Talk:Vorbunker

Content fork?

Do enough sources make the distinction between the Vorbunker and the Führerbunker as a second floor below the Vorbunker? Even the source used in the article is called the "The Reich Chancellery and Führerbunker Complex."

-- PBS (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two articles should be merged. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be merged. They were two seperate bunkers with the two connected by the staircase mentioned. With that said, I will go with consensus. I can write more but must go for now. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The way it is written in the "After the Battle" magazine article is:"...the firm was recalled to build a new bunker...Although never completed this became the lower, or Führerbunker, which was connected to the old shelter, or Vorbunker, by a staircase. The two bunkers could be separated by a bunkhead and steel door which was permanently guarded by two sentries." (page 28). It is important to note the writer, historian Andrew Mollo, refers to "the two bunkers" and how they are separate. Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: In further checking sources, both James O'Donnell, of "The Bunker" book and Joachim Fest, of "Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich", refer to the two bunkers separately. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vorbunker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	wl Bormann in the body  Done wl Helmuth Weidling and, for context, explain that he was the last commander of the Berlin Defence Area Done the name of the formation was LVI Panzer Corps, which sort of gets rid of the need to point out it was German Done explain who Krebs and Burgdorf were Done Can you please check Beevor about the Goebbels' deaths? I think there is a bit more detail there. Aren't there several versions of how their deaths occurred? Given they lived in the Vorbunker, it is worth providing the couple of versions of their demise (just like that of their children)  Done Yes, there are several versions which I have added with links and cites. Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC) that's it really, not much to address. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Bormann is mentioned in the lead, but doesn't appear in the body of the article. He is of interest, but WP:LEAD is clear that anything in the lead needs to be mentioned in the body with citation.  Done Copy edit addition with cite as to Martin Bormann added to body. Kierzek (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	After the Battle needs its OCLC added, available from Worldcat. *I have the ISSN number. ISSN: 0306-154X. Want me to add that? Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Sure, any numerical identifier is fine. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC).  Done Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC); OCLC now added, thanks to Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days for a few prose points to be addressed Passing, well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)