Talk:Adolf von Rhemen/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Aeengath (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 10:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome Good day Aeengath. I propose to review your GA nomination “Adolf von Rhemen”. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me when you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. I will start with the preliminaries and then work through the article's sections, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed.

—End of 1st instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Johannes Schade thank you for reviewing. Aeengath (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Before the article content

• Optional. Your citations seem to follow the short-footnote style. You might want to make this explicit by adding {{Use shortened footnotes}}.
  •  Done
• Infobox. Rastatt, at Rhemen's time of birth (1855) was in the Grand Duchy of Baden, not Baden-Würtemberg, which was only created in 1952. In 1855 Baden was part of the German Confederation, which included Austria and broke up in 1866 at the Austro-Prussian War. To avoid going into such details and difficulties, I would suggest to somewhat vaguely say Germany. What do you think? Perhaps we can come back to this later.
  •  Done

Lead

• Lead length. The lead size is adequate for the article's prose size of 2277 words as MOS:LEADLENGTH states that articles of "Fewer than 2500 words" should have one or two paragraphs in their leads. The 1st paragraph, which consists of a single sentance, is a bit short.
  •  Done expanded slightly
• 1st paragraph, only sentence. ... Baron ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Is not the "Baron" simply a mistake made by Sean McMeekin, who confuses the Dutch nl:Van Rhemen "van Rhemenhuizen" with the German Von Rhemen zu Barensfeld? If this is so, I would omit the Baron and the corresponding citation in the lead.
  •  Note I'd like to keep the mention of "Baron Rhemen" since more than one source can be found such as Rauchensteiner or here Baron Rhemen is a German, a native of Rheine, in Westphalia also in Mitrović Baron Adolf von Remen, commander of the 13th Corps
• 1st paragraph, only sentence. ... German ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I would omit German here as you discuss it in the lead's 2nd paragraph.
  •  Note I think it's important to highlight that he was an ethnic German as this may have influenced the criteria for him to hold certain positions, as detailed in the article. The 2nd paragraph is about his affiliation with the German nobility so it is not the same thing.
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... family settled in Austria ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The lead states that the family settled in Austria, but this is not corroborated in the main content. We will probably have to come back to this later.
  •  Note The supporting reference in the first section {{sfn|remen|2007|p=16}} says: everything necessary had then been done to give von Remen, a German Austrian with origins in the Westphalian aristocracy, the status of citizen of the Croatian banovina.
• 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... died ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I would add "in Austria".
  •  Done

Early life and career

Citations. With the beginning of the main content starts the flow of the citations. Checking citations can become quite involved and many reviewers do only spot checks. I believe that this is largely due to a lack of understanding on the side of the writers.

• Discarding the one in the lead, the first citation reads {{Tl|sfn|Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950|p=113}} I clicked down to the source, but there is no |url= parameter. So I am left wondering whether it is available online. I have to try Google books, Internet Archive, Hathi, etc. and make searches by title or author. Then I have to get to the right page. Could you please add URLs in the list of sources?
  •  Note You need to hover over the reference to access it, it will take you there.
• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... born ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". If he were British, he would not inherit the title at birth unless his father was dead. I do not know how this is handled in the German nobility.
  •  Note I do not know about German nobility either, I just used his full name as stated in the source.
• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... son of ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". It is customary to name the biographical subject's parents, even if not notable. His father is known. He was Peter Freiherr von Rhemen (1789 to 20 November 1872), like his son an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army. That can all be read in the German Wikipedia. The reference is "Die Theresianische Militär-Akademie zu Wiener-Neustadt", 2nd volume, p. 671 (https://archive.org/details/dietheresianisc02svobgoog/page/671/) "Sohn eines pensionierten k.u.k. Hauptmannes, geb. zu Rastadt in Baden 22. Dec. 1855" (son of a retired Autro-Hungarian captain, born at Rastadt in Baden on 22 December 1855).
  •  Note Can you tell me where exactly you found that? "Peter Freiherr von Rhemen (1789 to 20 November 1872)" I cannot see it on the source you are providing, only that his father was an officer which is already mentioned. I have added the source to the article.

