Wikipedia

Talk:Fritz Duquesne/Archive 1

< Talk:Fritz Duquesne
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

"In 1916, Duquesne was awarded the Iron Cross for the sabotage and sinking of the HMS Hampshire, killing Field Marshal Kitchener and most of the crew. According to German records, Duquesne assumed the identity of Russian Duke Boris Zakrevsky and joined Kitchener in Scotland. On route to Russia, Duquesne signaled a German U-Boat to alert them that Kitchener’s ship was approaching. He then escaped on a raft just before the HMS Hampshire was destroyed.[1]"

(attack removed Yoenit (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Please respond because I don't know were to start (hence the scattershot above) and can't help myself from becoming complacent to the idea that any well-consructed, coherent argument between us would result in a resounding defeat for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.69.179 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe this whole article is a hoax, probably perpertrated by Duquesne's self promotion. Some of the dates do not tie up and most of the statements seem to be based on fantasy. How could Duquesne have particpated in the Russo-Japanese War afer 1910 when hostilities were over in 1905? Why is it stated he escaped from Bermuda when it is not explained what he was doing there or wy he would need to escape. and from what? Why should we accept that he had anything to do with the loss of the Hampshire, when Germany had such an advanced submarine warfare practice anyhow and had sunk British ships within Scapa Flow, where Hampshire sailed from? The best explanantion was that he was a thief and confidence trickster and that the Germans paid him. As a fantasist he was incompetent and so fell into a 'sting' organised by the FBI easily. This article should be rewritten to reflect a neutral interpretation or removed completely. 79.75.31.166 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Tony S.

I agree completely - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.20.40 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article claims that Dusquesne reported on the Russo-Japanese War, not participated in it. Furthermore, it never claims that it was so in 1910, just that he became TDR's shooting instructor in 1910. Furthermore, he allegdly escaped from Bermuda because he was being interned there. If the Germans really gave Dusquesne a medal for sinking he must have had a hand in it not?85.148.36.113 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In the New York Times archives there are a number of articles related to Duquesne that corroborate many parts of this article, as well as some corrections. The original comment here is racist crap and shameful. 41.177.13.125 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Duquesne

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Therer is not the slightest evidence, other than the obscure book cited, to indicate that Duquesne had anything to do with the death of Lord Kitichener.

Stanley Sandler, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.149.183 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I havew wondered why no Feature movie has been made of Dusquesne?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great article! Have always wondered why no feature movie made in US of him,Also of another Tribistch Lincoln also a spy adeventure! I assume Dusquesne name French? Couldnt tell from articleMOIADREMOI (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Take to the website https://reprobate.co.za/fritz-duquesne-the-spy-who-never-came-in-from-the-cold/ , it might help y'all----

Jingoistic Racist Drivel

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The moronic drivel of the first nameless and spineless commentator is some of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia. This guy/girl is a concentration camp apologist (!) with absolutely no grasp of reality and an equally limited understanding of history.

Who knows how much of what has been written on "Duquesne" is fact and how much is fiction or fantasy? The man’s entire life was an enigma, but to then denounce an entire People for supposedly authoring an article based on a book by an American writer is truly preposterous. Especially as most Afrikaners have never even heard of this "Duquesne"!

I suppose Einstein had it right, stupidity really has no limits!

Jaco Strauss A proud Afrikaner

Jacostrauss (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Duquesne name perhaps a Nom de Guerre?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suspect the DUQEUSNE name to have been a fabrication, like a lot of things in his life. I have done a lot of research on the original French Huguenot families in South Africa, as well as the Old Cape Dutch families and could find no trace whatsoever of a DUQEUSNE / DU QEUSNE family living anywhere in South Africa at the time.

The name Frederick JOUBERT is pretty common though and is of course also of French Huguenot descent. It is however not likely that he had been closely related to General Piet JOUBERT - even if he had been born a JOUBERT - as General JOUBERT’s family tree is well documented.

I suspect this man “DUQUESNE” was born a Boer and really fought in the Anglo Boer War against Britain. He could also very well have been born in the Old Cape Colony and were it the case, would have made his involvement in the War on the side of the ZAR (Transvaal) a capital offense in the eyes of the British. This possibility alone might be enough reason to explain the use of a Nom de Guerre.

