Talk:Arthur Nebe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be in decent shape; I see no reasons to quick fail this article, so I will be doing a detailed review over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All prose issues have been addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Likewise

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issues.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Solid sources used throughout. Excellent job.

   C. It contains no original research:

   The sources by their nature are mostly inaccessibly, but working with what google books previews give me, I'm not finding any issues, and so I'm willing to AGF on the rest.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool doesn't flag anything, and as above, I cannot find any issues: AGF on the rest. I did put one phrase in quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   extraneous stuff trimmed

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No evidence of recent instability.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No issues

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues have been addressed.

Specific comments

Before World War II

• Are there no further details available about his life before he joined the police? Family, education, anything?

Information on these aspects of Nebe's life is rather limited; what's in the article is probably what's available out there. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Could you provide a brief parenthetical description of " SS-Gruppenführer", as it is a German term that most folks are unfamiliar with? I myself have read multiple books on Nazi Germany, but I cannot recall the term.
• The use of parentheses in the sentence "In 1933 he came to know..." strikes me as odd. Can you break it into separate sentences?
• Is "Prussian criminal police" the actual term for the force? In which case, it should be capitalized, right? Otherwise, I imagine it would be "the Prussian criminal police."
• I find the first paragraph of "head of kripo" rather confusing. If the two organisations were merged into the Security Police, how did Nebe become head of kripo? Wouldn't he be head of SiPo?
  • No, he would not be, Nebe was only chief of the SiPo sub-branch dept of the criminal police; it has been tweaked to make it more clear. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks.
• "except for the uniformed service" I imagine you mean the army, but since other services also wear uniforms (the SS were famous for it, after all!) I'd avoid the idiomatic usage here.
• "Nebe embraced the preventative mission of the Kripo" This is both slightly confusing, and rather heavy use of editorial voice. I would go with something like "The stated mission of the Kripe, which Nebe embraced..."
• "asocials" links to the generic term, not the term as used by the Nazis: so an extra sentence or a parenthesis might be appropriate.
  • Still an issue, maybe yall missed it the first time?

• Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Nebe's ties to mass murder" I think I know what you mean here, but this is a little blunt, even for me, because "mass murder" isn't really an organisation you can have ties to...ties to an organization that commits mass murder, or role in mass murder, perhaps?
• I might be wrong here, but shouldn't it be "the Sinti and Roma," or "Sinti and Roma people"?

I believe all comments have now been addressed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

World War II

• "It was also common practice for the Einsatzgruppen to shoot hostages and prisoners of war handed over by the army for execution." If they were handed over to be executed, this seems rather unremarkable, and so I'd remove the "common practice" and just say "...Einsatzgruppen executed prisoners handed over by the army" Done
• "mental patients" is a colloquialism I'd rather avoid. Done
• "remaining there for some two months" the "some" is not needed, though not, strictly, incorrect.  Done
• Just wondering whether "mass killings" might be a better title, as "killing operations" is an odd phrase. Again, just a suggestion. Tweak  Done

• Actually not, but it's only a matter of preference, really. I mean "mass killings" as the title of the sub-section.

• "July Operational Situation Report, Nebe reported" nitpicky, but too many "report" Done
• Isn't "liquidated" a bit of a euphemism? Can we say "killed" or is the term from the sources? Done
• The "expanded quota" probably needs a phrase of explanation: it isn't commonly known when this occurred.

Reworked, hope this is clearer. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "a demonstration of a mass-shooting" how about just "mass shooting"? No, because this was more than a regular killing operation; it was a "demonstration" put on for Himmler. Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• MOS:DOCTOR discourages the use of credentials: can the Dr. be worked into prose? Tweak  Done, he was a chemist and SS officer. Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• "At first, a passenger car was used to provide the gas" strange as it may seem the idea of using car exhaust to induce suffocation is not universally known. It would be clearer to say outright that the vehicle exhausts were vented into the room, so that the CO would kill those inside. Done
• I know Heydrich has been mentioned before, but it is not obvious that Einsatzthingy was still under his command: so he might need a phrase of reintroduction Done
• I think the last paragraph of "new killing methods" would make more sense where the use of gas is first mentioned.

I don't quite understand this comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The last paragraph describes how Nebe had the idea of using CO gas to kill Jews: it would therefore flow better, if it was moved up a little bit, to where the article first says that he experimented with car exhaust. I would suggest moving to after the sentence "Nebe decided to try experimenting by murdering Soviet mental patients, first with explosives near Minsk, and then with automobile exhaust at Mogilev."