—End of 2nd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Thanks for your replies. I found that you were right and I was wrong in quite a few places, such as Rhemen being sometimes called Baron instead of Freiherr.

Lead (revisited)

• 1st paragraph, only sentence. ... Baron ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I was wrong. "Baron" is unlikely to be a confusion with the Dutch nl:Van Rhemen "van Rhemenhuizen" branch of the family. It seems that in Germany and Austria Freiherr and Baron are different names for the same aristocratic rank. Of course let it stand.
• 1st paragraph, only sentence. ... German ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". We always will have the difficulty to distinguish between "German" as meaning "ethnic German" or German as meaning having German nationality in the modern sense. I thought it might be misunderstood in the second sense by readers who do not much about the subject. I think he and already his father considered themselves subjects of the Austrian emperor and were noyal to Austria.
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... family settled in Austria ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I do not doubt the fact. I just wanted to comment that it needs to be elaborated upon in the main content. Besides, Mitrovíc can be read entirely at Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/serbiasgreatwar10000mitr/). It is quite curious that he calls him "Remen".

Early life and career (revisited)

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... born ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". It seems that all the children could and still can use the title in German noble families. So, he and his father could be Freiherr at the same time.
• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... son of ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Yes, the cited source gives only his father's name and rank in the Austrian army, not his lifespan, which is given in the German Wikipedia article. I found a reference only today: Friedrich von der Wengen 1879 Geschichte frd K.K. Oesterreichischen 13,den Draginer refiments ... https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnn4vy&seq=884 The pages 864 and 865 give a short biography of Peter von Rhemen. It stresses his career. there is nothing about his wife or children.

—End of 3rd instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for taking the time to do more research @Johannes Schade. I do not think we can add much more about his family without new reliable sources. Aeengath (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. I though you wanted to have his father's birth and death dates. Admittedly there is a strange contradiction about his father's rank. Do you think the book I found is not a reliable source? There is an article about the author in the German Wikipedia. Of course these soldiers are not neutral. They push there own glory. Besides, the book is also at Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/geschichtedeskk00wenggoog/page/707/ Can you read German? Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What I meant is that without a source that directly supports the statement that Peter von Rhemen was his father, we cannot include it in the article, without one it becomes original research. Aeengath (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Oh yes indeed. I simply trusted the German Wikipedia article that maintains Adolfs's father was Peter, but does not seem to have any source supporting that staetement. Peter was born 1790 which makes him look more like a grandfather than a father. Quite interestingly, the Czech Wikipedia has an article about Hugo Rhemen zu Barensfield (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Rhemen) who could perhaps be a brother. I cannot speak Czech and used an automatic translator. Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Johannes Schade, Do you have any more comments about the article? Aeengath (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. I got sidetracked on the question of his father and must admit that we have not made real progess. Here comes the next round.

@Johannes Schade, no worries if RS about his family come about they can always be added later. Aeengath (talk)

Early life and career (continued)

• 4th paragraph, last sentence. ... who he encountered ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I would prefer "... whom he encountere ..."
  • thanks typo  Done

Command of XIII Corps

• 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... instead of ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I would prefer "... rather than ...".
  •  Done

