Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Werner Hartenstein

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Hartenstein edit

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe to have covered all aspects of his life, at least to the degree that is documented. Please review carefully and let me know how to improve the article further. Thanks and season greetings to all. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: I made some copy editing tweaks, please check that you are happy with my edits. Additionally, I have the following comments (happy to discuss anything you don't agree with):
    • there are no dab links, the external links all work and images have alt text (no action required);
    • "File:U-156 37-35 Laconia 1942 09 15.jpg": the licence for this is a little confusing to me, but I'm not an image expert;
    • if you are wanting to take this to FAC, I think someone there might question the fair use claim on this image: "File:Pedernales sinking.jpg". Given that it is already used on one article, the argument might be that it is overuse to put it in this one. I'm not sure, to be honest, so I'd love to get someone else's opinion (it might pay to ask some of the image experts about this before FAC. The ladies and gentlemen over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be able to help);
    • this seems awkward: "Attached to commanding torpedo boats before the war, he completed". (I'm not quite sure what is being said here. Are you saying that Hartenstein "had his mind set on commanding torpedo boats", or that he was "assigned to the torpedo boat arm of the navy"?);
    • inconsistent presentation: "37 mm (1.46 in) flak gun" as opposed to "the 3.7 cm cannon";
    • the time format currently used is inconsistent with the guidance in WP:MOSTIME. It requires a colon, e.g. "04.30" should be "04:30";
    • are all of the promotions covered in the body of the text? If not, you might need citations for the dates in the Promotions section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe to have them all in the body of the text but I cited them again for ease of reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that you've addressed all my comments above, so I've added my support with the caveat that I don't really understand image copyright policies well enough to provide a more thorough review than I already have. Personally, I find Wiki's image policies to be very confusing and hard to apply common sense to (having seen a lot of variation in their application). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright check File:Werner Hartenstein with KC.jpg does not have an acceptable non-free rationale. A non-free tag is not a wildcard for just everything that can't be used under a free licence. The exact source of the material is the 10º Non-free content criteria, and thus mandatory. Obviously, a modern blog is not the original source of this image. Does it come from a newspaper? A magazine? A government source? A private collection disclosed at some point? File:Pedernales sinking.jpg is not acceptable either: the fair use for historical images is not for images of historical events, but for when the image itself is historical (for example, this is a correct historical image). The source for File:USS Blakeley ohne Bug.jpg is a dead link. File:RMS Laconia.jpg must mention the original publication dates, not the upload dates to some wikimedia project. That's four out of five images with problems, so I have to oppose this nomination, until the problems are either fixed or the images removed or replaced. I did not check the whole article, but a failed copyright check is severe enough Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Edit-conflict with the previous review. I did not intend to step over AustralianRupert's review, but I'm admin in Commons, and I can confirm his concerns, the article should not be approved with the images as they are licenced now) Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding image File:Werner Hartenstein with KC.jpg it is also published on page 257 in the book (among others) from Busch, Rainer & Röll, Hans-Joachim (2003). Der U-Boot-Krieg 1939–1945 – Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe von September 1939 bis Mai 1945 (in German). Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn Germany: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn. ISBN 3-8132-0515-0. I added this to the non-free rationale. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historical images don't have to be iconic for use - see point 8 in the "Images" section here. I think in the case of the Pedernales sinking, the photo meets the requirements: no one else was there to take a photo.
The photo of Hartenetein may be too large (the actual image, not how it's displayed in the article) and should probably be reduced.
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the Blakeley photo is problematic; the ship does not have an entry in the US Navy's online collection (see here). The original uploader should be contacted to determine the source of the image.
I have conacted the uploader commons:User talk:Gonzosft on commons and de:Benutzer Diskussion:Gonzosft and on the German Wiki. I fear that I cannot make myself well understood. Maybe one of you could also leave a messenge trying to explain what the problem is. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on Gonzosft's talk page as well. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Laconia postcard is also a problem, as Cambalachero points out.
It states circa 1921. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need the actual publication date of the postcard (or at least some proof that it was definitely pre-1923, like a postmark date). Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the image. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for File:U-156_37-35_Laconia_1942_09_15.jpg, there's no proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. S/he needs to contact OTRS to prove that s/he has the right to release the image under the CC license. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is missing? I had contacted OTRS and they told me that nothing more is needed (I copied final OTRS comment into the talk page on wikimedia: (Stifle (Diskussion) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) M colorfu (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you quick response. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't seen that on the talk page - should be fine then. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the Blakeley photo has been sorted out on Commons and should be fine to use now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments Support - images should be fine now.
    • The article seems to mainly use British English (honour, organise, etc.) but there is some mixture - I saw one "harbor", there may be others. Please check the article to ensure the style of English is consistent.
    • Is Segelschulschiff typically abbreviated as "SSS"? If so, that's fine, but if not, it shouldn't be in the infobox.
    • What was the result of the bombardment of the Lago Oil facility? Anything destroyed?
    • Where did the 3rd patrol go? Are the 12 ships sunk all merchantmen? More specificity would be good here.
    • Hartenstein was at sea for 3 weeks before sinking the Laconia. Did anything else happen on the patrol, or was that the only ship sunk up til then?
    • Dates for the last patrol? You give the date span in parentheses for the others, why not this one?
  • All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good now, nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Werner_Hartenstein&oldid=476197641"