Talk:Adolf Hitler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mkativerata (talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do this section-by-section. And then make comments about the lead at the end. Judging by earlier comments on this talk page, the ultimate objective of the editors of this article appears to be to get the article to FA. With that in mind I won't do the "bare GA" pass but instead make whatever comments I think might be useful with the FA objective in mind.

Hi, Mkativerata. Thank you for taking on this difficult and time consuming task. It is not my intention to present the article at FA, as it is currently way over the guideline for length. Other editors may have different intentions. --Dianna (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your wonderful help developing the article. I would appreciate any input you have on the placement of the images or any further general comments. You may have noticed I did a copy-editing pass last night and found a few things to fix, including some tweeks to the links. I have to go out now for a while and will check in with you later. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I've still got to do the lead, and then I'll do the general comments on the GA criteria, which shouldn't involve any work needing to be done on the article. Although I was thinking of suggesting removing some of the images here and there to make loading the page a bit quicker. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure about removing pictures. The majority of our readers are looking at a cached version of the page, and therefore have quicker load times than those of us who are logging in, so I'm not sure it's necessary. One picture I do think should be removed is File:Hitler 1914 1918.jpg because the source information seems incomplete. Looking forward to your remarks on the lead, --Dianna (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

• We have two whole paragraphs on Hitler's paternal ancestry, but nothing at all about his maternal ancestry. In fact, we have no opportunity to learn of his maternal ancestry until we follow the Klara Pölzl wikilink in the next section of the article. This imbalance is highlighted by the fact that we have a nice big picture of Klara before the article tells us who she is. My suggestion would be to have more on Hitler's maternal ancestry, and to cut down the (albeit interesting) discussion of Hitler's possible Jewish ancestry, which seems over-done now that (according to the article) it has been roundly debunked by academics.
  • Hitler's paternal ancestry in particular has been analysed over the years because of the suggestion that his paternal grandfather was Jewish. Little information exists on Hitler's maternal ancestry and thus is not included in the article. I have trimmed the section. --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• You could also think about axeing the section altogether and amalgamating it with the following section. I've weaved "ancestry" in with "early life" at Mahathir Mohamad#Childhood and medical career. Just an idea.
• No biggie, but would "the illegimate child" be more precise than "an illegitimate child" , seeing as she only had one such child?Y done --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think we need to say when Alois was born (1837). Without that date, the significance of Hiedler marrying Ms Hitler in 1842 and three decades later claiming to be Alois' father is far from apparent.Y done --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Who did Kershaw consider to be "Hitler's adversaries"? The Frankenberger story seems to have come from Hans Frank, and it is not at all apparent that he would be such an adversary. I think this is the kind of suggestion that either needs to be explained or (for the sake of brevity) removed.Y I removed it. --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think "Basic Laws" is a well-enough understood term to go without a wikilink.Y done --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• There are a few sentences or phrases that might read better in the active voice, eg: "The name of Alois' father was not listed..." and "The suggestion that Alois' father was Jewish was also doubted by historians..."Y These two examples are done and I will look for more. --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Childhood

• Generally quite a bit of choppiness in the paragraphing. I'd suggest merging a few of them.Y -- Done; I have rearranged the pics again as well. --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Psychologist Erich Fromm describes the mother and father as "stable, well-intentioned" people". I think this is the kind of sentence that needs either explanation as to the basis fo how Fromm arrived at this conclusion writing in 1977, or removal.Y cut --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "who is thought to have pampered him". Thought by whom? Fromm, people cited by Fromm, or others? If we're confident of the reliablility of the source, why not just "who pampered him". Cut --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Though often described as a tyrant". Again, by who? Alois' friends, family, or scholars waxing lyrical decades later? -- Y I have cut all three things sourced to Fromm, as this analysis does not appear in Bullock. I have placed a hold on Kershaw at the library, and will re-add anything useful about his home life. --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "At the age of three, his family moved". Not sure why Adolf is "his" in this sentence, the first in the paragraph, but "Hitler" in the next.Y -- reworded --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Kapuzinerstrasse 5". Is the street in which he lived significant? Sorry to be picky, but we are going to have to be vigilant with this article's size.
  • It looks like the house was a bit of a Nazi shrine for a while, but since we do not mention that in the article, I am taking it out. --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "In Lambach the eight-year-old Hitler took singing lessons and sang in the church choir, even entertained thoughts of one day becoming a priest". Seems to be a missing word near the comma.Y fixed -- Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "The death of his younger brother, Edmund from measles" comma? Y fixed --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Ignoring his son's desire to attend a classical high school and become an artist, in September 1900 his father sent Adolf". Who is "his"? "His son" then "his father" is quite confusing. Y Fixed. --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• The two sentences about the First Communion seem a bit out of place. I'm not sure what purpose they serve, especially as a separate paragraph. Y --I have cut it. --Dianna (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich

