Talk:Unification of Germany/Archive 2

Good Article review

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unification of Germany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is a nice article, but I don't want to review all of it: It's too long. This article is 86kb long, almost all of which is regular prose. WP:LENGTH recommends not to have more than 30-50kb of readable prose. When printed, this article is 17 pages long, excluding references. The article should probably be WP:SPLIT and incorporated into subarticles, with this main article using summary style. Otherwise, you may want to have more headers to break up long sections. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, a previous reviewer told me that it needed FEWER headings.  ???? I asked about the length, and was told that it hung together well, so not to worry about the length. So...conflicting advice and direction. Solutions? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the headings really aren't too bad, and it doesn't have to be split, but I think that the length will deter some readers. I will be able to give a full review in the coming days. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reywas92, since you forgot to indicate at GAN that you are the reviewer, I've added my name. Please feel free, of course, to add comments. Ricardiana (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Further reviews are welcome from any editor..."

Comments from Ricardiana:  Doing...

General

This is an impressive article overall, but I do have suggestions and questions, to which I'll be adding in the next few days.

1. Is there a specific reasons why the "Other references" section needs to be in this article? The article's 80k, or whatever it is, could be reduced easily without sacrifice of content by moving these citations to relevant articles or, if that can't be done right away, to a sandbox for storage.

merged into bibliography --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that sources such as Bazillion, who don't seem to be cited in the article, could be left out entirely. But it's up to you. If you want to take the article to FAC, I think the size limit is 63 (? - don't quote me), and that would be an easy way to get the article's size down for FAC. Ricardiana (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1 - well-written

Well-written overall. Some comments:

1. "from which all subsequent states bearing the name of Germany descend" - is this necessary, in this article? Since length is an issue that's been repeatedly raised, such details may not be necessary here.

was part of the original article. removed. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Debate among historians concentrates on whether or not" wordy. Could be "Historians debate ..."
2. While I find this subject interesting, I don't know much about it. I was a little confused by the transition from the first to the second para.s in the lead.

originally I had this as a "list" because each point was directly related to a subject heading in the article. Should I go back to this format? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. No, I don't recommend that (esp. if you want to take this to FA someday) - Can you add some transitions between list-points, to make the transitions read more smoothly? Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

okay, did some rearranging there, and added some text. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Although the development of the spheres of influence model " - wikilink "spheres of influence model"?

I added wikilink to that page, but it really doesn't deal with the Metternich settlement and the rise of German dualism. It has more to do with spheres of influence in Asia and Africa before WWI, and the spheres of influence after WWII. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. "Although the development of the spheres of influence model after the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 supposedly established Austrian dominance in Central Europe, Prussia's rising competence, embodied in the Realpolitik of "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck, challenged the Austrian authority for real leadership within the German states." - There's nothing really wrong with this sentence, but I think its multiple clauses will throw off readers unused to academic or high-level writing. Can you make this more friendly to the general reader?

will fix. :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

...more to come. Ricardiana (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Verifiable

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Broad

Heh. Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: Neutral

Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5 - stable

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6 - images

All fine. If possible, it would be nice to have more images, to ... let's say ... capture the interest of those readers not overly interested in reading the whole article. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do!  :) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

images added. More ? Or is this sufficient? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They're good pictures, but I think that the Fair Use Rationale needs work on the second one; the first one, it looks to me, can't be used, because images (unless free) have to "enhance readers' understanding" of the topic. If you can write the FUR to indicate that it does this, then that pic will be fine. Ricardiana (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Verdict

I think that this well-researched and thorough article merits a GA. Nice job, Auntieruth55! Ricardiana (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Recognizance peer review

Miscellaneous thoughts (on the article -- review)

Sorry it took so long for me to get around to your article. I haven't been able to spend much time on Wikipedia lately. I'll try to be a bit more thorough to make up for it.

