Talk:Helmuth Raithel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • in the lead: " Initially appointed as an SS-Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel), he was promoted to SS-Standartenführer on 1 April 1944..." ranks should be lower case here as not proper nouns.
    • This one is an interesting one. I have been discussing this with MisterBee1966 over at the ACR for Artur Phleps here. I know that WP:JOBTITLES says that ranks are common nouns and as such they are not capitalised, but if the rank is followed by the person's name it is capitalised. However, because Waffen-SS ranks combine the use of initialisations like "SS", hyphens and proper nouns like "Waffen-SS" within the rank title, it may be that we should adopt MB66's suggestion and use initial caps for the rank in German but then follow the JOBTITLES rule for the English equivalent in parentheses when the rank is first introduced. Waffen-SS ranks really don't work in lower case, because SS-Mann (for example) is always rendered as SS-Mann, not as SS-mann or ss-mann, per [7], [8], and [9]. I have thought about this rank issue quite a bit recently, and at least MB66's suggestion is consistent and explicable to others rather than trying to have an exception just for Waffen-SS ranks. I used the consensus MB66 and I came to at Artur Phleps here. Perhaps we should try to get a consensus position at WT:MILHIST?
    • Yes that seems a well reasoned compromise. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You mean to take it to WT:MILHIST? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Apologies my comment was unclear. Happy with what you propose for this article. That said given that I imagine this issue will come up again in numerous articles it probably would make sense to get a wider consensus as well. I don't propose holding up the review whilst this occurs though. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missing comma here: "During the Battle of Metaxas Line in early April 1941, the division, led by Generalmajor Ferdinand Schörner breached the formidable Greek defences by crossing a 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) snow-covered mountain pass considered inaccessible by the Greeks to cut the rail line to Thessaloniki." Should be: "During the Battle of Metaxas Line in early April 1941, the division, led by Generalmajor Ferdinand Schörner, breached the formidable Greek defences by crossing a 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) snow-covered mountain pass considered inaccessible by the Greeks to cut the rail line to Thessaloniki."
    • broke sentence up.
  • "...and was promoted to Major...", should also be lower case "major".
    • this is the rank issue again. Of course Major and Major are the same rank, but as it is italicised to indicate it is the German, I have left it with the initial capital per Hauptmann.
  • Same here: "He was promoted to Oberstleutnant..." and "Schörner (now a General der Gebirgstruppe (Lieutenant General))..."
    • Oberstleutnant is per the above, for consistency, but I have decapitalised (lieutenant general) and several other equivalent ranks that weren't dealt with consistently throughout.
  • Missing word here I think: "Two weeks later they were fighting their out of encirclement...", probably should be "Two weeks later they were fighting their way out of encirclement..."
    • Done.
  • I couldn't work out whether the lists of promotions and awards seemed out of place / and or distracting (yes that sounds indecisive I know). The information is certainly valid and is included in other bibliographies but I wonder if it is out of sequence? Personally I would consider deleting the promotions and just ensuring this information is included in the text and then moving the awards section to be below the "Personal life" section so as not to interrupt narrative flow. (suggestion only will not oppose on the basis of this)
    • Have moved the Personal life section up. I prefer to keep the promotions and awards sections. They are good reference points for others looking for what his substantive rank was at a particular point in time.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Image used is appropriate to the article and appears to have a valid fair use rationale.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Only a couple of minor issues above to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think they are all addressed now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)