• "with financial support from orphan's benefits and his mother". This doesn't read very clearly. Perhaps "living off orphan's benefits and financial support from his mother"?Y Modified your version a bit. --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• "He was rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (1907–1908), because of his "unfitness for painting", and was recommended to study architecture" The use of the passive voice here begs the question, who recommended him? Would this work: "The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna rejected him twice, in 1907 and 1908, because of his "unfitness for painting", and recommended that he study architecture".Y done --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Is Steven Lehrer's guidebook (which I assume to be reliable for what it says) the source for the whole second paragraph of the section? I'm just interested (as a reader) to know who said that Hitler carried the grief of his mother's death with him for the rest of the life, and I'm not sure it was Lehrer.Y I have re-worked the paragraph using Bullock (1999). --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Another resident of the shelter, Reinhold Hanisch, sold Hitler's paintings, until the two men had a bitter falling-out". Being vigilant about article size, I think this is one of those sentences the article could probably do without.Y Cut --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Hitler stated that he first became an antisemite". Did Hitler state this, did a third-party source state this (one isn't cited), or is this our own interpretation of what Hitler said in Mein Kampf? I think the first two would be fine, the third a little less so.
  • Hitler states directly in Mein Kampf in a section titled "Transformation into an Anti-Semite" that he did not become antisemitic until he arrived in Vienna (pages 52-56 of the 1999 edition). He began reading the Deutsches Vilksblatt and found its ideas appealing. He began to view Jews as not being Germans (p 56) and as being particularly dirty,etc. (p 57). He goes on in this vein until page 61. --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• "He was a frequent dinner guest in a wealthy Jewish home: he interacted well with Jewish merchants, and sold his paintings almost exclusively to Jewish dealers". Is a colon the correct punctuation mark here?Y fixed --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• "a strong admiration for Luther". Luther needs a wikilink.Y done --Dianna (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitler in Liverpool

• I'm a bit troubled by this new paragraph. It smacks of recentism, giving weight to what appears to be an entirely new and untested theory. I tend to think that things like this should only be put in an article when they've been given the tick by credible biographers and Hitler experts.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Y cut --Dianna (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

World War I

• I think this is a good section. The right length. The only structural change I'd suggest is to merge some of the paragraphs, especially those about his injuries.Y Done. --Dianna (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Another general comment: I think there are a few too many "Hitler"s and not enough "he"s, which affects the readability a little.Y Point taken; fixed. --Dianna (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Does Belgium need to be wikilinked? On the other hand, I think Pasewalk should be.Y Did both these things. --Dianna (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• The statement attributed to Dawidowicz about Hitler's intention to exterminate Jews stands out as begging an explanation, especially as the article doesn't seem to use her as a reliable source for anything (she's only in "Further reading"). Have any of Hitler's other biographers backed up that claim?
  • This seems to me to be impossible to prove one way or the other, and it seems unrealistic for a starving artist to be formulating plans of this magnitude. I am gonna take it out. --Dianna (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Entry into politics

• The significance of the matters in the first short paragraph of the section is not at all clear. For example, why is his attendance at a funeral march significant? The source cited doesn't seem to discuss any such significance. As for the "national thinking" courses, this sentence could use a bit more context (or alternatively, removal?).
  • I don't think it is historically significant; I will take it out. --Dianna (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Hitler was discharged from the army..." I think this paragraph says "Hitler" (as opposed to "he") a bit too much.Y Fixed --Dianna (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• There is a "page needed" tag, although I don't think that requires resolution for the GA criteria.Y Found a page number via Google books; sorry about the loose ends; I thought there would be more time to tidy up more before a reviewer came along! --Dianna (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• "Hitler attracted the attention of local business interests..." There's no source for these two sentences. Again, not strictly required for GA purposes, but they stand out in an article otherwise carefully sourced with inline citations.
  • I took the unsourced bits out. Bullock states that at this point his speeches were not even being reported in the papers, so it seems unlikely he had yet been introduced to high society or the business community. --Dianna (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• The section is in good shape.