You say in the lead, "This article also addresses the factors beyond the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik that led to unification." I was told to avoid self-references, perhaps you're in the right though. Also, lead sections are generally free of footnotes except in cases where it's a specific quote, e.g. the bit I added to George Wallace about "the most important loser of the 20th century". The rationale behind this is that it's summarising existing text and therefore anything mentioned in the lead is discussed at length (with citations) elsewhere.

I agree, however, I was told to put citation there, since it was an odd statement. I've taken it out (but saved it).

In the second to last paragraph of the lead, "the important memory of the Napoleonic Wars" sounds a bit off even though I know what you mean. Maybe just "the experiences".

This experience also echoed the memory of mutual accomplishment in the Napoleonic Wars, particularly the War of Liberation of 1813-14.

Section 1, paragraph 1: I think you mean to say that "These states formed the bulk of the Empire" rather than "These states formed the Holy Roman Empire" - the paragraph starts off saying there were ~300 of them within the HRE but then you say here there were up to 1000. (A side note, did they use the word landlord back then?)

I think I've clarified it.

In the early 1800s, German-speaking lands included more than 300  political entities within the Holy Roman Empire, ranging in size from such small principalities as Hohenlohe to such sizable kingdoms as Kingdom of Bavaria and Kingdom of Prussia. Their governance varied: they included free imperial cities of different sizes, such as the powerful Augsburg and the miniscule Weil der Stadt; ecclesiastical territories, also of varying sizes and imnfluence, such as the Abbey of Reichenau and the Archbishopric of Cologne; and dynastic states such as the Württemberg. These states formed the Holy Roman Empire, and at times included more than 1,000 entities. With few exceptions, the Empire's Prince-electors had since the fourteenth century chosen successive heads of the House of Habsburg to hold the title of Holy Roman Emperor. Among the German speaking states, the Holy Roman Empire offered legal mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts. Various courts provided a venue to resolve disputes between peasants and landlords, and between and within separate jurisdictions. Through an organization of imperial circles ("Kreis"), groups of states consolidated resources and promoted regional and organizational interests.

and yes, there were landlords. Lords of the land, so to speak, who would let someone use their land for a fee.....

Hmm... When you say Napoleon forced a treaty "in which the Emperor blah blah blah" should it be "under which", "by which"? English grammar isn't my forte.

Napoleon dictated a treaty...? which he did.

A citation on "A common language may serve as the basis of a nation, but it takes more than language to unify several hundred polities" to be safe. You'd think it'd be common sense, but I'm trying to save you the headache.

added. good idea.

You pipelink Sixth Coalition to just "coalition" but then you say "Coalition" later.

done. good catch.

How is it that "this impractical solution did not reflect the new status of Prussia"? The way the paragraph flows makes an uninformed reader wonder if Prussia had a large but poor population. Also, the monarchical relationship could be made clearer.

. okay, clarified, I hope

The paragraph about the railroad (under Customs Union) ends with "for example, Nikolaus Lenau, the poet, wrote An der Frühling 1838 (In the Spring of 1838), and places the exact time that the steam trains began to puff their way across the German landscape." What about it? :)

fixed. Another good catch.

"Furthermore, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Austrians, under the Habsburg leadership, would inhibit any drive to unify a German nation state in which they were not the primary leader; the Prussians, on the other hand, would inhibit any drive to unify into a state in which they were not the primary player." - So basically, "Both Austria and Prussia wanted to be #1." Can be made more concise unless there's a specific difference in their motivations.

No citation at the end of First efforts at unification. Again, trying to save you the trouble later on.  Done "On the one hand, he feared the opposition of the other German princes and the military intervention of Austria and Russia; he also had a fundamental distaste of the idea of accepting a crown from a popularly elected parliament, to which the Kaiser replied that he could not accept a crown without the consent of the actual states, and presumably their heads of state, by which he meant the princes." Hmm... I think it's the part where you say "the actual states" that makes it sound awkward. Simplify it to "the princes who controlled the individual states" perhaps?

done, or something like it.