First Serbian campaign

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... maintaining its of heading southeast ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I propose more simply "... heading southeast ..."
  •  Done
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... and the Jada valley. – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I propose "... along the Jadar valley ..." According to Google maps the Jadar (Drina) is a right tributary of the Drina, which she joins near Janja on the left bank of the Drina and downtream of Loznica on the right bank. I would cut the sentence her and start a new sentence with "On 14 August it encountered ..."
  •  Done
• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... committed a number of war crimes ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". I propose to simplify the language (not to belittle the war crimes) "... committed war crimes ..."
  •  Note It seems appropriate to keep "a number of war crimes", as it highlights the fact that multiple war crimes were committed not just a single isolated incident, this is widely documented.
• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... in the area of Mačva ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I propose "... in the Mačva region ...". I first misunderstood this as "in the area around Mačva" as I thought Maçva was a village or town.
  •  Done changed it but Mačva is already defined as a region in the previous paragraph ... On 24 August, Šabac, the largest town of the region of Mačva was liberated ...
• 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Around Šabac, occupied then abandoned ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". The town of Šabac is on the Sava. This concerns other Austro-Hungarian units, not Rhemen's XIII Corps. This sentence should be removed here and the information should probably be added to the Battle of Cer and the Serbian Campaign, where such information sems to be missing.
  •  Note It seems pertinent here as well to note that during the AH invasion, war crimes were carried out extensively, not just by units under his command.
• 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Drima river ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". By now the reader knows that the Drina is a river. "Drima" will be enough.
  •  Done
• 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... extremely heavy losses ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". "heavy losses" should be enough.
  •  Done
• 4th paragraph, 4th sentence. ... this period. – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I am not sure which peried "this period" exactly is.
  •  Done changed it for "the second invasion attempt of Serbia"
• 5th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... attack on the Serbian 3rd Army .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Where was the Serbian 3rd army at that time? Did Rhemen fight against it?
  •  Note the direct quote supporting this says: ... According to Potiorek’s plan,... von Rhemen’s XIII and von Appel’s XV Corps—would mount frontal attacks on the Serbian Third Army. .... will add to this and rephrase it for clarity.
• 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... regained Semlin ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". Was Rhemen involved at Semlin? I thought he was in the SW on the Drina and capturing Valjevo.
  •  Done Removed it
• 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... The Battle of Kolubara ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". I think Rhemen has nothing to do with this battle.
  •  Note He had because XIII Corps had been transferred to Potiorek’s Sixth Army, this is missing and I will add it with source, let me know if it makes sense.
• 5th paragraph, last sentence. ... Small peasant army ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". Does Wawro realy say this? Google books does nnot give page numbers. A search also did not find it. How do you found this?
  •  Note It's in {{sfn|Schindler|2002|p=191}} ... The small peasant army had been destroyed as an effective fighting force ... I added the reference and rephrased it for clarity.

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you Johannes Schade Aeengath (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

Early life and career (revisited again)

• 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Victor Dankl ... – Criterion 2b, "failed verification". The cited text does not mention his predecessor as chief of staff of XIII Corps. I looked up the article about Dankl and the Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon (https://www.biographien.ac.at/oebl_1/169.pdf) neither mentions Dankl as chief of staff on the XIII Corps. Il looks like an error to me.
  •  Done Yes you’re right I lost that reference and forgot to take this out, it also mentioned Csicserics as his replacement as chief of staff of XIII Corps. I'll keep searching for it.
• 3rd paragraph, last sentence. ... Timisoara .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Since the text gives Aggram (Zagreb) it would be logic to give "Temeschwar (Timisoara)" as the source does.
  •  Done makes sense

Command of XIII Corps (revisited)

• 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Fith Army .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Should have been Fifth Army.
  •  Done
• 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... Comprising of two ... – Criterion 1a, "grammar". Verb construction, should be "comprising two".
  •  Done

First Serbian Campaign (revisited)

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Six Army .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Should have been Sixth Army.
  •  Done
• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... right flank .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". If the 6th Army was higher up on the Drina than the 5th, should not the 6th army be the Potiorek's right wing rather than the XIII Corps which belonged to the 5th Army?
  •  Note per source Lyon p.127 ... Potiorek envisioned a pincer movement to encircle the Serbian center at Valjevo, with his left wing (VIII Corps) sweeping across Mačva, while his right wing (XIII Corps) moved up the Jadar valley.....
• 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. ... clear his XIII Corps from the south .... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". I find it difficult to understand.
  •  Done I agree I removed that sentence
• 3rd paragraph, penultimate sentence. ... around Zvornik ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Zvornik lies on the Drina and consists of Zwornik itself in Bosnia and Mali Zwornik (Little Zwornik) in Serbia. I suppose the war crimes affected Mali Zvornik and tha area near it on the Serbian side of the river.
  •  Note According to Lyon p. 125 ... The southernmost unit of XIII Corps, the 42nd Honved (Domobran) Infantry Division, marched south along the Drina through Zvornik to cross at Ljubovija. ... also Lyon p. 127 ...the 42nd Honved Infantry Division crossed at Zvornik ...The 42nd—accompanied by some 500 Muslim civilian looters from Bosnia driving wagons and wearing yellow armbands began plundering and burning villages ... and p. 161 ... The main force of the Fifth Army was deployed along the Drina from its confluence with the Sava as far south as Zvornik ...
• 4th paragraph, 2th sentence. ... On 14 September ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This date marks the beginning of another attack and should probably be called the "2nd Habsburg invasion", as the 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph starts the 34d Habsburg invasion.
  •  Done
• 4th paragraph, 2th sentence. ... across the Drina ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Schindler p. 180 says across the Sava.
  •  Done Changed it for "near the confluence of the Drina and Sava" from Schindler p. 178. "in the Sava Drina triangle" and Lyon p. 161 ... The main force of the Fifth Army was deployed along the Drina from its confluence with the Sava as far south as Zvornik ... changed reference to support it.

