard to read. I think all of the maps we use should be able to read if one clicks on them. Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
link added. that seems to be the best resolution available there. The original image I used (the one in GERMAN) is beautiful resolution. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


used the original file (the German one), Wiggy had translated some of it, and I translated MORE of it. Higher resolution. See if this works better for you....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*File:Hambacher Fest 1832.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.

I've translated the German info on the file. The picture comes from a web page of the city, Neustadt, which is near where this festival was held. They are not claiming any copy rights on the images on the website. The commons page claims PD old on the copy right. this is a hand colored drawing from 1832.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a different copy, this one not colored, and with higher resolution, and it has much clearer and more detailed sourcing information. --Auntieruth55
I've added a more specific source link and fixed the license for the new image. This is a better image! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nationalversammlung.jpg - This image needs a source and an author. Notice that the license claims PD status based on the death of the author, so for this license, we must know the author.
this is a hand colored lithograph (from a newspaper) (mid 19th century). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz Use permissions here
As you will notice, it says that "All materials included in German History in Documents and Images are intended solely for individual, educational, non-commercial use." - This is not consonant with Wikipedia's free license, which also allow commercial uses. We can still use images from the website, however, as long as we demonstrate that they are in the public domain. To demonstrate that the above is in the PD, it would be best if we could get the death date of von Eliott (the original artist) since the copyright expires 70 years after his death. Awadewit (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Parliament Frankfurt Pauls Church 1848.jpg has been substituted for the Naitonalversamlung. Its sources are clearer, I think. Also have death date on artist. It may need some additional tweaking in the description page by someone.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Charicature stitching Germany together.jpg - "German wikicommons" is not the original source for this caricature, nor is Pischdi the original author. Since the PD license is based on the life of the author, we need to know the original author or change the license. Please also translate the description into English.
as close as I can tell, it was a caricature in a newspaper, and I'm not sure which one, either.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We really need a source here. Is this caricature reprinted in any of the books you used to research the article? Perhaps you could try and contact the original uploader and ask them where they got it from? If we can't find any documentation for this image, it will have to be deleted. Awadewit (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it an invisibility cloak with those codes, so when I eventually find a source, I can add it back in. At this point, it should be "gone" (unseeable).Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking because it is not in the article. Note, however, that we should really delete the image if you cannot find a source. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done some searching, the photo was dated 1860, but no indication of the author. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more searching. A copy of this photo is located in the Archiv des WSA-Kiel (Archive of the WSA-Kiel (city in northern Germany). here This is an article on the construction of the north sea canal (water street=WS). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the date information and changing the licensing since we don't know the name of the photographer. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
artist seems to be that world famous painter, "unknown." All other copies of it that i've seen have no author. I'll look in Wawro tomorrow, see if there is one there. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think "unknown" is the most talented painter out there. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is a drawing by Wilhelm Camphausen, 1878. This was an artist who made a series of pictures about the " national war." He died in 1885. He painted historical scenes (such as Bluecher crossing the Rhine, and a very famous picture of Frederick the Great on his horse). Under the category of historical painting and nationalist painting. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have some sort of source here. Do you know a book that this is reprinted in or a museum that holds a copy of this, for example? Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Napoleon III Otto von Bismarck (Detail).jpg This is the actual file in the article. Someone had substituted another file, not sure why! There is a source in the description page (I put it there yesterday. Another source for it: Heritage History Famous Men of Modern times, John Haaren, New York, American Book Company, 1909. Count Otto von Bismarck, p. 344-. here Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This file checks out. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Werner was the court painter, and the picture appears to be in the exhibit at Wannseehaus Museum. Werner died in 1915.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no it's not at Wannsee, or if it was, it's permanent location is Schloss Friedrichsruhe. I found it listed in a catalog (Getty).
This is done. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*File:Prussiamap.gif - The uploader of this map, Electionworld, is not the creator of it (as it states on the image description page). Electionworld has stopped contributing, so we cannot discover the contributor. This map will have to be recreated by someone else and this one will have to be deleted.

I'm not married to this photo.
Do you want to get someone to recreate it? Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that would be good. Or....we can just do without it I suppose, although it's good to have it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot find someone to create a new version of this map, we need to delete it as we have license verifying its release. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete it and add some text that covers the issue.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issue has been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*File:Kolonialbesitz.png - This image does not list an author, but the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years". Do we know the author? If not, we can find a different license.