Under Bismarck, "backed up by the possible use of Prussian military might" could be simplified to "backed by Prussian military might". Also, "a repudiation that Bismarck did not himself believe" - {{fact}} {{fact}} {{fact}}. (Although it's also possible I just went overboard in the Ostend article due to a fear of complaints such as these.)

ok, I shifted this somewhat, and put in more citation.

War between Austria and Prussia - "the Italians responded by ordering full mobilization of their own" sounds like it should be either "a full mobilization of their own" or "mobilization of their own forces".

good catch.

Iberia - "Gramont wrote a sharply formulated ultimatum, stating that if any Prussian prince should accept the crown of Spain, the French government would respond" with force? Or in the vague political way Obama threatens to respond to North Korea? Also, were there any particular "further demands" of note?

yes, ambiguous. Diplomats.

Franco Prussian War - Careful of using words like brilliant and spectacular. I remember reading one appraisal of Wikipedia that described articles as "overcooked" and bland. This is probably true, in practice, of the application of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. You might be okay with a citation after the sentence you used them in, so it's someone else talking.

took them out. Yes, it's lame, but I just hit delete. :)

Proclamation of the German Empire - I linked Investment (military) for those unfamiliar with the term.

thanks!

Political and administrative unification - "But unifying various states into one nation required more than some military victories, however much these might have boosted morale and improved public-relations." Wording needs to be tweaked a bit. Changing it to "a few military victories" works, but it could also talk about the dimensions of integration. Your English skills are superior to mine so I'll leave that call up to you. :)

okay, did some tweaking, made it shorter. :)

Social anatomy - "Recent scholarship has, to great extent, refuted the political and economic dominance of the Junkers as social group, however, through research into the roles of the Grand Bourgeoisie, for example the merchant classes of the Hanseatic cities, and the industrial leadership, particularly important in the Rhineland, in the construction of the new state." A semicolon or dash (maybe even full stop) would make this easier to take in all at once.

it was also repetitive, so I fixed that.

This is an enjoyable article to read, and I like how there's discussion of past schools of thought rather than simply "this is the view my high school teacher presented me with" as I've noticed in a couple (though increasingly few) Wikipedia articles. ;) You also put Mr Soulé to shame in terms of sheer scope and number of things to address. Well done. Recognizance (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your input! I appreciate it. So what do you think, should I plunge ahead on FAN? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely go for it. Also, don't mind the silly things like when I was debating grammar with myself about the treaty. I was just mentioning things as they popped into my head because I was tired. Recognizance (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is up for FA. would you please chime in on the review? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Prussian Roads

The article states that...

the length of roads in Prussia with hard surfaces increased from 3,800 kilometers (2,361 mi) in 1816 to 1,600 kilometers (994 mi) in 1852.

Which is of course a decrease in surfaced roads as written. Presumably the figures are just transposed, and the length increased from 1600km in 1816 to 3800km in 1852. Or, put another way, to 3800km in 1852 from 1600 in 1816.

I've altered the article based on this assumption, but perhaps someone with the source could just check that what I have assumed is correct. Brickie (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I checked the source. I had the template backward!  :) Thanks for catching this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation and Reference formatting, other quirks of this article.

Per the guidelines established in WP:CITE I opted to use a single footnoting system in which all in line citations link to footnotes. When qualification or clarification of a source or a statement was necessary, rather than create a separate section of "notes," I opted to include that statement in the footnote. Given that there would clearly many footnotes, it seemed that this was the easier and less complicated method, not only to create, but also to read.

Second, I did not use the Harvard template to create and maintain the list of sources and when the occasional editor has wandered in and attempted to do so, I have reverted the changes. Inevitably they have made it part way through, with perhaps 3 or 4 paragraphs done, and then have given up. According to the guidelines established by WP (again seeWP:CITE#Citation templates and tools), no method is preferred, and that once a pattern is established it should be respected and sustained throughout the article.

