Talk:Wehrmachtbericht/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this one over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2017 (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 issues addressed

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

   All issues addressed

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:

   All issues addressed

   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:

   No issues: sources appear solid

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   All issues addressed

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Concerns over comprehensiveness addressed

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

   No tangential material

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 recent issues with stability

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:

   Images appear to be appropriately tagged

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All my concerns have been taken care of, passing this now.

Specific comments

Production

• "Generaloberst" should be either linked or explained.

I simplified it to "general". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Commanded by General Hasso von Wedel, the department oversaw the growing number of propaganda companies of the Propagandakompanie (de), the propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, attached to the fighting troops." I'm having difficulty understanding this sentence. Let's break it down: so the Wehrmacht has a propaganda department, which Wedel is the leader of. This department oversees separate propaganda companies, which are part of a separate propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen SS also has propaganda companies. Each of these companies is attached to a fighting unit. Is this understanding correct? Based on your answer, I'll try to suggest a clearer version.

• Yes, this is correct. Should have probably used bolded English term originally, as it's clearer:

• Commanded by General Hasso von Wedel, the department oversaw the growing number of propaganda companies of the Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops (de), the propaganda wing of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, attached to the fighting troops."

"Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops" is the name for the propaganda wing that I saw in literature. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay. In that case, I would suggest breaking "attached to the fighting troops." into a separate sentence, and saying that each of the propanganda companies was attached to a fighting troop.

• "and communicated them directly to Goebbels." So the communiques were shown to Goebbles at the meeting?

• A representative of the Propaganda ministry attended the meetings. I don't believe Goebles personally attended. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In which case, I am confused by this sentence: what does the meeting have to do with the communiques being shown to Goebbels? Can this be separated?

• "and was versed both in the military and the propaganda realms." a) I think you mean "well-versed," and b) I think the "therefore" is not appropriate: surely the commentator was chosen for their knowledge of the military and propaganda, because he had a line to the public?

Yes, that's correct. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• In this case, I would suggest "and had to be well-versed in both military and propaganda matters."

• 'the task of adding commentary" So the reports were based in fact? Where did the factual material come from?

The materials came from the propaganda companies up to Wedel. Then they were massaged by Wedel, to produce the official communique. Then additional commentary was added, I assume, for the lay listener. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think a sentence about this should be added, more or less as you describe it here.

• I've restructured and expanded to address the above concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Much better, thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Goals

• I don't have specific prose concerns at the moment, but I think the section would read a lot better if it started out with the sentence about home front mobilization.

Stalingrad

• "Goebbels issued instructions" to whom?
• "Goebbels had been aware that the official policy on suppressing the news was inadequate" I am confused by this. Inadequate for what?

• This is still a bit of an issue. I could guess that it means "inadequate with respect to preventing the civilians from learning the truth of the matter," but it should be clarified.

• I revised and expanded this section, plus others, using a new source that I found: Goebbels: A Biography (Google books). It provides more info on the interplay between Goebbels's propaganda efforts and what was coming out of the Wehrmacht, which presents a more complex picture than I had originally understood it. