Template:Did you know nominations/The Myth of the Eastern Front
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Myth of the Eastern Front
- ... that The Myth of the Eastern Front explores the parallels between the myth of the clean Wehrmacht and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy? Quote: "[The authors] suggest Americans have created two separate but similar “myths of the lost cause” as lenses through which to view their past. The first, obviously, relates to the South and the Civil War. The second identifies German soldiers from World War Two as good people fighting unwillingly for a bad cause": McFall, Kelly (2010). "Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army". H-Net. Archived from the original on 26 March 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2016.
- ALT1:...
Improved to Good Article status by K.e.coffman (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC).
- I did some light copy-editing, mainly changing to "Soviet–German War" for consistency with MOS and similar subjects (e.g.: Soviet–Afghan War, Soviet–Japanese War) and U.S. → US.
The fourth paragraph of Reception has an open-ended quotation, which I presume should beFull review forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)'clean Wehrmacht'."
, if you could fix that. 
Query: The QPQ review appears to have already been used by nominator for Template:Did you know nominations/Lviv pogroms (1941). Otherwise, article was nominated 7 days after promotion to GA, is long enough, neutral and well-cited. Quotations are numerous but within policy: verifiable, neutral, and do not overquote a particular source to push a POV. (I feel that some of these quotes could be paraphrased or otherwise summarized before moving to FAC.) Hook is short enough, formatted, neutral, cited in article, and broadly interesting. If the QPQ could be clarified or a new review offered, I'll approve the hook. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: Could you check if Template:Did you know nominations/Teraupo'o is free & clear for an QPQ? I reviewed both around the same time, so I'm not sure if I confused the two. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did some light copy-editing, mainly changing to "Soviet–German War" for consistency with MOS and similar subjects (e.g.: Soviet–Afghan War, Soviet–Japanese War) and U.S. → US.
