Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hermann Detzner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...first, it is thoroughly researched and well written, and is, i hope, of evident quality (which is what previous reviewers have said), it represents the relevant body of published knowledge, and ais supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate; second, it fills a gap in the coverage of WWI in the South Seas and German colonialism, keeps the focus on Detnzer, and fits him into his context; and third, it offers an interesting insight into problems faced in post-WWI Germany, the problems of the post-colonial empire, and the frequently touchy intersection of science, geography, territory and national pride. Little has been written about Detzner himself, although he appears frequently as an interesting and enigmatic figure in the shadow of other stories. It is, of course, in line with style guides, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No issues reported with disambig links, external links, or alt text.
- You images need to be simply thumbs, unless you have a very pressing reason to have them sized as such. I can not see a reason for this so I suggest that you remove the size parameter from the image code.
- the post card needs the larger image. It's hard to see all the detail. The rest are smaller.
- In the "Early Explorations" section you have the following line: "Mapping of the interior had in large part remained unfinished, and the boundary between Papua (British) and New Guinea (German) had been established by a join expedition in 1909. Since then, Papuan gold prospectors had been known to cross into German territory which, from the German perspective, made the accuracy of the border essential." This reads awkwardly, can it be rephrased? Fixed.
- In the section "Four years in the unexplored interior of New Guinea" you have the following line: "Eventually, he found his way to the Lutheran mission in the Sattelberg, where he sought assistance from Christian Keyser, who had been instructed, who had signed an oath of neutrality for the Australians." Again, this reads awkwardly, can it be rephrased? Fixed.
- In the controversy section, the paragraph before the block quote seems to be largely unsourced. If #48 is the source of the information in the last half of this paragraph I would suggest citing citing the end of the paragraph to this sources as well. done
- Lose the see also section and integrate the links into the main body of the text. also done
- Combine like citations, I saw at least two cites to the same source, page and all. done. it meant taking out a few of the cites, though...
- Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I disagree with the post card image needing to be a certain size, but I am not going to turn that into grounds for a passing issue; everything else is fine. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the last FA I worked on, the size of the images became an issue, because some of them, esp. the ones with high detail, were too small in the "thumb" size to read. That is also the case with this one. What size do you think it should be? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a rule I operate on the assumption that there should be no size parameter for an image unless the user working on the article can demonstrate that there is a need for the image to be at certain size for the sake of the text in the article. My reasoning for this is that anyone interested in the greater detail of the image can click on the image to see all the extra detail, and because forcing an image size has a bad tendency to disrupt text flow in small browser windows. In the case of your post card, the text you have next to it is not pointing out anything pressing in the postcard image itself (ie: no small print signature, no graphic image displays, no pools of blood, etc), so I see no reason for the image to be set at a certain size. As I noted above though I am not going to insist that the images all conform to 'my' standards for passing, everything else is in order, so I am not holding your preference for image sizing against you. If you feel the image needs to be bigger for the audience then I accept your reasoning on grounds that you are more familiar with the article and its content than me, and as such are in a better position to judge my advice on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the last FA I worked on, the size of the images became an issue, because some of them, esp. the ones with high detail, were too small in the "thumb" size to read. That is also the case with this one. What size do you think it should be? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*that's a good rationale and I'll reduce it. If someone wants it larger, they can open it further. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- actually, I didn't. Instead, I added text to the paragraph beside the image, linking it more strongly to the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good and an interesting read. – Joe N 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Went through this at Peer Review and since then further detail has been added and improvements made. I picked up the odd minor style inconsistency and made a few tweaks, so perhaps you should just go over the article from that perspective again before FAC. Aside from that I can only echo what I said at PR, that this is well-written/cited/illustrated, and makes a very interesting read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- did that. Thanks, Ian. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The article seems to be well written and sourced. I fixed a couple of little things, but I see no other problems with the article. Excellent work, Auntieruth. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.