There exists documentary evidence that he served time as a Boer Prisoner of War in Bermuda and of course also that he eventually led a Spy network in the US against the Allies.

Many of the claims he had made during his lifetime is most probably total flights of fancy or deliberate disinformation. To me he comes across as Don Quixote meets Baron Münchhausen meets Casanova. Fact remains, he most definitely lived a fascinating and extraordinary life. I would love to know his real identity in order to have a better understanding of this enigmatic man.

Jaco Strauss

Jacostrauss (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Claims Need to be Supported by Reliable Sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

This article is heavily reliant on the 1932 book by Wood, which is drawn from Duquesne's own claims. The fact that the book is actually called The Man Who Killed Kitchener makes clear it is not a factual book and can be discounted as a reliable source. The article needs to make clear what information comes from reliable third party sources, and what is based on Duquesne's own claims. In particular, the claim that he sank 22 British ships, that he was a WWI German spy, and that he was awarded the Iron Cross all need to be reliably sourced. The fact that Duquesne himself claimed these things does not make them true. His story about sinking Kitchener's ship is clearly a fantasy. Since he lied about that, all his other claims have to be treated with extreme caution. If he really did sink 22 ships, for example, this would probably make him history's greatest saboteur, and there would be innumerable modern histories of WWI, espionage and the war at sea that would support this claim. Jay-W (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that 1932 biography by Woods is entirely unreliable and also the only source of information for this article is incorrect. Newspaper accounts, FBI files, and biographies written by Tunney, Burnham and Roonie cover this man's life. Tunney's 1919 book, Throttled! The detection of the German and anarchist bomb plotters, has some 30 pages on Duquense and is available from online at archive.org: http://archive.org/details/cu31924027862683. If you have authoritative references to support your claims, those should be cited and used to improve the article. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I will be correcting some of the unsupported and unreferenced changes made to the article.Ctatkinson (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't the changes that were unreferenced it was your reversions. You keep adding these amazing claims about Duquesne that are not backed up by reliable sources. If this article is going to claim that Duquesne achieved the astounding feat of sinking 22 british ships it needs a lot better source than one book from 1944. What does that book even say? Have you actually read it? I ask because I read the book "Throttled" that you referred to, and it in no way supports Duquesne's claims. The author actually calls Duquesne "a picturesque charlatan", which sounds about right. Please find good, reliable sources if you want these claims to be included. I will start by removing some of the more obviously false and outrageous claims, but a lot of this stuff is Boy's Own nonsense I'm afraid - “He was considered a very attractive man”, “He charmed the daughter of one of the guards”. Oh please, this is an encyclopedia not a penny dreadful spy novel. Jay-W (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This talk page can and should be an area for discussions on how to improve the article and as a guiding principle we need to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Several changes you made contradicted the cited sources, so you will need to validate several changes you made by finding cites that support your assertions. There are many reliable sources reference in this article and you can look at those provide others on your own. Burnham and Quigley both worked in intelligence and both men met Duquesne; the former having tracked Duquesne for much of his life. American Hippopotamus article by Mooallem was published just a few months ago and was well researched. The FBI itself also provides excellent background. Ctatkinson (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make a personal attack on you, and as far as I'm aware all the changes I made were supported by references. The article had the infobox claiming that Duquesne won the Iron Cross, but there was no source given for this. Burnham was being used as a source for the claim that Duquesne had sunk 22 British ships, but I can't see how he could have known this, as it's unrelated to his dealings with him - did he read it in Clement Wood's book? I couldn't see much background on the FBI site you referred to, except that they seem to regard the ship bombing as a case of insurance fraud rather than espionage, and the section probably needs to be re-written to reflect that. And the Mooallem article might be all that you say it is, but I hadn't disputed the hippo story. Jay-W (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