this one was pulled out because the article doesn't deal with the colonies.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know who the author of the map is? Note that the license states "life of the author plus 70 years". Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is a Ruhrfish recreation. Beyond this, I'm not sure...
What do you want to do? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per your question on my talk page, the image description does not say anything about Ruhrfisch creating this map. My question about this map relates to its author - do we know the author? For the license to be applicable, we need to know the author. If we do not know the author, we can try to find a different license or perhaps a different map. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
since the map was removed, the issue is irrelevant, I think. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please do list those sorts of updates, as I look here to see how the image issues are progressing. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaiser Wilhelm Deu. Eck Koblenz.jpg - The quotation from the website is not an explicit release of rights. I believe we need something more solid than this. The images need to be released under a specific license - this is too unclear. This image needs to be deleted or the licensing clarified.
the website gives a specific release of rights as long as the website is credited. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Notice that the website attaches specific conditions to the release of the rights (journalism and tourism). 2) There is no specific license here, making the entire release ambiguous. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, lots of pictures of the corner, a very impressive and much photographed space. I swapped it out for one posted by a german user, it's his own picture.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New image is fine. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying reading the article. These image issues will take some time to resolve, but they are not difficult. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted someof the images around, using ones that have clearer sourcing inf. Hope this helps.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Some of the images are sandwiching text, which is strongly discouraged by the MOS (see WP:MOS#Images). You might want to work on the layout a bit. Also, images are not supposed to be placed before === and lower headings. There are several of these in the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of this, and the other issues you've brought up. I think sometimes the sourcing on some of these images is a best guess by whoever uploads (including myself). Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the sandwiching, I moved some images to a gallery at the end (I like it, and they make sense there), I switched out the Frankfurt Parliament image with one that has clearer licensing, although I might need you to tweak that sourcing, I wasn't sure about it.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONE.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I was impressed by the scope and readability of this article. I do have some comments and suggestions.

  • The critical role played by Blücher's troops, especially after having to retreat from the field at Ligny the day before, turned the tide of combat against the French. The Prussian cavalry pursued the defeated French in the evening of the 18th, sealing the allied victory. - After the Battle of Waterloo FAC, I realize that this is one particular POV. Since this article is not about Waterloo, we obviously don't need to go into great detail about the debates, but I think we need to acknowledge that this is a particular POV and that there are others.
I'll take care of this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the fact that this is a particular interpretation needs to be acknowledged. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
modified this some more. Related it to the development of the Borussian myth, in which Prussia's actions at Waterloo receive glorious coverage, and this links to the last section but one.From the German perspective, the actions of Blücher's troops at Waterloo, and the combined efforts at Leipzig, offered a rallying point of pride and enthusiasm.[8] This interpretation became a key building block of the Borussian myth expounded by the pro-Prussian nationalist historians later in the 19th century.[9] Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crucially, both the Wartburg rally in 1817 and the Hambach Festival in 1832 had lacked any clear-cut program of unification. At Hambach, the positions of the many speakers illustrated their disparate agendas. Held together only by the idea of unification, their notions of how to achieve this did not include specific plans, but rested on the nebulous idea that the Volk (the people), if properly educated, would bring about unification on their own. Grand speeches, flags, exuberant students, and picnic lunches did not translate into a new political, bureaucratic and administrative apparatus; no constitution miraculously appeared, although there was indeed plenty of talk of constitutions. - This is entertaining, but I'm wondering a bit about the language. It sounds a bit sarcastic, especially the bits about the flags and picnic lunches. There are some other examples of this kind of language throughout the article which can be toned down.
I'll tone it down a little, but generally I don't think it is too sarcastic. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still worried about this tone. What do other people think? Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if JN had problems with this or not. I've toned it down some, and enhanced language linking it to future developments.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historiography section at the end only mentions 19th-century historians. Is there a reason it stops there? If so, that should be explained. If not, the section should be expanded to include 20th-century views.
This last section on "building" is dealing with the problems inherent in "starting" a nation. Consequently, I left the nationalist historiography of the Empire and so on to the other articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro-Bismarck - The article seemed a bit pro-Bismarck to me as I was reading. Statements such as the following gave the impression that Bismarck was a diplomatic genius who could do no wrong: This required political and diplomatic skill worthy of a Machiavelli, and Bismarck manipulated circumstances to suit his needs. - Again, I'm wondering about the presentation of the Bismarck material.
well, he did, and it's cited. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the article presents Bismarck in a way that suggests he could do no wrong - is that really what the scholarship suggests? Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
of course it doesn't suggest he could do no wrong. But there is a fairly broad agreement that he did a lot of things right, at the same time as his opponents did a lot of things wrong. I've modified the text somewhat. See if this is better. I don't want to go into a lot of detail on Bismarck because there is a full article on him (and I've directed people there). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*All of the images also need alt text. (This requirement was just added for FA.)

Oh Joy! Oh Bliss! I'll take care of it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONEAuntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article in the future as these issues are resolved and I learned a lot from reading it. Thanks so much for working on such an important article! Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONEAuntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just let me know when all of these things are finished. Thanks for all of your hard work! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have all of these issues been addressed? Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prussia map is removed. Kolonialbesitz removed more than a week ago.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant, have all of the content issues I asked about above been resolved? Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cross out my comments - I'll do that. Awadewit (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I'll take a look and follow the example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:LEDE, the lede should not exceed four paragraphs. I've joined a few paras to make four overall. JN466 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, we ran into an edit conflict while you were doing that. However, I think I've everything I added while you were working on the lead back together.