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

First Serbian Campaign (revisited again)

It is not easy to get a clear picture of the role played by the XIII in the first Serbian campagn. A map might help. I found two passible maps, one using {{Location map many}} the other {{OSM location map}} I do not have much experience with maps but I have played a bit around:

Belgrad

Šabac

Loznica

Valjevo

Brčko

Cer

class=notpageimage|

Locations of the Serbian Campaign (1914)

30km
20miles

Cer

  

Locations of the Battle of Cer and Serbian Campaign (1914)

Perhaps you could do better. Do you think it useful?

• IMO this might be out of scope, is this still part of the review? Aeengath (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

—End of instalment— Best regards, ~~

@Aeengath:. Another round

=== First Serbian Campaign (revisited again) === Sorry got it wrong. It is

Command of XIII Corps

Dear Aeengath, I find your English should be plainer and mor encyclopedic. We must not follow the styles of the sources. They are often not concise, but "concise" is prescribed in GA criterion 1a.

•  Note Thanks for your feedback, I always try to stick to the facts and present them objectively while following WP:INTEGRITY of the sources. It's hard to know exactly what you mean  without examples. If you could provide some, I'd appreciate it. As a reminder GA criterion 1a: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Minimalgruppe ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". The "Minimalgruppe" is mentioned only once. It is not explained and surely not understandable for the reader. It seems the Habsburg military distinguish between units that would be dedicated to the Balkanstreitkräfte and others that could be part of them but could also be used elsewhere. I would not mention the "Minimalgruppe". It is more confusing than helpful. I propose to shorten this to "... XIII Corps was incorporated into Balkan Armed Forces (Balkanstreitkräfte) ..."
  •  Note The sentence Rhemen's XIII Corps was incorporated into Minimalgruppe Balkan, a formation of Balkan Armed Forces The mention of Minimalgruppe is supported by multiple credible sources and plays a significant role in understanding the chain of command within Rhemen's XIII Corps. I will add instead further explanation to make it more accessible.

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... army raised for ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". The Balkanstreitkräfter was not an army but a "Armed forces". Nor is "raised" precisisly correct as most of these troops are not new. I propose to simplify and replace "... Austria-Hungary's army raised for offensive action against Serbia." with "... the force assembled to attack Serbia.".
  •  Done I agree that "force" does better reflects the nature of the Balkanstreitkräfte, even though some source do call it an army such as here

• 1st paragraph, 2th sentence. ... under the command of ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Should be "commanded by".
  •  Note I think "under the command" works better since Potiorek held the position of supreme commander and  it emphasises his authority.

• 1st paragraph, 2th sentence. ... Feldzeugmeister ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Of course the reader can look up that "Feldzeugmester" was the Astrian term for "general of the artillery", but it is an unnessecary difficulty for the reader who gets sidetracked. You already say Potiorek was "Bosnia-Herzegovina's military governor". That should be enough.
  •  Note The source Lyon p. 3 mentions him as ..Balkanstreitkräfte commander Feldzeugmeister (Lieutenant General) Oskar Potiorek, I will add the English translation the same way. It's also not that different from changing Timisoara for Temeschwar.

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... XV Corps stationed in Sarajevo and XVI Corps ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". XY Corps is mentioned another time further down in the text. It should get some useful explanation there. XVI Corps is never mention again. Are you throwing haphazard facts at the reader?
  •  Done not haphazard facts, they all are from the South Slav regions of the Empire, expanding this for clarity while re-writing the paragraph.