"The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Third, this article contains both a footnotes section and a bibliography. The first time a source is cited, the footnote includes the entire citation; subsequent citations from that source are abbreviated with author and page number. If there is more than one source by the same author, an identifying element from the source title is added for clarity. Because there were over 100 citations from some 40 sources, I included also a bibliography, to make it easier for readers to find additional information on the subject without having to read through 100+ footnotes. In addition, I included a second list of books that I did not cite, but which could inform someone's knowledge on the subject, if they decided to look further. While material covered in this last section may also overlap with the material in the bibliography (sources cited), these sources were not "specifically" cited.

Finally, in many cases, I have included the link to the Google books page in the bibliography. In most cases, I did not use the Google books version, but rather a hard copy, but have included the link to make it easier for someone reading the article to promptly find additional information.

Happy Reading!Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, User:Leonard^Bloom and I always joke about how he "cleans up" after me formatting and reference wise, but it's pretty true. I gave up on trying to adhere to a single, coherent, universal method of reference formatting - which isn't to say it can't be done, just that it doesn't exist on Wikipedia.

I do think that the "here" links, while useful, probably should be formatted as either Title of the book or just removed. I vaguely recall a discussion somewhere about whether or not to link to Google books, but can't recall where. As with most Wiki-issues, there's probably a segment of the community who feel strongly that feels it adds significantly to the article and another who feel equally strongly that it's the worst thing in the world. Recognizance (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your references look fine, by the way. See User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article - particularly the section entitled "Handling the FAC page": "Then suddenly it is at the top of the list someone has voted - you hurry over to the FAC page - God, the broad-band is slow today - is it support? No, it is "comment" - someone you have never heard of is helpfully pointing out that the references are not formatted according to the latest diktat from the MOS. Panic! WTF! What can I do? - relax - just post below "I am a complete blithering idiot, who has never been here before. I don't know what to do" (voters admire humility)." Recognizance (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article

During FAC review, one of the commentators, whose opinion I respect, suggested a possible renaming of the article. His thinking is that something like Road to German Unification or Process of German Unification might be better titles for this article. Does anyone have any comments on this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the title better as it is. - Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Road to German Unification - NO: being on the road does not mean we reach destination. As you know, there are roads and bridges to nowhere.

Process of German Unification - NO: a process can remain intellectual & never be applied.

Unification of Germany - YES, because that's exactly what happened.

Frania W. (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jmabel FA issues

Some suggestions for the lede

Auntieruth55 asked me to have a look-in. Here are my comments on the lede; I'll add more on other parts of the article if I see anything (the rest looks stronger than the lede):

• I think I'd put something in the lede to make it clear that Versailles is in France, and that the reason the Empire was formally declared there was that Prussia and its German allies had just defeated France in the Franco-Prussian war. Yes, this is very obvious to anyone who knows there history, but I bet the majority of people who read this article won't come in knowing that, and it will confuse them.

done. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Similarly, I'd make it clear in the lede that the dissolution of the HRE came in the context of the Napoleonic Wars, and after Zollverein I'd parenthetically add "customs union".

done : Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd link absolutist on first mention.

done

• The sentence "Danish irredentism and French nationalism provided foci for expression of German unity" is true, but if one does not come in knowing the history, it is not going to be very illuminating. At least it should begin "German reaction against Danish irredentism..."

done

• "...solved the problem of dualism" seems too strong. Can anyone say "Anschluss"? And it was certainly not only the Nazis who favored such a thing.

Good point. ! done

Also, someone might want to take a shot at just seeing if we can write the lede in better prose. Not that it's bad, but it's very flat writing, nothing to draw the reader in. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been a constant thorn. when I liven up the prose, it's "unencyclopedic." (said a previous reviewer). I've tweaked it into an older version. See how you like this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Much improved. Some people won't consider it "encyclopedic" unless it is full of passive voice and dull to read. They are wrong. We may have changed "brilliant prose" to "featured articles," but they should still be good prose. - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some more suggestions

• There should be a more consistent level of linking in captions. Some link places and people, others don't. I tend to lean toward linking these (though being less liberal with links than in the main text), but whether we are liberal or parsimonious, we should be consistent through the article.

working on it.

