Talk:Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Resident Mario (talk · contribs) 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shame about the peer review: I've suffered similar difficulties in the past.

General

Avoid quotations when not appropriate. It is better to reword the sentence than to copy-paste and quote "Hundreds of French mines and factories" or "devastated France's most industrialized region" into the article.

Done

The article is in need of a copy-edit, I will oblige once the greater issue listed below are resolved.

Background

Your background is too thin; a solitary paragraph simply does not provide enough information to adequately contextualize the rest of the article. Furthermore this summary seems to provide more information as to the mentality behind the writing of the article—material that should be transposed to the following section—than it does on "true" background. You should move this material to the following section and replace it with a concise summary of the end-of-war events leading up to the armistice and the organization of the Paris Peace Conference. Two or maybe three paragraphs should suffice, and be sure to mention Germany's exclusion from the process.

Done
Text of the article

I'm not certain this deserves its own section, as the text of the actual article is quite short. It may be better to remove this section and instead place the quotation in the lead.

Done
Writing of [the] article

As stated above the material immediately covered in "Background" should be placed here instead.

Done

It should also be expanded upon. State in more detail the level of damage the war effected on the French countryside, how Clemenceau came to the conclusion that the reparations were necessary in kind of German responsibility.

Done Believe this point has now been addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the British position on the issue was, what the American position on the issue was (how did they represent a "compromise" force?)

Done

The German and Allied section need similar expansion. What participation, if at all, did the count enjoy during the peacemaking process?

Done

Why, or how, was the article presented mistranslated?

Done and

Not done I have slightly reworded the sentence and worked it into the rest of the text better. However, while finding sources that note the article was mistranslated, there appears to be very little information on why. Some sources hint at it being a deliberate act by the Germans, however nothing I have thus far found outright states it or why.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain in more detail the opinion of the general German public on the article

Done and

Not done I have made several amendments to section to provide additional information on what the German reaction was like, however there appears to be very little in the way of detailed information out there on what the Germans thought about the article other than what is already there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and on the peacemaking process itself.

Not done I think that is more of an issue for the main treaty article than here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did Woodrow Wilson mean by peace without victory? How did his later commentary move away from this position?

Done I believe this issue is now rectified.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain more detail Dulles' laments, perhaps in the context of the passing of WWII.

Done Believe this issue is now addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Davis ever speak again of his role in the matter?

Not done I have made numerous searches, but I been unable to locate anything.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
War guilt

The first paragraph should be merged into "Writing of".

Done addressed pointEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section provides a wealth of historical commentary, and should renamed as such—"Historical assessments" is the title used in Treaty of Versailles.

Done Altered section name per suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new "War guilt" section could be crafted, briefly speaking of the effects of reparation on the German economy ~~and of their role in the rise of Hitler~~. Actually come to think of it that's probably a little outside of the scope of this article, since we're focused here on the text of the blame itself and not the nitty-gritty behind the reparations.

Agreed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reparations

How exactly did C bonds go about fooling people?

Done Reworded para. I think it is best to avoid discussion of this here, and leave that to the reparations article page.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments will be brought forth if and when progress on those above is made. Unfortunate that this didn't see PR first, but pitifully that seems to happen more and more often nowadays. ResMar 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the review. I will make the recommended changes as soon as possible. However, I am currently suffering from the flu. Is it possible for the deadline to be extended by about a week, until I am feeling better and able to work on the recommendations and the article? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take what time you need, I've always seen "two weeks" as more a suggestion than a rule. ResMar 22:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Resident Mario (talk · contribs), I believe I have rectified the issues raised. I await further feedback whenever you are ready. Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I should be able to get back to you by the end of week. A bit buried "irl" at the moment! ResMar 22:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, whenever you can. :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, I promise. On a side note, it's looking good. ResMar 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've gone back through the article and changed some things here or there, and am overall happy with the results. You've passed! Congratulations. ResMar 03:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]