For anything that needs citing, such as the Iron Cross, I'll look through the literature. You still need to add references that validate the recent changes you made since they contradict the cited sources. You have also removed cites I added, such as West, without an explanation, and those will need to be re-added to the article. Quigley, a spy for the US, knew Duquesne personally and states that Duquesne sabotaged and sank many British ships, although I have not yet seen a specific number from him. As for Burnham, he was a spy for Britain who tracked Duquesne starting in 1900 in the Second Boer War and he provides the cited number. Burnham also makes it clear he despised Duquesne, as did Tunney, whereas Wood was Duquesne's friend and admired him. I have found no association at all between Wood and Burnham or Tunney; however, Tunney contacted Burnham for help with his investigation. As for the insurance fraud conviction, it was simply a stronger and easier way for the feds to convict Duquesne rather than a murder charge, similar to how Al Capone was convicted by the feds for tax evasion rather than murder. But even after the conviction by the US, Britain still wanted Duquesne extradited so they could try get him for "murder on the high seas"; however, Duquesne was hospitalized for paralysis and escaped custody before his extradition. Earlier I added newspaper cites that support this. As for the Mooallem article, it covers much more on Duquesne than just the hippo story, but similar to Ronnie it is contemporary and not based on his personal knowledge. Ctatkinson (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't told me what changes I made that contradicted the sources. I removed the claim that Duquesne engaged in espionage in the US in WWI because none of the more recent writings mention this, and a childrens' book is not appropriate for references. As to the ship sinking business, it's not clear how Burnham knew about this since it's outside his own knowledge of Duquesne, unless his source was Duquesne's own claims. It's a big enough claim that it really needs a more authoritative source, like a modern history. And it's just as likely that Duquesne really was carrying out insurance fraud, but persuaded the Germans to pay him as a spy on the basis he was sabotaging British ships. He would not have been the first or the last chancer who fooled the Germans like this. German spies in both world wars were notable mainly for their incompetence and poor quality. Jay-W (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You changed the meaning of several sentences and did not update the references. Unfortunately, several of those changes contradict the cited sources. You mention that a "children's book is not appropriate for references." Other than yourself, I've never once heard Burnham's writings thought of in this way. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. I will revert those changes you made back to the referenced sources, and you can make further edits after you find alternative cites. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course I changed the meaning of the sentences, that was the whole point. I am improving the article and making it more factual. I have reinstated my edits because you don't seem to have any specific objections and it is very clear that you are just reverting any changes I make. You also keep adding false information to the article and even to the infobox. It is not "disputed" that Duquesne was awarded the Iron Cross, or that he killed Kitchener. These claims come from Clement Wood's book and they are not believed by historians or by anybody else. I'll repeat this because you don't seem to have quite understood it - the Clement Wood book does not qualify as a reliable source. And the childrens book I was referring to was, of course, the West book, since you asked me why I removed it. It's called He-who-sees-in-the-dark; the Boys' Story of Frederick Burnham, the American Scout. That's very obviously a childrens book.
If you have specific objections to any changes I have made then you can raise them here on the talk page. If you think some of those changes are not supported by the sources then please explain which ones and why. I welcome your input if your aim is to be constructive and to improve the article, but just reverting wholesale every change and improvement I make is not being helpful or constructive. Jay-W (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Your edits have again violated NPOV. It is wrong to remove cites from reliable sources such as the New York Times. If you have evidence that the New York Times cites, Burnham, or others are wrong, you need to bring points here to the talk page for discussion.Ctatkinson (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Below are examples of NPOV from the Duquesne's WP Infobox. Espionage in WWI is supported by two references: Current History (New York Times) article, "Exploits of a Master Spy"; and, James E. West/Robert Baden-Powell's book, "He-who-sees-in-the-dark". Both of these refs satisfy WP criteria for verifiability Wikipedia:Verifiability and reliability WP:SOURCE. When you have a reference that disputes the another reference, you add it with a comment on the dispute, but don't remove the verifiable and reliable references. Wood's book, "The Man Who Killed Kitchner", and Ronnie's book, "Counterfeit Hero" both satisfy WP criteria as verifiable and reliable, although some statements Woods makes have been challenged by Ronnie. When there is a dispute over a statement, add the reference to the dispute, but don't remove the verifiable and reliable references. Ctatkinson (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
World War I
— Espionage in United States[1][2]
— Sinking of 20 British ships in South America, [3] including: the Tennyson,[1] the Salvador,[1] and the Pembrokeshire[1]
— Sinking of the HMS Hampshire (disputed)[4][5]
— Assassination of Lord Kitchener (disputed)[4][5]

Footnotes

  1. ^ a b c d Current History 1920, p. 405.
  2. ^ West 1932, p. 33.
  3. ^ Burnham 1944, p. 19.
  4. ^ a b Wood 1932, p. 312-323.
  5. ^ a b Ronnie 1995, pp. 349–350.