• "Among the German speaking states, the Holy Roman Empire offered legal mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts," seems clumsy. From the sentences that follow, it's apparently not simply "The Holy Roman Empire offered legal mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts among the German speaking states." As currently constructed, the sentence would mean that the HRE was itself a "German speaking state" and that uniquely among those states it offered legal mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts (not clear between or among whom, although somewhat clarified in the following sentences). I don't have a specific suggestion for how to reword, but there must be a better choice.

I think I've fixed it.

• In the Germania picture caption, I believe Germania should indeed be italicized where it refers to the work, but not where it refers to the figure. Also "Germania sword lays on her lap" is bad grammar, and should be "Germania's sword lays on her lap" unless I misunderstand what is meant.

yes, got it.

Lies is actually more proper (lie is transitive; lay intransitive). I tried a rewording of the caption; see what you think. Lesgles (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, lies is better; I was focused on the more glaring error. - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• And, yes, the rewrite is good. - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The caption of the picture of the Völkerschlachtdenkmal begins just "The monument honors the effort..." At least it should be "This monument in Leipzig honors the effort...", or possibly "The Völkerschlachtdenkmal ("Monument to the Battle of the Peoples") in Leipzig honors the effort..."

fixed.

• "usually the ecclesiastical territories and many of the imperial cities": "usually" should probably be "chiefly," unless I'm more confused than I thought.

the treaties of Luneville (1801) and Amiens (1802) and the Mediatization of 1803 transferred large portions of the Holy Roman Empire to the dynastic states; secularized ecclesiastical territories and most of the imperial cities disappeared from the political and legal landscape and the populations living in these territories acquired new allegiances to dukes and kings...

• "During the so-called 100 Days of 1815..." Again, assumes too knowledgeable a reader. I'd write "During the brief Napoleonic restoration known as the 100 Days of 1815..."

done

• Shouldn't the Prussian three-class franchise be mentioned somewhere?

I'll at least link to it, but later in the 1848 section (it was a mid-century invention).

• "The surge of German nationalism, initially allied with liberalism, shifted political, social and cultural relationships within the German states. In this context, one can detect its roots in the experience of Germans in the Napoleonic period." Not at all clear what "In this context" means here; also, this is at least the third restatement in the article of the role of the Napoleonic experience, so I wouldn't emphasize it by giving it a whole sentence of its own. How about "The surge of German nationalism, stimulated by the experience of Germans in the Napoleonic period and initially allied with liberalism, shifted political, social and cultural relationships within the German states."

ok

• I linked the term "popular sovereignty" on first mention, but is it really the term we want? "Popular sovereignty" is the abstract notion that the basis of the state is consent of the governed (rather than, say, the divine right of kings). It doesn't necessarily imply representative government, though, and the context here seems to suggest that implication.

engendered an expectation of popular sovereignty and wide spread participation in the political process...??

• Sounds good to me, except that "widespread" is one word. - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• "the length of hard–surfaced roads in Prussia with increased...": either a word is missing after "with" or "with" doesn't belong. I can't tell which.

got it.

• "As people moved around, they came into contact with others, at fashionable resorts such as the spa in Baden-Baden." Well, most people, even most people who moved around, never went to fashionable resorts. At the very least change to something like "As people moved around, they came into contact with others; fashionable resorts arose, such as the spa in Baden-Baden." But maybe more of a change than that is in order. And why single out Baden-Baden, anyway?

fixed. Baden Baden, because most people will have heard of it.

• Way into the article we introduce and link "Second Reich," which is of course just another name for the German Empire. If we are going to use it, we should say "German Empire or Second Reich" on first mention; otherwise, we should stick to the single term "German Empire". In any case, there should be no need to link the synonym (which is a redirect).

fixed.

• "first rail line in the German lands": might we want to say "first passenger and freight rail line in the German lands"? Presumably there were mining railways before that.

hmmmmm....I don't know. Sheehan calls it the first, but I have no problem with adding first passenger line.