Beer Hall Putsch

• Again, this section looks good, well-sourced, and is about the right size. These are mainly very picky comments.
• As a consequence of removing the last sentences of the previous section, the first sentence of this section will need to be amended.Y
• "Hitler and Ludendorff sought support". Sought "the" support?Y
• I just realised that Reichswehr isn't wikilinked in the article: this section contains the article's third mention of it.Y Fixed.
• "joined forces with Hitler". I think "joined forces with him" reads better.Y
• "Kahr and his consorts quickly withdrew their support". Support of Hitler? I don't think the previous sentences add enough context to make it clear. We know Hitler had demanded their support, but not that they acceded to the demand.Y
• "this state of mind has been disputed by others". This is an ugly phrase. I think the whole sentence could be simplified, such as by dropping the phrase and putting the word "disputed" somewhere earlier in the sentence.Y Seems obvious that we cannot know his state of mind, so I have dropped the phrase. --Dianna (talk)
• "Hitler's trial began on 26 February 1924; on 1 April 1924 Hitler was sentenced to five years' imprisonment at Landsberg Prison". Excessive dates/detail?Y reworked with the previous sentence; more better now. --Dianna (talk)
• "Hitler received friendly treatment from the guards and received a lot of mail from supporters". Unnecessary repetition of "received".Y all items in this section have been dealt with. Thanks for your great advice. --Dianna (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

• This paragraph contains too many "Mein Kampf"s; "the book" or sometimes just "it" would make it more readable.Y
• The second paragraph of this section digresses into unsourced commentary about the book's impact rather than Hitler's life. I'd suggest either sourcing it or axeing it. That kind of commentary would of course be useful in Mein Kampf. If axed, there won't be much left of this section to warrant a separate heading. Maybe it could be merged with the section above.
  • I was unable to find a source for this stuff. I will take it out, as it is not directly about Hitler. I found some stats on the book sales in Shirer, and tweeked that bit. --Dianna (talk)
• Would it be possible to put the Mein Kampf picture on the left? There are three pics in a row on the right.Y --Done --Dianna (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebuilding the NSDAP

• Again, mainly very picky comments that go well beyond the GA criteria so are completely optional. The section is well-sourced to Shirer and Kershaw.
• "The meeting paved the way for the ban on the NSDAP to be lifted[99] on 16 February 1925, but Hitler was barred from public speaking as of 9 March,[100] a ban that remained in place until 1927." This is a very long and clunky sentence. I think it could be pared right back: party's ban was lifted; Hitler banned from speaking. The dates don't seem to matter much.Y
• "Hitler appointed Gregor Strasser along with his brother Otto and Joseph Goebbels" This is a little confusing (mainly the "his") and I think there are ways to re-word it.Y
• "socialist element in". I may be off-base here, but "element of"?Y of course
• "Hitler established an autocratic rule of the NSDAP". Excessive wording, how about: "Hitler ruled the NSDAP autocratically..."Y good
• "rank in the party was determined not by elections, but rather positions were filled through appointment". The "but rather" is an ugly way of joining the two parts of this sentence.Y
  • Okay, I think I have got all these improvements in place. Thanks --Dianna (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bruning administration

• The election results table: not an issue that will stop a GA pass, but I'd recommend its removal. It would be fine for the applicable split article, but it contains information that can adequately be explained in prose and thereby adds unnecessary length to the article.
• The first three sentences of the section are a bit newspaper-ish: "political turning point", "taking root", and the seemingly synonymous "profile and prominence". Again, not a GA issue, but some tightening of the language might improve it. This section generally seems to embark on a slightly different tone to the rest of the article: it is a bit less formal and a bit more colourful.Y I've rephrased the sections in question to a more encyclopaedic style. Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• "president of state". This is an unusual expression. Something like "country's president" might be better if the article is not going to give his official title (ie a common noun).Y Shortened to "president". Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• "the German parliament". "the German" seems unnecessary.Y
• "The increasing political clout of Hitler was felt at the trial of two Reichswehr officers". Aside from the clunkiness of this phrase, the whole paragraph seems a bit superfluous. Only one source is used (Wheeler-Bennett). Have other biographers mentioned this trial as a significant event in Hitler's career? If not, coverage only in the split article might be appropriate.Y I've re-worked the language here (since this section gives a good example for Hitler's finessing current affairs into political advantage, I think it's worth retaining it). Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• "budgetary and financial austerity measures". I don't know why we need to say either "budgetary" or "financial", let alone both. Y Deleted both. Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• "hard hit" => "affected"?Y
• Dates: not a GA issue but if it is ever to go to FA someone will need to put non-breaking spaces in the dates.
• "President Paul von Hindenburg". Just "von Hindenburg" might do here as we already know him from earlier in the section.Y
• The second-last paragraph of the section uses "broad" twice when I don't think it's warranted on either, let alone both, occasion. Y Amended. Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• "In September 1931 Hitler's niece, Geli Raubal, committed suicide with Hitler's gun in his Munich apartment...". This paragraph seems way out of place. It's only connection to the content in the section is temporal. I'd suggest either moving it to a "personal life"/"family"/"sexuality" section or removing it to a split article. Y Moved to the "Family" section. Malljaja (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Appointment as Chancellor