References

  • Burnham, Frederick Russell (1944). Taking Chances. Los Angeles: Haynes. ISBN 978-1-879356-32-0. OCLC 2785490.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Ronnie, Art (1995). Counterfeit hero : Fritz Duquesne, adventurer and spy. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-733-3. OCLC 605599179.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • West, James E. (1932). He-who-sees-in-the-dark; the Boys' Story of Frederick Burnham, the American Scout. New York: Brewer, Warren and Putnam; Boy Scouts of America. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Wood, Clement (1932). The man who killed Kitchener; the life of Fritz Joubert Duquesne, 1879–. New York: Faro, Inc. OCLC 1071583.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • "Exploits of a Master Spy". Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times. XI. New York: New York Times. 1920.

My comments

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments2 people in discussion

Per request:

Lede
  • I would shorten the list of what he was. Is "prisoner of war", for example, really worth including here? And BOTH saboteur and spy? Stick to the essentials.
  • Similarly, the list of code names at the end of the first paragraphs seems too much detail for the lede.
  • "only there he escaped to the United States" perhaps "but escaped to the United States from there"
  • "Britain declined to pursue the wartime crimes and withdrew the charges." perhaps "Britain declined to pursue the wartime charges". You seem to be saying the same thing twice.
  • "and convicted in the largest espionage conviction" largest espionage trial? I seem to recall some doozies during WWI, are we sure on this? And should it be "to that point" or not?
  • In terms of number of convictions, the 33 agents of the Duquesne Spy Ring is still to this day the largest espionage case in the history of the United States, according to historian Peter Duffy in 2014. I've not found any source that disagrees with this.Ctatkinson (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Duquesne posed as many identities and he often reinvented his past at will," this could probably be shortened to "Duquesne often took on new identities, reinventing his past ..."
Early life
  • "although this ancestry is disputed.[19][4]" not an ancestor, perhaps "relationship"? Also ensure that footnotes are in order numerically.
  • "killed his first man, a Zulu man " strike second "man". Given Duquesne's inventiveness, are you comfortable enough with this as a fact?
  • This story is recounted in several biographies that took the time to review the facts. But your point is well taken and I've added a footnote that explains the need to review multiple sources and to cite authoritative sources whenever validation is in conflict.Ctatkinson (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sand river and the young Duquesne along with six other settler families fought a long gun battle, with young Duquesne killing several." Several issues. river, as part of a proper noun, should be capped. Duquesne is not a settler family by himself, so "other" is unsupported, and there is no need to repeat "young".
  • "Duquesne went to London for university." which?
  • I think the final paragraph needs some cleaning up. You might also want to include the year in which at least one of these events happened.
  • I've cleaned up the paragraph and I think it reads much better now.Ctatkinson (talk)
2nd Boer War
  • "He joined the Boers again for the Battle of Bergendal but they had to fall back to Portuguese East Africa (now Mozambique), where they were captured by the Portuguese and sent " this happened to all the Boers or just whatever forces D. was fighting with? I would clarify.
  • "historian Ronnie states" full name at first use.
  • ""conspiracy against the British government and on espionage"" missing word at the end?
  • "one of many Boer prisoners sent to Bermuda. He was one of an estimated 360 prisoners " this perhaps can be consolidated.
  • " the second smallest of the then-five self-governed internment islands." This may be a detail that can be lost.
  • " Burt's Island Commandant (spokesman and representative for the other Boers), Captain C.E.M. Pyne." This may be too much detail, perhaps Pyne can be defined as the "prisoners' leader" or similar.
  • If the 25 June trip was not authorized, I would say so. That sentence needs a source.
  • Does the "Gold mystery" really need its own subsection? Can't it be placed in chronological order? (possibly shortened to one paragraph). Also, are those pounds in weight or in currency?
  • "Duquesne was under orders" from whom? Were those orders still extant once the Boers surrendered?
  • It is "The Washington Post and The New York Times.
  • Was Roosevelt president during any part of this?
WWI
  • I would make it clearer that the ships he sank were merchant vessels.
  • I'm mildly surprised you link Bolivia but not Bahia. You might want to check for consistency through the article.
  • I've made several wikilink updates. If the location is modern and adequately known to readers, I've eliminated with wikilink.
  • "he says" past tense?
  • I would also put the Kitchener incident in chronological order. I see no need for a separate subsection, it is so short.
Second WW
  • I think you need to make clearer that through the time of Duquesne's spying, the US was not yet at war. Therefore, I'm dubious about terms like "Allied".
  • In the image caption for the spy ring members, you might want to say which is Duquesne.
  • "in West Point and Tennessee". "at West Point and in Tennessee".
  • Why is the Stoughton incident separated? After all, you mention it I think earlier on, though not by name.
That's about it. The prose needs a bit of tightening, and there are several unsourced passages. In general it is very good, but I think it could be improved with more attention to the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fritz Joubert Duquesne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 18:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Well-written  