• "In 1850, inland shipping carried three times more freight than railroads; by 1870, railroads carried four times more." One of the few times I think wording is too concise. I'd at least add "than inland shipping" at the end, and would consider "...by 1870, the situation had reversed: railroads carried..."

done

• "Most European liberals in the Vormärz sought unification under nationalist principles, promoted the transition to capitalism, sought the expansion of male suffrage, among other issues," seems not quite grammatical to me. It could be solved by an "and" before "sought"; there might be some other way to solve it as well.
• I usually try to minimize the use of gerunds. I'd turn "Gathering in the town below, celebrants began a long march..." to "Celebrants gathered in the town below, then began a long march..."

I shifted some around.

• The two sentences beginning from "The overall content of the speeches suggested..." are clumsy and a bit unclear. I'm not going to take the time right now to suggest a specific rewrite, but if no one else wants to take this on, ping me and I will. Later we say some of this better: "the Volk (the people), if properly educated, would bring about unification on their own."

fixed

• Why is “ordinary” in quotation marks, and why are curly quotes used here when they are not used elsewhere in the article?

have NO idea why the difference in quotation marks occurred -- on my page they all show up as quotes. Might have something to do with MS Word....?anyway, I took out the quotes.

• "the famous Great Irish Famine": I'd just drop the adjective "famous", but if we need something of the sort, surely it should be "infamous".

done

Taking a break for now, but I'll resume this, it looks like I'm finding a lot. - Jmabel | Talk 04:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very helpful. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Next batch

1. "The first coherent effort at a broadly applied constitution, not one dependent on each state, occurred in 1848. The widespread German revolutions of 1848–1849 targeted unification and a constitution as their major objectives." That's a bit slow & clumsy. At the very least "not one dependent on each state" should become something like "rather than a separate polity for each state," since many of the states were not constitutional. But how about just reducing this all to "The widespread German revolutions of 1848–1849 sought unification and a single German constitution."

   done

2. Strictly style: "the responsibility of drafting a constitution that created a federal union"; I'd write "the responsibility to draft a constitution that would create a federal union." Similarly "a form of loose unification" ==> "a loose form of unification."

   I think I fixed this...check and see if it makes sense now

3. "not only, Who were the Germans and where was Germany?, but also, Who was in charge?, and, importantly, Who could best defend 'Germany', wherever, whoever, and whatever it was?" This is odd English. I don't have a specific counter-suggestion, but it would be worth thinking about.

   done

4. "In the Kleindeutschland… solution … in the Grossdeutschland… solution": since these are being used as adjectives, shouldn't this be "In the kleindeutsch… solution … in the grossdeutsch… solution"? But I realize it's always hard to make these decisions when borrowing a foreign term. I don't feel strongly on this one, just not what I'd have done.

   ok/fixed

5. If we are going to introduce (and link) the term "Great Powers", shouldn't we do it in the passage "…a Europe (and indeed a world) balanced by and guaranteed by four powers," changing "powers" to "Great Powers," rather than first use it in the following section?
6. "a repudiation that Bismarck did not himself believe": "believe" seems an odd word when referring to one's own repudiation. Possibly "intend"? "advocate"? But I'm not actually sure what this intends to say.

   fixed

7. "Realpolitik" linked too many times & not consistently italicized (can go either way on italics, but shouldn't be mixed).

   done. I think.

8. "the two powers claimed to speak for all the German states": is this meant to say "Austria and Prussia each claimed to speak for all the German states" (in which case, say that; "each" is necessary, and not long after this, "the two states" means Prussia and Italy), or does it mean to say something else that I don't even see?

   I don't even see where it is.:(

   • It's in the section War between Austria and Prussia, 1866 - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not finding this...but perhaps I solved the problem with the section rewrite???