• 2nd paragraph, 2th sentence. ... Fifth Army ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This is the first mention of Fifth Army in the main content, please link it.
  •  Note no longer needed.

• 2nd paragraph, 2th sentence. ... Brčko ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This is the only mention of this locality. Either remove it or extend so that the reader can understand where it is and why this location has been chosen.
  •  Note the Fifth Army under General Liborius Ritter von Frank, headquartered in the Bosnian town of Brčko could you clarify why you find that confusing? this is clear, concise and supported by a source. It indicates the location of the Fifth Army's headquarters where Adolf Rhemen's commander, served.

• 2nd paragraph, 3th sentence. ... Comprising two infantry divisions ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Break this sentence into two. Treat the XIII Corps's subdivisions first, then the numbers of men and guns at the end of the paragraph. The 36th Division is treated very shortly compared to the 42th. The Czech Wikipedia has an article on its commander, Claudius Czibulka (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_Czibulka), which says he was Czich and the the 36th Division was stationed in Zagreb like the 42th.
  •  Done moved the numbers of men and guns to the end of the paragraph.
  •  Note The 42nd Division receives more detailed treatment because it is the most notable with multiple citations in sources. It is clearly introduced as "the renowned 42nd Home Guard Infantry Division". This is also important because that division comes back multiple times in the article. I can include the location of the 36th Division, provided that the Czech article relies on RS. As a side note, it may not be necessary to overwhelm the reader with details about the other formations, if they are not extensively covered in English-language sources.

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

Dear Aeengath I found a obituary for Rhemen in an Austrian military newspaper called "Österreichische Wehrzeitung", often abbreviated (ÖWz), 15 January 1932. The obituary seems to repeat all that we already know. The only news in there is that he was married and was survived by his wive. See:

https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=daz&datum=19320115&seite=1&zoom=33

I also found an old map of Serbia. See:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090406133430/http://www.feefhs.org/maplibrary/balkans/ba-serb.html

An Hungarian book entitled "A Nagy Háború osztrák–magyar tábornokai" (Austro-Hungarian generals of the Great War) by Tibor Balla, 2010 contain a short biography of Rhemen. This added that Rhemen was a Roman Catholic and interestingly attended elementary school in Budweis, southern Bohemia. At the end is a note that gives his father's name as "Note: His father, Captain Eberhard Freiherr von Rhemen" but with the quite unlikely death dae of 14 January 1932. See:

https://real-d.mtak.hu/652/7/dc_633_12_doktori_mu.pdf

Rhemen is on pages 253 &254.

 Note Thank you for your research and for providing those two sources; I have added them to the article. Aeengath (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

First Serbian Campaign (revisited again)

• 1st paragraph, 2th sentence. ... designated for deployment in ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Replace "XIII Corps was designated for deployment in the Valjevo region, advancing up the Jadar River Valley." with "XIII Corps was to move up the Jadar River valley to Valjevo."

—End of instalment— Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

• 1st paragraph, 3th sentence. ... The deployment of the Corps ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Replace "The deployment of the Corps was intended to serve as the right flank of Potiorek's double envelopment strategy, complemented by VIII Corps, under General Arthur Giesl von Gieslingen, on the left flank, with the objective of encircling and neutralising the Serbian army's centre." with "Potiorek wanted to encycle the Serbian force using the XIII Corps on the right and the VIII Corps on the left." The reader does not need to know that the VIII Corps was commanded by General Arthur Giesl von Gieslingen. We should focus on Rhemen.
  •  Done removing mention of commander of VIII Corps, changing "wanted to encycle" from your version to "aimed to encircle"
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... heading southeast towards Valjevo along the Jadar valley ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Shorten the sentence to "XIII Corps took two days to cross the Drina near Loznica.". You have already said where the XIII Corps was heading to.
  •  Done

Dear Aeengath, I wonder whether I should fail this nomination. Would you like to go on?

I find myself changing about each sentence and could well rewrite entire paragraphs. I feel that most of the article's English is unsuitable for a Wikipedia. It should be plainer and more concise. Many sentences feel entangled and I struggle to understand. There are too many ing-forms. There are too many nouns and not enough strong meaningful verbs. The vocabulary often is too French, Latin and Greek where such high level is not warranted. The article should focus more on the subject. There is too much detail on the first world war. Only some background and Rhemen's interventions are needed. There should be a simple map where the reader can find the many locations.