• I think this section needs a bit of work. The first sentence of the article is huge; the next two paragraphs are unsourced and include an external link to a youtube clip. The unsourced text doesn't seem controversial so hopefully sources can easily be found.
  • Somehow I missed copy editing this section. It's all fixed up now, I hope. --Dianna (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reichstag fire and March elections

• Very minor comments.
• We have "chancellor" here and "Chancellor" in the previous section, in much the same contexts. Should these all be common nouns?
  • I will take it to lower case, as is usual in our language. The problem is, in German, all nouns are captialised, so it's tricky. --Dianna (talk)
• "a Dutch independent communist". Is there a wikilink or an explanation that might help understand this terminology, and in particular, why an Dutch independent communist is so anathema to other communists that they would want to kill him?
  • That's not quite right; I have re-written this bit so the meaning is clearer. --Dianna (talk)
• "The central government" What is the central government? It's a new term in the article. Is it Hitler's government?Y It was Hitler and Hindenburg, so I said so.
• "Besides political campaigning, the NSDAP used paramilitary violence and spread of anti-communist propaganda on the days preceding the election" This sentence has a few grammatical issues.Y
• "increased its support to 43.9% of the vote". This just... isn't right; I don't think it's possible for the NSDAP to be the subject of this sentence. And I think "vote" != "support". How about "the NSDAP's share of the vote..."Y
• "thus again necessitating a coalition with the DNVP". "thus again" is a bit ugly. How about ", necessitating another coalition..."Y
  • I think all these issues have been addressed, and the section is much better now. Thank you --Dianna (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act

• "Although such a bill was not unprecedented, this act was different". The bill was presumably not yet an act. The same for "the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act" and "Social Democrat Otto Wels denounced the act".
• "It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees of the Catholic Church's liberty..." This sentence is sourced to a publication the reliability of which appears, on its face, to be questionable.
• "⅔ majority". I think this should be spelt out, per WP:ORDINAL.Y
  • I have re-worked the section using Bullock and Shirer. --Dianna (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of remaining limits

• "Having achieved full control over the legislative and executive branches of government, Hitler and his political allies embarked on systematic suppression of the remaining political opposition." This sentence has three unnecessary wikilinks.Y
• "Sturmabteilung (SA) stormtroopers" SA is already abbreviated in the article.Y It has already been wikilinked, as well.
• "declared the only legal party". Not sure why "only legal party" needs to be wikilinked.Y
• "In contravention to the Weimar Constitution". "contravention of"?Y
• "As head of state, Hitler now became..." This short paragraph can probably be merged with another.Y
• "evidence that Blomberg's new wife had a police record for prostitution" Was there actual evidence or just "evidence". The word "evidence" might be apt to confuse here: if there actually was a police record, we can surely just say so without saying there was "evidence" of one.Y Shirer confirms the existence of a police record.
• "after the SS provided false allegations". This is the first time we've heard of the SS so it needs an abbreviation and wikilink.Y
• "By early February 1938, twelve generals (apart from Blomberg and Fritsch) were also removed." How about: "twelve other generals had been removed". I don't think there's a need for the parenthetical qualifier, it being obvious from the context.Y
  • Items in this section have been looked at. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Third Reich

• I presume this paragraph is a lead-style introduction to the section?
  • I guess so. Do you think it should be removed? Most Wikipedia articles do not have that. --Dianna (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think the fact of it being there is a problem; it's just the short length of it that makes it stand out like a sore thumb. Perhaps it could be merged into the section above it to create a nice segue. Another issue is that the term "Third Reich" hasn't been used since the article's lead; perhaps a very brief explanation of the term is another thing the section above could do. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I moved the paragraph up to the previous section but an explanation of First Reich, Second Reich, Third Reich is likely outside the scope of the Hitler article. --Dianna (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy and culture

• This section is a bit choppy. Could some of the paragraphs be merged?Y
• "Reconstruction and rearmament were financed with currency manipulations, including credits through Mefo bills, printing money, and seizing the assets of people arrested as enemies of the State, including Jews." This sentence could use a bit of work: for example, I'm not sure why manipulations and credits are plural and some of the prepositions "financed with", "credit through" are a bit ugly.Y Simplified
• "The unemployment rate fell substantially, from six million in 1932 to one million in 1936". Six million and one million aren't rates; they're numbers.Y fixed
• "Nazi policies strongly encouraged women to bear children and stay at home." If we're looking to cut length out of the article, this paragraph must be looking tempting for the chop: weakly sourced, and more about general Nazi policies than Hitler's biography.Y Removed; I am sure we could source it, but it is only marginally relevant.
• "From 1933 to 1934 wages suffered a 5% cut." Is a single year's figures important? It's also sourced to a 1934 source, rather than a genuinely secondary source.Y I have removed it. I have already looked for further sources, and had no luck so far.
• "first architect of the Reich". Is this is a formal position?
  • Apparently the official title was "Inspector General of Buildings for the Renovation of the Federal Capital". I will modify the text.
• "Hitler made some contributions to the design of the Volkswagen Beetle and charged Ferdinand Porsche with its design and construction." Not seeing the significance.
  • He personally helped design the vehicle. Should it be cut?
    • No strong views; it certainly won't affect the GA either way. Is it a factoid given significance by biographers? At the moment it relies on a source that the article only uses once, which is mainly what made me doubt its significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I will check it out in Kershaw tomorrow, as the hold I placed on the book at the library has finally been filled. Kershaw is considered fairly definitive, so if he does not mention it, I will take it out. --Dianna (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Kershaw does not say Hitler personally designed the car, so I am taking it out. --Dianna (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• "On 20 April 1939 a lavish celebration was held for Hitler's 50th birthday" Again, not seeing the significance, especially in a section about economy and culture.Y Removed. --Dianna (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rearmament and new alliances