1. "Although several German states initially had sided with Austria, Prussian troops intercepted them and sent them home." You don't intercept a state. Intercepted their troops?

   duh. yes. :)

2. Just a suggestion: "the Italian mobilization on the border in the south required the Austrians to fight another war on a second front, and on the Adriatic Sea, called the Third Italian War of Independence" ==> "the Italian mobilization on the border in the south required the Austrians to fight the Third Italian War of Independence on a second front, and on the Adriatic Sea."

1. good.

2. Perhaps redistribute material between Aftermath of Königgrätz and Realpolitik and the North German Confederation? In particular, the remarks on Venetia are oddly split. Maybe move all of the material on the effect on Austria to the former section? But I'm sure there are several ways to juggle this.

   done

Taking another break, I'll pick this up later today or tomorrow, I'm sure that leaves you plenty to sink your teeth into. - Jmabel | Talk 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet more suggestions

• "The public in France, Spain, and the German states remained unaware of the proposed Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen monarchy, called the Hohenzollern Candidature by the press." I understand the chronology, but somehow the juxtaposition of "The public … remained unaware" and "called … by the press" confuses it. Maybe "later called … by the press"?

fixed

• Need to be consistent in using either Sadová or Sadova;

fixed

• Similarly, we should either always or never italicize Zollverein. I would italicize it.

Either you or MrBee brought that up....fixed.

• Proclamation of the German Empire says, at one point, "see map," but there is no map.

map alreayd removed. text removed now.

• "One problem with this constitution was that it was designed for certain types of people to hold the position of chancellor and king." No doubt. But without further expansion, this doesn't say much.

yeah, removed. It's a can of worms, for another article.

• "The military of the larger states": shouldn't that be "The militaries of the larger states" or some such?

yup. fixed

• The section Unification of Germany#Social anatomy seems a bit ponderously written. Is it, by any chance, a close translation from German? It could use a lighter touch.

see if that works...

• "The idea of nation did not necessarily mean a pluralistic one" seems infelicitous to me. I'd suggest rewording in a way that doesn't require this use of "one". There are probably several ways to do this.

see if that works...

• Better. I tried some further edits, see if you concur. - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite done, but got to go now; I'll try to get back to this within a few hours. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And a few more:

• Write centuries consistently; offhand I see 19^th and twentieth. I believe either style is acceptable (certainly the second one is), but there should only be one within the article.

fixed

• "The core values of Judaism meshed with emerging socialist agendas": awfully strong. It begs the question of what are "core values" of Judaism. I'd really like to see that attributed explicitly as someone's view. At the very least, it should be something like "The core social values of Judaism…", but my own view (as a person from a secular Jewish socialist background) would be that it is more a matter of post-Haskalah German Jews being a generally educated group, but largely landless and excluded from certain social opportunities, rather than the religion having a particular affinity for socialism. Though no doubt Nietzsche (I'm thinking Genealogy of Morals here) would have claimed the latter.

fixed. it was an excursis anyway

I've now completed my pass through. Assuming my issues are all addressed (most already have been), I'll support for featured article. - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I have now done. My only further comments in terms of the FA process:

• Someone may want to take a close pass through it for current MoS issues (I'm not totally up to date on those policies)
• Someone may want to take a close look through the footnotes, which I did not review as closely as I reviewed the main text and captions.

One very positive comment I want to make: I really like the way that somewhat discredited scholarly views are handled (e.g. the Sonderweg theory). The earlier views are spelled out, but it is made clear on what side recent scholarship comes down. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments following FA review

Whilst I fully support the listing of this article as a candidate FA, I have the following minor comments and questions:

• Para 1: Shouldn't Versailles Palace be Palace of Versailles? Amend to read "on 18 January 1871 in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles."

I think this can go either way. I thought that made too many prepositions in the paragraph, so I used the possessive. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Para 1: As he was the first Wilhelm, surely his title on election was just "Emperor Wilhelm" not "Emperor Wilhelm I"?

since his grandson was named Wilhelm...who knows what they thought, but I will change this.

• Para 1: Do the sentences "Historians debate..." and "They conclude..." need a reference to avoid the charge of weasel words? Or is this covered by subsequent references?