:: alt text is done. :: citations added at ambiguities re Bismarck :: German enthusiasm for Prussian performance at Waterloo added, plus ethusiasm over Leipzig

a couple of places sort of toned down, but...Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the edit conflicts. The lede still seems a little long. I noted it has two mentions of Realpolitik, as well as two mentions of the Zollverein. I wonder if it can still be tightened up a little further, by referring only once to the role that each of these aspects played? JN466 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it. See if that is better.Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, I think that flows better. JN466 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of stuff so far:

  1. The lead has been fixed, as far as I can tell, yes? So everyone is happy with that?
  2. Images are properly sourced and attributed, placed, sized, captioned, and so forth,. The one that is still problematic is invisible, and when I find the appropriate source on it, I'll add it. Meanwhile, it's not "there"... so we're happy with that?
  3. Alt text is added to all images, so we're okay on that?
  4. Bismarck material is properly (overly perhaps) cited, so it can stay? I think it needs to. His contribution was critical.
  5. I'm adding a sentence to link to the "sarcastic" section, here here

So, what else needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are still an issue - see the images that are unstricken above. Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Images of File:Prussiamap.gif and File:Kolonialbesitz.png The latter is not necessary to the article on German Unification, but it should be necessary to an article on the German Empire (Second Empire, whatever we call it). I've removed it from Unification. I'm not sure what needs to be "fixed" in it. It's a Ruhrfisch adaptation. Re the former, it is important to this article. What is wrong with it? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have responded above, underneath each image. Please respond there. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could you check the reference for our mention of the "prolific historian, Wilhelm Raabe"? Wilhelm Raabe was a novelist; I can't find any trace of a historian called Wilhelm Raabe. JN466 17:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheehan implies he is an historian; clearly he's a novelist and possibly he wrote historical stuff as well. I've clarified that. Also added a bit on roads and rivers at that point.Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've corrected the German title of Lenau's poem, and have altered the description of it slightly. Pls review. JN466 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is fine, looks good to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I am calling it a day for today; I am about half-way through. Will still need a day or two to read through the rest of it, it is a long article. Interesting though, must have taken you yonks to put together. Cheers, JN466 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're finding it interesting. Yes, it is long, but it is a big subject and a top priority for the project. Not as long as the battle of Waterloo ;) One reviewer in the GA process didn't want to read the article, although he wanted to review it. Ummmm, not sure how that would have worked. It definitely was not a short process to put it together. Had to find all the references, etc. I'd done the reading as part of comprehensives, but then pulling out the specific pages, etc., was time consuming. Initially I tried to just "improve" the existing article, but at some point I realized the whole thing needed to be redone. So.... Thanks for taking the time to deal with it. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is done; thanks. Alt text is still needed for the images in the The Nation in images: Germania depicted section. That section used to be a gallery, which doesn't work with alt text; I changed it to a table (which is better anyway), and somebody needs to add alt text there. Thanks for doing the alt text for the other images; I tweaked the text a bit and fixed some bugs. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I discovered it didn't work in gallery. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re perception of emphasis on Bismarck. I've subsumed that section re him and Realpolitik into the previous section, which de-emphasizes him considerably. Text isn't remarkably changed.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. :)

Sorry, I didn't like the modifications done to this section yesterday. I understand what and why they were made, and I've seriously modified it. Hope this works. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not all that happy with them myself. :) You know your way better around this, so I am glad you had another look. We're still not quite there, though; Bismarck gets appointed twice (once in the first para, once in the second), and Wilhelm is first Wilhelm and then William. Also, the army reforms mentioned in the first para are the same as those mentioned in the second. It might make sense to get everything in time sequence, i.e. start with Moltke and v. Roon (currently in 2nd para), explain that their reforms cost money and there was a conflict about the budget (currently in 1st para), and that the new king appointed Bismarck because he believed Bismarck could sort it (currently in 1st and 2nd para). The rest should flow fine. If I've slipped up or got hold of the wrong end of the stick, or you'd rather do it differently, please let me know. Best, JN466 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see of this works better 7-14-09 revision Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a long article. I've spot-checked much of the content and dates against the Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropedia and de:WP; the writing in the article is good, in some places outstanding; I'm only three-quarters through with the review (hoping to do the last quarter this coming week), but am pretty confident that the last quarter will not be much different than the first three. Based on textual content I would Support. JN466 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a user Pedant17 (talk | contribs) made a bunch of copy edits which diffused the content, increased wordiness, and in some cases changed meaning in subtle and important ways. He also changed a citation style, and there are a lot of citations, so his single change would mean going through and changing all the others. I reversed his change. If he does it again, I'll call it vandalism, should I? In some cases he is outright wrong in his changes, and in others it's simply meaning less edits that increase wordiness and diffuse the meaning. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the majority of his/her copyedits did not clearly improve the article. There were one or two exceptions; I've incorporated a couple of them, there may be a few more. JN466 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, one or two were good, and I included a couple. Are we done? I've asked Adewait to look at the last image, not sure she has, so I made it easier to find (below).Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing: I went through the links to make sure they all lead exactly where I wanted them to lead. And they do....now. :) I also fixed a couple places of verb weirdness, and a few other things. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last image issue (I hope) is this one: File:German Empire 18711918.png It has replaced the one of low resolution and dubious ancestry. In English. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Unification_of_Germany/archive1&oldid=1040904930"