• This section is reading a bit too much like a chronology: very short paragraphs almost all of which are introduced by dates. Not a GA issue, but I think it would be an issue for FA prose standards. It's a bit tough to read and no other part of the article is written this way.
  • As you have probably realised, the article has had many authors, and thus these inconsistencies. I will clean it up.
• "French demand for sécurité was a principal stumbling block" English?Y I am taking it out. I don't understand what it means, and can't find it in my edition of Kershaw.
• "On 13 September 1935 Hitler ordered Dr. Bernhard Lösener and Franz Albrecht Medicus of the Interior Ministry to start drafting antisemitic laws for Hitler to bring to the floor of the Reichstag." Doesn't this belong in the section below?Y I will move it.
• "On 15 September, Hitler presented two laws—known as the Nuremberg Laws—before the Reichstag." "to" the Reichstag?Y
• "demilitarized zone". Sudden use of American English. Also probably a wikilink we don't need.Y fixed
• "Britain, China, Italy, and Poland" comma after Italy? Y There is one there already.
• "Hitler asserted control of the military-foreign policy apparatus and the abolition of the War Ministry and its replacement by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW)." This isn't quite right: should it be "abolished the..." and "replaced it with..." Y reworded. --Dianna (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust

• This section is probably about right for length. The sources seem fine although this section diverts from the use of Hitler's main biographies.
• I think the Snyder quote is a bit too long -- hardly "brief" for the purposes of WP:NFC. Regardless of NFC, it would in any case be better and more succinctly expressed in WP's own words.
• "During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers declassified over fifty years later". the records of which were declassified?Y fixed
  • I have removed the over-large quotation and wrote some replacement text. Let me know if any of it is phrased awkwardly or needs modification. --Dianna (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Early diplomatic successes

• Good section.
• I'd suggest, principally to cut bytes, getting rid of the block quote, shortening it considerably, or summarising the gist of it (antisemitic ranting) in the previous sentence.
  • I think the rationale for its inclusion is the first-hand statement about the elimination of Jewry, so I am going to leave that part in. --Dianna (talk)
• The final sentence has a citation half-way through it but nothing at the end. It seems uncontroversial though so I'm not bothered.  Done Shirer has this; he's the bomb. --Dianna (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Start of World War II

• "and land would be added Germany's Lebensraum". There's a word missing here.Y
• "In response to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact". Can we call it the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as we've used that name already and it's catchier?Y
• "Hitler told Himmler and Greiser to take up their difficulties" What were Himmler's difficulties? We're only told of Greiser's. It only becomes apparent a bit later that Himmler was on Greiser's side.Y Himmler was not in favour of Forster's looser classification system. I will put this in a bit earlier in the paragraph. Kershaw has more info on this incident so I will add him as another source.
• "the dispute was initially settled in favour of the Göring-Frank view of economic exploitation" en dash instead of hyphen?Y
• There are three consecutive paragraphs without a source. The material is pretty uncontroversial, but three paras is a bit much.Y I will get some sources in place.
• "France surrendered on 22 June 1940." I don't think "surrendered" needs to be wikilinked. Same goes for "radar".Y
• "Hitler's prelude to a planned invasion of the UK were widespread aerial attacks" Should "were" be "was", "prelude" being singular?Y re-worded
• "A major historical debate about Hitler's foreign policy". Is it a major debate or a Marxist yelping from a fringe position to which we should not devote any space? Have other historians engaged with Mason's view in a way that means it should be given weight?
  • I have never heard of these guys and I have read a hundred books about WWII. I think the stuff Kershaw says about Hitler's premonition of an early death should stay. I have moved it up to the part about the invasion of Poland. Thank you so much for devoting your time to improving this article. --Dianna (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Path to defeat