Perhaps I am wrong and you need a better reviewer, especially one whose's English is first-language. Please tell me what you think.

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that's quite a bit to respond to, please allow me a couple of days to address everything. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Johannes Schade Thank you for your feedback. I'm struggling to fully understand your concerns regarding the article's adherence to Wikipedia's Good article criteria. Your comments on "too many ing-forms," "too many nouns," and references to "French, Latin, and Greek vocabulary" seem to reflect your own stylistic preferences of English rather than alignment with Wikipedia's standards. Most of the changes you requested were minor, except for the paragraph about Command of XIII Corps, which I chose to rewrite. I provided notes to most of your suggestions, even when they appeared mistaken or unclear, such as trusting unsourced foreign Wikipedia pages, confusing references, or pushing for what seemed like original research. Additionally, your suggestion to focus less on the war while adding a map of the Battle of Cer and the Serbian Campaign (1914) still has me scratching my head. Seeking a second opinion, especially from a native English speaker, will definitely help so I would appreciate if you could make the request. Thank you. Aeengath (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aeengath:. Another round

Dear Aeengath, thanks for your frank words. Of course I am sometimes wrong. For example when I trusted Rhemen's article in the German Wikipedia. It shows my lack of experience. I had difficulties to get into the subject. I had heard only of Belgrade and Sarajevo as towns and only of the Danube and the Sava as rivers. I therefore struggled to find where all these towns and rivers are and thought it would be nice to have a map where the relevant towns and rivers are not hidden among all the others and where the Cyrillic is not shown in addition to the Latin. Unluckily the three maps I showed you are not really good enough. I lack experience with maps and do not know how to make them. I thought perhaps you could. It is true that maps are not common in biographies.

I do of course agree with you that most of my proposed changes are trivial. It is nevertheless the reviewers duty to report them. Some reviewers will fail a nomination when they find themselves spending too much time on such trivia.

When I make suggestion that look like original research, I try to indicate nice to haves information, hoping that you can find the needed citations. It is not nomaly the reviewers job to find them.

With regard to style, concise is prescribed for GA in criterion 1a, as you well know. I have myself written not concise enough in Wikipedia until quite recently. Plain English is not prescribed but recommended. See the essay Wikipedia:Use plain English. Quite obviously French, Greek and Latin cannot always be avoided in English, and are de rigeur in some technical writing. However, they can make things hard to understand, for example for a foreigner like me.

To give you an example of what I think fails the concise requirement "was designated for deployment in the Valjevo region". I had to look up "designated". Its main meaning is "mark out and make known", which does not seem to be what you mean. It is also an example of a weak (or light) verb with a noun, used instead of a strong meaningful verb. A weak verb typicalle causes a lengthy construction that fails "concise". You might have said something like "was to occupy Valjevo".

I asked for a second opinion. I lack experiance with second opinions and have never done this before. You could of course have done it yourself and that would have been the usual procedure. We will see what comes of it. The second opinion has the disadvantage that the wikipedian who gives it is in no way rewarded for the effort. Whereas, if I would fail the nomination, the new reviewer would benefit by increasing his or her review count, thereby increasing the chance to have his or her own nomination reviewed.

@Johannes Schade In my view, this level of detail might be better suited for a featured article (FA) nomination rather than a GA. However, I could be wrong. You have put in a tremendous amount of work, and I am sincerely grateful for your efforts. I wouldn't want you to feel cheated if another reviewer were to receive credit for your hard work. Therefore, I think it's best to withdraw the request for a second opinion and instead fail the nomination. I will continue refining the article outside of the review format, incorporating some of your comments. I am certainly not chasing GA counts and I'm fine with its current B-Class. Thanks again! Aeengath (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Command of XIII Corps (revisited)