 Done

• "insurgents in the rear" is a bit jargon-y, and besides is a phrase liable to make all the teenage boys who read it chuckle. Can it be rendered in plainer english?  Done
• The whole "Mogilev conference" sub-section includes, IMO, details not really directly relevant to the subject of this article. Nebe's speech, of course, is needed, and mentioning the "field exercises" (jesus!) but otherwise, I think we could afford to lose a few sentences here, esp. in para 1.  Done
• I'm a little dissatisfied with the sub-section "persecution of gypsies." It seems out of place in the current structure: while the rest of the article is more or less chronological, this is not: it is in the form of a list, while the rest is not: and it does not seem to justify why the persecution of gypsies should be treated separately from all the other murder Nebe was responsible for. I'm inclined towards suggesting it be incorporated into the section above. Thoughts? Done tweaked with inclusion of the important points, see what you guys think. Kierzek (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Much better, IMO, but I would suggest moving the section about using the prisoners at Dachau to the section about experimental killing, as it will fit better there.

• I moved it into the following section, which deals with the events of 1944. I think it shows that the 1941 mass killings were not an isolated incident, and such activities continued throughout Nebe's career. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Better than my suggestion, thanks

• The assassination of Heydrich could probably use a little bit more context here.

Not quite clear what needs expanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

NVM.

• Is it known why Nebe was replaced as Interpol head?

Unknown; the source used does not specify. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "but the signal never reached him." An unfamiliar reader might well ask "what signal?"  Done
• "rejected mistress" is a trifle confusing: presumably this is a former mistress that he later rejected? Done

Assessment

• " "was clearly unable to stand the strain and was posted back to Berlin"" this is the first time that the article suggests that the return to Berlin was anything but routine.

I provided attribution for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• "produced by bomb plotters" I'm guessing "bomb plotters" means those who tried to assassinate Hitler, but some clarification would be good.  Done
• It seems that most of the "apologetics" section is actually a rebuttal of the apologetics. Which is fine in terms of content, just wondering if the sub-section needs a different title.

I think as it's okay for now, as the section implies that these were not reflective of reality. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay.

Lede

• Will come back to the lead later, but "Nebe perpetrated mass murder during the Holocaust, serving as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe B deployed largely in modern-day Belarus behind Army Group Centre during the German invasion of the Soviet Union": I need to take a breath after reading that sentence, and I'm not even reading out loud. Could you break it up?

I reworked the lead to bring in some of the material present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that Nebe was seen as highly racist, or at least that he harbored prejudices towards the Jewish people, the Roma, etc, is probably worth a sentence in the lead.

I tweaked the lead to bring this out. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Stylistically I think beginning a sentence in the lead with "they" is not ideal, but fine.

Other

• Just wondering if there are any images relevant to the Einsatzgruppen or its activities, or the plot against Hitler, that can be used.
• The Max Williams source is not being used, at the moment: it should be used, moved to a "further reading" section, or removed. Done, a good book but, not needed. Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• The fact that he won the Iron Cross is surely worth mentioning in the body of the article?

I have not seen this mentioned in sources. Will double check. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've not able to find a ref for the Iron Cross. Many sources mention Nebe's "wounding with gas" but not the award. Lewy says he "served with distinction" but does not mention the Iron Cross. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case removing it was appropriate, thanks. Wonder how it got there in the first place.

• The Andrews source needs a page number.  Done

General comments

• My apologies, real life intervened, and is likely to continue to do so. Nonetheless, I'll try to be as quick as possible. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Kierzek and K.e.coffman: apologies again, I'm being kept away from Wikipedia more than I expected, and I'm afraid my participating over the next couple of weeks is uncertain. I'll do my best to continue with this, but it might take up to three weeks from now. Sorry. Not much I can do about it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I am sure, in this regard, I can speak for K.e.coffman and myself and say, there is no hurry, especially with the holidays approaching and there is always real life commitments. Kierzek (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Okay, @Kierzek and K.e.coffman: I'm done for now: go ahead and work through the comments I've provided. No tremendous rush. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks I have worked on some of them, but must go for now. I marked them and made a few comments of explanation on this Talk:Arthur Nebe/GA1 page. They don't seem to be showing up on the "transcluded" part for the GA on the regular talk page. Kierzek (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, that's the lot. Thanks for sticking with the review, and I hope you found it a helpful process. Passing this momentarily. Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the thorough review; the article is better for it and reads tighter. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur, thanks for the review; the article is in good shape now. Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)