Talk:The End: Hitler's Germany, 1944–45/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

As a proviso, I haven't read this book yet (I'm waiting for a paperback or Kindle edition), but I have read several reviews and leafed through it in bookstores. It's great that you've taken the time to write an article on this high profile and important history book, but I think that it isn't at GA class yet and needs a substantial amount of work to get there.

My specific concerns are:

• The Synopsis section provides only a summary of the narrative elements of the book and has no coverage of the conclusions Kershaw reaches. Given that this book sets out to answer key questions about the last year of the war, this is a significant omission.
• More generally, the article is rather brief, even allowing for the fact that this book has only been released for a few weeks. There's nothing about its publishing history for instance, and most of the suggested sections at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article are missing.
• The number of pictures in the article seems excessive, especially as they don't actually depict the events covered in the book. I think that anyone reading this article will know what Hitler looks like. A fair use image of the book's cover should probably be included.
• The statement in the lead that Kershaw "had never written on the final stages of the war" is contradicted by a comment by one of the reviewers quoted that he had previously written on this topic in his biography of Hitler. The claim that "The book has received widespread acclaim since publication with favourable reviews" also ignores the negative reviews which the book has received (most obviously, the review in the Guardian quoted in the reception section).
• If possible, discussion of how Kershaw researched and wrote the book and how he reached his conclusions would be invaluable.
• Have any other historians commented on the book? If so, their views would also be well worth including in the 'reception' section.
• The lead references several reviews of the book which aren't subsequently included in the 'reception' section.
• Given that the book has been published in the UK and US, you should specify which edition of the book you're referring to when referencing page numbers as they might differ between editions. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment against the GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article is stable, but it's also only about a week old.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Number of images is excessive and they don't depict the events described in the book.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is off to a good start, but I think it needs more work to reach GA class. As the amount of work is substantial I'm failing this review, but I hope that the article is expanded and renominated for GA status in the future. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)