• The first, third, fourth and final paras are unsourced or incompletely sourced, but they seem like uncontroversial history. The final para in particular is a good little segue.Y easily sourced.
• "Operation Barbarossa" is inconsistently italicised. Should it be italicised at all?Y I have been meaning to deal with the italics throughout, as some foreign words are italicised and some are not. I am going to remove the italics from the more common terms and fix up other punctuation.
• "Some historians, such as Andreas Hillgruber" and "Others, such as John Lukacs". Who are the "some" and "others"? Each statement is sourced to Hillgruber and Lukacs only.Y The primary sources do not talk about his scholarly debate at all, so I am going to take it out.
• "Hitler's formal declaration of war against the United States officially engaged him in war against a coalition". Engaged him or engaged Germany?Y fixed
• "Syphilis has also been suspected..." by who? Historians? Doctors? The source is from 1962 - is it still good?Y I am going to take this out here, and in the "Health" section. The sourcing is sketchy, and Kershaw does not mention it at all. --Dianna (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Attempted assassinations

• "During the period of 1939–1945..." This can be simplified, eg "Between 1939 and 1945...".Y
• "17 attempts or plans" I imagine we can count attempts, but plans? What about secret plans? Perhaps the count needs to be qualified in some way.Y The Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler article lists over twenty, so I will re-word this.
• Is this reliable?Y I could not load the page today, but I remember it. Kershaw has some material on the motivation of the plotters, so I will cite to that instead.
• The two paras seem to run together and could be merged. Then it would be quite a short section. So as an alternative suggestion: abolish the section; move the second para up into the previous section, where it belongs chronologically. At the end of that paragraph, mention that the Valkyrie attempt was one of 17 known assassination attempts, wikilinking to Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. Just a thought.  Done --Dianna (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Defeat and death

• This section uses the chronological style: each paragraph introduced by a date. For readability purposes, it might be good to change that.Y
• The section might also be a little long. There's a lot of military detail about the raid on Berlin which contrasts with the (appropriate) lack of detail about other parts of WWII in earlier sections of the article.Y I have trimmed it down to about 775 words. Do you think it needs to be shorter still? I could take out the part about Göring and the bit about Himmler. --Dianna (talk)
• "After being informed of the twin defeats..." This sentence might need some clarity. It sounds like the "twin defeats" were actually suffered at Hitler's command complex.Y
• I don't think "will" needs to be wikilinked. When I saw the wikilink I was half-expecting an article on Hitler's will :) Y
• "On 27 April, Berlin became completely cut off from the rest of Germany..." This para is unsourced.Ycites added by Kierzek
• "Hitler shot himself with his 7.65 mm Walther PPK pistol." Are the three footnotes necessary? It reeks of the uncomfortable compromise of an edit war in years past...
  • What we have here is one citation and two explanatory footnotes. I am going to remove the explanatory footnotes, that indeed seem a relic of a long-ago battle.
• "According to the Russian Federal Security Service, a fragment of human skull..." I don't think the article needs to spend any time mentioning theories and claims that have later been debunked.Y Removed -- Dianna (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking good now. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are overwhelmingly condemnatory. In Germany and Austria, the denial of the Holocaust and the display of Nazi symbols such as swastikas are prohibited by law." This is unsourced. The second sentence might be uncontroversial fact, but the first would need a source.Y unsourced sentence removed.
• Memorial Stone: Is the Stone significant? Even if so, I think the article need only include the English translation of the text, not its original German.
  • I am removing this from the body of the article, and placing the English translation into the caption.
• "Hitler and his legacy are occasionally described in more neutral or even favourable terms." Even mentioning these views is probably giving them undue weight. Would it be more appropriate to mention briefly that Nazism has, from time to time, inspired far-right groups?
  • I have taken out the first sentence of the paragraph, and will think about the remainder. --Dianna (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Religious views

• A lot of "Hitler" here when "he" or "his" would be more readable.Y
• Overall, the section might be a little long when compared to other sections of the article of similar length but greater significance. The fourth paragraph in particular seems to waffle off on a theoretical tangent that went over my simple head.Y I have removed most of the paragraph, which is not of interest to the general reader.
• There are 2 page-needed cites in this section. The first seems like it might be redundant as there are two sources cited. I don't think "page needed" tags stand in the way of GA so they need not be resolved.
• "His critical views on Catholicism resonated with Streicher's contention that the Catholic establishment was allying itself with the Jews." This is the first time the article has mentioned Streicher so we need a first name and, preferably, a brief explanation of who he was.
  • I am taking out the part about Streicher; the section is too long anyway, and it's a bit late to introduce another person to the mix.
• "for John S. Conway and many other historians" Who are the many other historians? This sentence is cited only to Conway.Y re-worded
• "for instance, Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks is considered by most historians to be an invention." The article doesn't tell us what "Hitler Speaks" is. Do we need it?Y removed.
• "Christian Churches". Is "Churches" here a proper noun?Y just an artifact of the German usage
• We might need a wikilink for "occultism".Y
• "Hitler does ridicule such beliefs" wrong tense.Y -- Dianna (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Health