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Croatia,[10] it was one ... – Criterion 1a, "grammar". These are two full sentences and should be separated by a full stop.
  •  Note re-wrote paragraph
• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... which, along with the Sixth Army ... – Criterion 3b, "focused". I believe the article should not mention the other units of the South-Slav region, i.e. the XV Corps and the XVI Corps.
  •  Done
• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... At the outset of World War I, Rhemen's XIII Corps, was initially ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Having said "Outset", "initially" is not needed.
  •  Done
• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Minimalgruppe Balkan ... – Criterion 3b, "focused". I find that the difference between the Minimalgruppe and the Balkanstreitkräfte is irrelevant for the article. The Minimalgruppe being a part of the Balkanstreitkräfter, I would use only the latter. It is not helpfull to mention difficult to understand German terms without need. Besides, "Balkan Task Group" is not a correct translation of Minimalgroppe Balkan as it omits the "Minimal". The article Balkanstreitkräfte explains the Minialgruppe quite well and translates it as "Balkan Minimal Group".
  •  Note It is mentioned by multiple sources used in the article so I think it should be there, re-writing this part to make it clearer.
• 1st paragraph, last sentence. ... Brčko ... – Criterion 3b, "focused". I find it gives the wrong idea to say that Brčko is in Bosnia. It is in fact on the Sava and therefore in northermost Bosna almost in Croatia. This location was chosen so that the army's headquarters were near the places where the army would attack Serbia on the Sava and on the Drina. I propose not to menion Brčko. Rhemen was not there.
  •  Done
• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... included ... – Criterion 3b, "understanding". The use of "includes" is awkward as it suggests that the list of the constituent parts of the army will stay incomplete, which is not the case. I would prepend another sentence which would introduce the 2 divisions and the separate infantry brigade, and then only give the detail about the 42nd division being Croatian, its nickname, the use of Croatian as command language, the name of the commander etc.
  •  Done
• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Minimalgruppe ... – Criterion 3b, "understanding". Are you sure? Tomić in Google Books can be read but lacks page numbers. How did you find it out it was page 34? I cannot find what it says about 2nd Army being part of Minimalgruppe. I think that is wrong. I believe 2nd Army was part of Balkanstreitkräfter but not of Minimalgruppe.
  •  Note Lyon p.114 Second Army was sent to the Balkans to join with Minimalgruppe Balkan and form Balkanstreitkräfte, changed the phrase and ref for clarity
• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Feldzeugmeister ... – Criterion 3b, "understanding". Another unhelpful and missleading German term, that will distract users. Please remove.
  •  Note why missleading?, this was his official rank and the translation is provided

First Serbian Campaign (revisited again)