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

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

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.
1. Is it really necessary to mention ten nicknames in the infobox? It's good if you can find nicknames on people, but don't overdo it.
2. The "Boer and German" sentence from the infobox should be changed to "Boer people and Germany" as "Boer" is the Dutch and Afrikaans word for farmer. I know it's used to describe people form Cape Colony, but since that is already mentioned in the article, I would suggest this or a different wording.
3. "sometimes Du Quesne" - I would suggest changing this sentence to "sometimes referred to as Du Quesne", but this is just a suggestion.
4. "was a South African Boer and German soldier, big-game hunter, journalist, and a spy" - This sentence should be changed to "was a South African (later German) soldier, hunter, journalist, and spy".
5. "Duquesne was captured and imprisoned three times by the British and once by the Portuguese, and each time he escaped" - Just a suggestion, but I would change this sentence to "Duquesne was captured and imprisoned three times by the British and once by the Portuguese, but escaped each time".
6. "and led an attempt to sabotage Cape Town and to assassinate the commander-in-chief Lord Kitchener" - When his military rank/position is followed by his name it should be capitalized per MOS:JOBTITLES.
7. "Lord Kitchener was en route to Russia" - Visibly misspelled word.
8. "where he faced execution for the deaths of British sailors" - Visibly misspelled word again.
9. "Between wars, Duquesne served as an adviser on big game hunting to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, as a publicist in the movie business, as a journalist, as a fictional Australian war hero, and as head of the New Food Society in New York" - This sentence should be changed to "Between wars, Duquesne served as an adviser on big game hunting to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, publicist in the movie business, journalist, fictional Australian war hero, and as head of the New Food Society in New York".
10. "and spoke of many battles, some fact and some fictional" - I would suggest changing this to "and often spoke of both factual and fictional battles".
11. "Fritz Duquesne was born to a Boer family of French Huguenot origin in East London, Cape Colony in 1877 and later moved with his parents, Abraham Duquenne and Minna Joubert, to Nylstroom in the South African Republic (now Modimolle, South Africa) where they started a farm" - This needs to be changed to something like "Fritz Duquesne was born in 1877 to Abraham Duquenne and Minna Joubert, a Boer family of French Huguenot origin in East London, Cape Colony. Shortly after his birth, the family moved to the South African Republic (now Modimolle, South Africa) where they started a farm".
12. "Abraham made his living as a hunter who also frequently traveled to sell skins, tusks, and horns, and he hired local natives to work the farm. He had two younger siblings, his sister Elsbet and his brother Pedro. He was a descendent of the French Huguenot naval commander Abraham Duquesne (1610–1688), and claimed his uncle was Piet Joubert (1880–1900), a hero in the First Boer War and Commandant-General of the South African Republic, although his family relationship is disputed" - Intersting, but the "He had two younger siblings, his sister Elsbet and his brother Pedro" part appears to WP:OFFTOPIC.
13. "As a youth, Fritz Duquesne became a hunter like his father" - Two errors here. 1. It's either "As a youngster" or "In his youth" and 2. There is no need to mention Fritz's full name when it's already stated earlier in that section; simply use his first name.
14. "waiting motionless for the perfect time to strike while cautious Cape Buffalo" - The letter "a" is missing between "while" and "cautious".
15. "In the Second Boer War" - The article previously referred to the Second Boer War as simply "the Boer War" presumably on the grounds that its plainly obvious Fritz was too young to have served in the first, so there is essentially no need for the "Second" addition.
16. "in the 1930s he stamped "all of his communiques to Germany with the figure of a cat, back arched and fur raised in anger" - The quote should not begin at "all" but at "figure".
17. "and the Duquesne family was forced to retreat the nearby river" - The word "to" is missing between "retreat" and "the".
18. "fought a long gun battle against the Impi and Fritz Duquesne shot and killed several" - Again, there is really no need for the full name mention.
20. "When the fighting ended, his Uncle Koos" - Uncle should not be capitalized.
21. "When he was 13, he was sent to school in England" - It appears the letter "a" is missing between "to" and "school".
22. "Duquense himself writes that after he finished school in England he was sent to Europe to study engineering, but on the ship he met an embezzler named Christian de Vries and the two decided to take a trip around the world" - Two errors here. 1. England is in Europe so don't use the "sent to Europe" part and 2. The article just mentions "the ship" as if we were supposed to have heard anything about some ship previously in the article.
23. "He was wounded with a bullet through his right shoulder" - Replace the word "with" with "by".
24. "and promoted to the rank of captain in the artillery" - It's not grammarly correct to say "captain in the artillery". You can say "captain of the artillery department" or "captain of artillery".
25. "For Duquesne, this would become the watershed event, as Ronnie states" - This sentence appears to written from a personal point of view.
26. "He then infiltrated the British army" - "army" should be capitalized when preceded by "British".
27. The article again states "As Ronnie states" which seems to be non-neutral.
28. "would turn him into what (Duquense biographer) Clement Wood called" - The article has already mentioned that Clement Wood is a biographer so need for that addition in this quote.
29. "conspiracy against the British government and on (the charge of) espionage" - The "()" in this quote should be replaced with "[]".
We're only at the second section and already I have listed 29 points. Because of this I will recommend the GA-nominator or other major contributors to have a look over the article with grammar-critical eyes again.
  • Verifiable with no original research  