• Into the home straight now. :)
• The section is certainly an improvement from where it was a few weeks ago. I'd suggest thought be given to a little more selective culling. The dental problems and material in the fourth paragraph seem to me to be a little too much: they are conditions that aren't particularly serious and, according to the article, had no discernible effects on Hitler's day job.Y Cut some, rearranged some.
• "Hitler strongly despised alcohol". "strongly" seems redundant; I doubt it's possible to weakly or moderately despise something.Y
• "German historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler dismisses theories". Are these theories from credible people? If so, it might be worth mentioning that.Y I have cut this, as it does not appear in the cited book, and re-worded the next sentence.
• "Kershaw agrees that it is better to take a broader view of German history..." Why is this sourced to Evans?Y I think Kershaw wrote the book's introduction. Kershaw says similar stuff in the introduction to his own book, so I will source it to there. --Dianna (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Family

• The second part of the second paragraph is unsourced.Y Removed
• Do we need the list of family members and the family tree? That will all presumably be available in Hitler family.Y I will transfer over any names that are not in that article, and remove the list. Thanks.

Hitler in media

• "Recorded in private conversation". Is this important? It tells us that there is a rare recording of Hitler in private, which is nice, but little suggestion that the conversation was important. Have any academic sources or biographers picked up on it?Y I will remove it
• "Documentaries during the Third Reich". This section is unsourced.Y I am going to remove the unsourced paragraph, and I found a citation for the Riefenstahl films.
• "Television". This is also unsourced.Y removed
• Is the sentence about the 1999 documentary important?Y removed

The lead

• The lead has seven in-line citations. I doubt we need any of them as the lead is a genuine summary of the (sourced) article contents. Getting rid of the citations could bring the KBs down a bit too.Y
• The lead has five paragraphs. I think it could easily be pared back to comply with the usual rule of four.Y Some paragraphs are short and on related topics, so I have combined them.
• "charismatic oratory". This seems to be overlinking. Unlike "propaganda", these links don't really send us anywhere useful.Y
• "antisemitism, and anti-communism" consistent hyphens?Y
• "Holocaust" is linked twice.Y
• "at the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall". A little more detail than is necessary for the lead? Would just "in Munich" suffice?Y
• "Hitler's racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of as many as 17 million people". Who were the non-Jews and non-Roma that made up the bulk(!) of this 17 million? The maths raises questions, the number doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the article, and nor is the source used elsewhere. The Holocaust section of the article mentions 11 to 14 million people, and doesn't tie the figure to racially-motivated policies.
  • They were mainly Polish civilians (3 million) killed to make way for German settlers; Soviet prisoners of war (2-3 million); 6 million Jews; that adds up to 11-12 million. They also killed homosexuals, Masons, the handicapped and mentally ill; trade unionists, political opponents, etc. The broad definition used by Niewyk includes 6 million Soviet civilians. The more usual tally is around 11-14 million. I suddenly feel kinda sick. Not all were racially motivated; I will fix this up by including more details in the Holocaust section and modifying the lead. --Dianna (talk)
• Otherwise a good lead, I think. --Thanks --Dianna (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments about article structure

• I'll keep this section at the bottom of the page. I thought it would be useful to start making some general comments about the article's structure.
• I think the separate existence of the following sections is a bit problematic:

• Religious views
• Attitudes towards occultism
• Health (with six subsections!)
• Family

There are a number of ways these sections could be pared back. One possibility would be to merge the first two ("Religious views and other beliefs") and the second two ("Personal and family life"), getting rid of all the Health subsections.

I presume you mean that the Health subsections should be converted to paragraphs, and the material not removed entirely? I am going to proceed on that basis. --Dianna (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Further Reading section adds quite a few bytes to the page. Per WP:FURTHER, it is optional. I think when push comes to shove in getting this article to a good size, it's looking ripe for the axe.
  • Further Reading is only 3678 bytes, according to Dr Pda's script. I will post on the talk page and see if anyone has an opinion. --Dianna (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Consensus was to move the material, and this has now been done. --Dianna (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on GA

I have read through the article and find that the article tends to gloss over Hitler's atrocities committed during his dictatorship, in my opinion. Hitler is not even labeled as a dictator. The Night of the Long Knives sections seems to be only one paragraph. Mein Kampf can be expanded. Hitler was the most prolific anti-semite dictator in world history and this seems to be "matter of fact" in the article. I am not sure the article captures Hitler's ruthlessness and arrogance. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We have to be concerned about load times and the accessibility of the article from mobile devices, which are becoming ever more popular, as they will be unable to handle a super large article. So therefore the material must be concise and offer links to related articles in this article, which should focus specifically on Hitler and not on related matters that have their own articles. So I disagree with you that any sections need to be expanded. In fact, a major focus of this GA review has been to find content that we are able to remove.