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... the lower Drina and Sava ... – Criterion 1a, "grammar". The article must normaly be repeated in an enumeration; hence "the lower Drina and the Sava", unless you mean "the lawer Drina and the lower Sava", which I think you do not.
  •  Note re-wrote paragraph
• 1st paragraph, 2d sentence. ... designated for deployment ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Replace "XIII Corps was designated for deployment in the Valjevo region, advancing up the Jadar River Valley." with "XIII Corps was to move up the Jadar River valley to Valjevo."
  •  Note re-wrote paragraph
• 1st paragraph, last sentence. ... encycle ... – Criterion 1a, "understandig". I first did not understand why XIII Corps and not the 6th Army was used for the planned encycling. It seems the 6th Army was quite for away in the south. Perhaps this should be explained. I have read this somewhere in one of your sources but cannot remember where.
  •  Note The Sixth Army was not ready to attack until later, I can mention that.
• 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... encountered two Serbian ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Replace "On 14 August, it encountered two Serbian detachments during the fighting for the heights of Loznica." with "On 14 August, it fought two Serbian detachments on the heights of Loznica." Serbian detachments sounds very vague. Could they have names? Otherwise, simplify further to say something like "the Serbians".
  •  Note re-wrote paragraph
• 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... a number of war crimes ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". A number of war crimes is the sames a just "war crimes", as war crimes is a plural, so there was more than one. If you want to indicate that there were many, you should say "many war crimes".
  •  Note re-wrote paragraph
• 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... especially in the Mačva region ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". The war crimes in the Mačva region are not relevant to the article as the XIII Corps did not operate there. The sentence should therefore be shortend to end after "population".
  •  Note Units of XIII Corps operated in Zavlaka, Krupanj or Loznica which are in the Mačva region.
• 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Around Šabac ... – Criterion 3b, "Focused". The war crimes at Šabac are not relevant to the article as the XIII Corps did not operate there. The entire sentence should go.
  •  Done
• 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... partisans? ... – Criterion 3a, "broad". It would be nice if the reason for such behaviour could be explained. It seems the Serbs had non-uniformed local soldiers who attacked the Habsburg troops in the rear. This does not excuse the war crimes but explains how it came to Potioreks orders. Up to you to research and present this correctly. I have read about this in some of your sources.
  •  Note I have added a mention of partisan raids to Potiorek's order.
• 4th paragraph, last sentence. ... part of the Fifth Army ... – Criterion 3b, "focused". We know that by now and it does not need to be repeated.
  •  Done
• 4th paragraph, last sentence. ... is said to have ... – Criterion 3b, "understanding". I have the impression that you do not need to formulate this so coucously. Does not Tomić says it straightout? He seems to be a reliable source.
  •  Done
• 5th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... initiating an invasion of ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Simply "invaded" is good enough.
  •  Done
• 5th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... and capturing ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Simply ", capturing" without the "and".
  •  Done even though I don't think that technically Zemun was in Syrmia
• 5th paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... 42nd division managed to cross the Sava ... – Criterion 2b, "failed verification". I looked up Schindler p. 181 and do not find "42nd division" mentioned.
  •  Done my bad! Schindler is talking about the 42nd Brigade. 42nd Div comes later
• 5th paragraph, last sentence. ... Two Austrian corps sus ... – Criterion 3b, "broad". The question is which ones. XIII Corps does not seem to be mentioned in this entire paragraph except in the sentence citing Schindler p. 181, which fails.
  •  Done wrong reference, fixed paragraph with mention of XIII Corps. changed it for Schindler p. 180 At 3 a.m. on 14 September...the.. 36th and 42nd Divisions began their second drive into Serbia.
• 6th paragraph, 1st sentence. ... barrage ... – Criterion 3b, "broad". We need to know where this artillery barrage was, and we are only interested in the ones affecting XIII Corps. If it does concern XIII Cors, it should probably be moved to after when XIII Cors's role in the 3rd Habsburg invasion is explained.
  •  Note the source says "the guns of the 5th Army commenced their brief preparatory bombardment" before adding that" 36th and 42nd Divisions began their second drive into Serbia", no ther details so I'm removing it.
• 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... together with XV Corps ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". This association of XIII and XV Corps is surprising. I think XY Corps belongs to the 6th Army. Does this mean that XIII Corps was already at that time transfered to that army? If so this should be stated.
  •  Done Lyon p.200 no date only says "newly transferred" moving that mention and ref up
• 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... attack on the Serbian 3rd Army ... – Criterion 3a, "broad". Where was this attack?
  •  Done rephrased and added content
• 6th paragraph, 5th sentence. ... issued orders for ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". Just "ordered" is good enough.
  •  Done
• 6th paragraph, 5th sentence. ... Kolubara ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". Kolubara is a river, perhaps the reader should be told so.
  •  Done
• 6th paragraph, last sentence. ... By 2 December ... – Criterion 1a, "understanding". At least on my computer a carridge-return occurs between 2 and December. A   should probably be used.
  •  Done
• 8th paragraph, last sentence. ... final end ... – Criterion 1a, "concise". "end" is good enough.
  •  Done

The nominator requested a second opinion because the reviewer's English is 2nd language (German). The reviewer's suggestions are often needless or make things worse. They often reflect the reviewer's (bad) English style rather than any GA criteria. In addition the reviewer's requested additions or deletions are nonsense (due to his lack of understanding of the subject matter).

—End of instalment— Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade Thanks for your feedback. Just to clear things up, I didn't ask for a second opinion because English isn't your first language but more for getting a different perspectives to make the article better. I don't think your suggestions are always unnecessary or make things worse, I looked at each one carefully, though we might not always agree on what to change. And about the parts you mentioned, like the English style and the vocabulary, I found them a bit confusing so I'm just trying to understand better. I'm all for making the article better together. If there's anything specific you think we should change or discuss further, I'm open to hearing it. Thank you Aeengath (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)