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

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

c. It contains no original research

The bulk of the articles sources is books which are fine, but many of the books are missing required information such as ISBN numbers. The article also cites History Channel which is not a reliable source. In addition, the article also has sources listed simply like this http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=27541. Not all the sources are arranged alphabetically and many have wrong template information. I'd also suggest the editors who worked on this article re-look the source section.
  • 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

The article is very broad in its coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail (content that comes off as off-topic has been pointed out in the "Well-written" section and will therefore be ignored in this question).
  • Neutral  

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

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions or statements (some non-neutral comments have been pointed out in the "Well-written" section so will be therefore ignored in this question).
  • Stable  

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

The article does not seem to be stable. A long discussion/dispute occurred in June and in August there was a long improvement talk which seems to discuss errors that are still in the article.
  • Illustrated  

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

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

The article has a total of eleven images all of which are uploaded and from Commons. However, the placement and size of some of these images comes off rather unorganized and messy. I would recommend also glancing over the images and their placement.
  • Pass, fail, or hold?  
Per all my points mentioned in this review I'm going to fail it. I will happily review again when further improvements and changes are made. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
While I have no opinion about the conclusion, and am impressed by the thoroughness with which this editor has approached their GA responsibility, I would simply note it is not very helpful to have a semiretired editor with a completely redacted Talk page engaged in GA work. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Switch to multicolumn, while appropriate for the...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...reference section created, and perhaps the two party, detailed edit discussion, was unhelpful when it extended to the GA and subsequent Talk sections. Hence, the markup creating the columns was removed. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fritz Joubert Duquesne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Nazi Spy with 1,000 Faces

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fritz Joubert Duquesne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fritz_Duquesne/Archive_1&oldid=1195773604"