I believe this is covered by subsequent references in the content of the article. If we had to reference it there in the lead (which is not approved by MOS) then it would require a MASSIVE citation of probably 30 books. Surely to cite in the lead is overkill.

• Para 3: Why only "supposedly"; surely this needs qualifying.

fixed

• Para 4: "expression" should be "expressions" or "an expression".

ok

• Para 9: "Borussian" or "Borussian myth" needs explaining or linking. The reader may well have no idea what Borussia means - this is only explained much later in the article.

there is no article on Borussian myth, so I will create one at a future date, and now it links to the part of the article in which the myth is explained.

• "Problems of reorganisation", 2nd para: Shouldn't "Teutschland" be "Deutschland"?!
  • "Teutschland" is an archaic spelling; I assume it is correct where it is used in a title. AuntieRuth? - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

no. That is the title of the book. Teutschland was a common spelling of Germany in the 19th century.

• "Roads and railroads", 1st para: "length of hard-surfaced roads in Prussia with increased..." should read "length of metalled roads in Prussia increased...".

someone changed that-- it should be macadammed roads. I tweaked that paragraph.

• "Roads and railroads", 2nd para: Suggest adding "it cost" after "in 1840,".

I think "it cost" is implied by the comma.

• Image of delegates processing into Paul's Church: should the caption not read "St. Paul's Church" not just "Paul's Church"?
  • Interesting choice, since in German it is doubtless "Paulskirche". In general, I've seen translations of names like that go either way. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

no. It's name is Paulskirche. Paul's church.

• "Founding a unified state", 1st para, last sentence: after "turn to him" add "in".

Wilhelm didn't turn in to him, he turned to him in 1862 to solve a political problem.

oh duh . fixed

• "Founding a unified state", 2nd para, last sentence: Delete "and, furthermore" or restructure sentence to make sense.

fixed

• "Choosing sides", 3rd para, penultimate sentence: Delete "," after "question of power".

I don't see that.

• "Integrating the Jewish community", 1st para, penultimate sentence: Add "," after "throughout the 19th century".

I don't see where that goes.Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy with all responses, except that I believe the convention in German church names is not to bother with the word "Sankt" (saint) - Pauluskirche, Thomaskirche, Johanniskirche - whereas in English we invariably do: "St Paul's Church", "St Thomas' Church", "St John's Church". Sometimes the longer (official?) form is also used in English e.g. "Church of St Paul". Check out your Michelin or Fodor's guides! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Books URLs

There are some problems with Google Books URLs.

• They aren't reliable. They often don't work for me, as the result is something like "quota exceeded". (I guess it's because I, or other people who share my IP address, use the service too often.)
• The URLs let Google track the editor who inserted the URL into Wikipedia.

If an ISBN or OCLC number is available, the Google Book URL is only a minor convenience, as one can follow that number to Google Books (two mouse clicks rather than one, I suppose). This avoids the 2nd problem, and helps readers in my situation avoid the 1st problem.

Because of these problems I removed the Google Books URLs from this article, supplying OCLC where ISBN was not already available. For one particular reference (Bridge & Bullen 2004, ISBN 978-0582784581) there seemed to be two separate citations to the same book; I tried to coalesce them by putting the full citation in the bibliography and have the footnote just name the book and author. The two citations referred to different editions of the book, which was confusing: I assume the actual source was the 2nd edition and put that citation in. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC comments by DaBomb

Dabomb, what am I supposed to do? WP:ACCESS, and you changed "details" to "main" (I had been told in this review to change the mains to details....which I did, so why this specific one?) Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Details is correct for most of the hatnotes in the article. {{main}} is used only when an article is summarized in a parent article. Here, Kulturkampf is summarized (I think?) in the article, and main tells readers that to read the full article about the topic they have to click on that link. As for WP:ACCESS, we can't have left-aligned images under level-three headers (===Like this===, as they disconnect the text from the headings in some screens. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)