The regime is labelled as a dictatorship at the bottom of the section Adolf Hitler#Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act. The Adolf Hitler#Legacy section specifically states that historians uniformly describe the regime as "evil". However, we are not allowed to present our emotional reactions to Hitler when presenting the material from an encyclopedic point of view, and must leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented. --Dianna (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed "head of state" to "dictator" since this accurately reflects his authority. I added a source. I am not for stating in the article Hilter was "evil". That is up to the reader to decide. I am not for increasing the article size in any major edits. The article is good. My concern was with tone. I suggest briefly expanding the Mien Kampf and the Night of Long Knives section. Hitler was directly associated with the murder of millions, including Jews. He wanted to establish and occultic reign called the "Third Reich". He bombed British civilians. He had no mercy on any of his opponents. Again, the article is good. I believe certain areas of the article could expand on the brutality of Hitler, but not in any extensive length. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is clear enough. There is, for example, a entire section on "The Holocaust" and a easy to see and use side bar on same for general readers. Further, "The Legacy" section clearly states, "Hitler's policies and orders resulted in the death of approximately 40 million people, including about 27 million in the Soviet Union." Hitler has not been let off the hook. And I agree, that we are to present the material from an objective encyclopedic point of view. Kierzek (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits have been limited and focused on Hitler as a dictator and his brutality. The article refers to the Night of the Long Knives as a purge. I had sourced in a sentence, since edited, that mentioned the "purge" consisted of people being shot without trial. Röhm was not the only person killed in Hitler's purge. I believe it is important to refer to Hitler as Nazi Dictator rather then the general term Head of State. Queen Elizabeth II is a Head of State, but certainly not a dictator. As I said previously, the article is good. The legacy section is good. The "Holocaust" section is good. The article is clear, to the point, and very readable. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the new material regarding Mein Kampf as we don't have room for this analysis in the Hitler article. This material would be better suited to the Mein Kampf article. --Dianna (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would at least keep one sentence that Hitler was attempting to view himself as a dynamic revolutionary in a brutal Darwininan world. I don't understand why such a controversial book is not discussed in terms of the context of the book in the Adolf Hitler article. The book is extremely violent and the essense of Hitler. Readers, in my opinion, are left only with the view that Hitler wrote a book that sold millions of copies. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I took it out because the source you quoted is not listed at WorldCat, and we really don't have room for it here. --Dianna (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The source was a journal article, not a book article. I had access through my local library to get the article. Here is the URL: Gregor article link. I could add this URL to the source. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please get consensus for your insertion by posting a query at Talk:Adolf Hitler. I am going to bed. --Dianna (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain a bit further, this is the GA review subpage, which is transcluded onto the Hitler talk page. It has fewer than 30 watchers. The purpose of this page is for discussing the GA review. Discussion of proposed improvements to the article should be at Talk:Adolf Hitler, which 1620 interested persons have watch-listed. That is why it is inappropriate for you to discuss your proposed edits here. The watchers will not see your proposals appearing on their watch lists. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is inappropriate to give views in the GA review that would, in my opinion, improve the article. My opinions were that to get to GA status certain issues as stated above needed to be addressed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on the Mein Kampf section in the AH talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done The proposed issues have been addressed and resolved. Thanks for everyone who contributed to any discussions in the talk page and edits in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed "good article" nomination

This article passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Good. Uses high-quality sources where possible, such as Hitler's principal biographers.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. Only problem has been a little too thorough at points!

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability?: As stable as an article like this can hope to be.

6. Images?: Fine. I checked most images and they either had valid copyright status or fair use rationales. There'll need to be a bit more attention to the sourcing of some images if the article is going to go for FA.

Thanks very much for tolerating my slow and painstaking review :) I'm very happy to pass this vital article. My suggestion from here—whether this article is to take the next step or not—would be for the small group of editors who've invested in the article (Dianaa, Kierzek, etc) to rule the article with an iron fist to avoid it getting substantiallt above the 150KB mark. You never know, 150KB or a little less might be ok for FAC. Khruschev got through at about 130KB. If anyone is to take it to FAC, I'd suggest peer review first. You'll find better prose people than me there. Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to everyone who helped with this important task. The article is in the best shape it's ever been, thanks to Mkativerata's incredibly helpful critique. --Dianna (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)