Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

As part of the October 2020 Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article. Lazman321 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confession to make. I don't have any of the books that are cited in this article and I don't have access to The Wikipedia Library. Do you still think I should do this review? Lazman321 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source check is not necessary at GA level. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I have reviewed this article, but have not finished. Will finish tomorrow. Lazman321 (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well written

Clear and concise prose

I could read the article and understand what it is saying. Though Grammarly, an extension that can detect grammar errors in any text you are typing in, has detected a lot of grammar mistakes that aren't worth me telling you. I will most likely correct them myself after the other requests have been taken care of.

MOS Adherence

All the MOS that need to be followed for GA status is followed in this article.

Verifiable with no original research

Reference list

There is a reference list. This type is an interesting type as it has a bibliography and a lot of the citations cite pages of the books. I do kind of prefer when the author and book title is linked to their respective book in the bibliography, though I won't require it.

Reliable sources

The article uses the memoirs of Albert Kesselring. I am alright with that as a lot of the memoir cited information does attribute the information to the memoirs or to Albert himself and it is mentioned in Albert's later life section that the memoirs are biased, there are some that aren't. Those include information supported by citations 9, 13, 157, 165, and 258.

I've also noticed that Citations 249-251 are placed throughout their paragraph about what division committed the massacres and when. Citations 249 and 251 do not specify which division of the army carried out the massacres but do give specific dates of some of the massacres. I am not sure about Citation 250. I believe Citations 249-251 should be placed at the end of the paragraph.

I think they are better at the end of the clauses, because we would wind up with too many at the end of the paragraph. Citation 249 definitely mentions the Herman Goering Division: Now, the Hermann Goering Division had been concerned in a number of three -- I call them incidents; I would not say -- what I mean by incidents is the sort of thing which I have been describing at Civitella. Let me remind you of one or two. Do you remember at Stia, on the 13th to the 18th of April, 137 civilians were killed, including 45 women and children; do you remember that incident? Civitella, that was on the 29th of June. It was a division of the Air Force, not the Army; the three examples were chosen so there was one each from the Air Force, the Army and the SS. I have added a couple of additional references to bolster citation 251. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, a lot of the citations are to books from historians and even the ones that are recommended in the FARC are used.

Original Research

In the FARC review, there was only one original research complaint. It was, however, addressed and taken care of. I detected no original research from the citations that I could access.

No copyright violations

Kesselring was determined to "hang on" in the West until the "decision in the East" came. is a direct copy-paste from citation 260. I recommend either quoting it or paraphrasing it.

Paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Main aspects

K.e. Coffman brought this up in the review, The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler. Do you think that this request has been taken under enough consideration?

I has been by me. To address the three points:

Support for National Socialism is somewhat nebulous. Unlike some professions, career military officers were not required to join the NSDAP. Indeed, they were forbidden by law from joining political parties. Kesselring supported the policies of rebuilding of the Army and the Air Force, which is covered in the text.
Kesselring left the Army in October 1933, and the ejection of Jewish officers began in 1935. I looked for references about his opinions on the matter, but finding sources on things that people did not do is very difficult, and nothing turned up.
Kesselring's loyalty to Hitler is referenced in many parts of the article.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

There isn't a focus problem in this article. This one is satisfied.

Neutral

I've looked and read a lot of the article and have never gotten the impression that this article was praising him. I believe that this article portrays him neutrally and mentions that his memoirs are biased. Any normal person reading the actions that Albert has done would look at him as an evil Nazi. I don't get why some people think this article is praising him.

Stable

This article is not going through edit wars currently.

Illustrated

Free or tagged images

Every image used is either under a commons license or in the public domain.

Relevant images

Every image used is relevant to the article and/or the section that they are used for.

Overall

A lot of work has been put into this article during and since the review. This article is almost ready for GA status. I am putting this On hold for 7 days. Lazman321 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues have been taken care of. I now ✓ Pass this article. I recommend before nominating this article for FA status, you put this up peer review. Lazman321 (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]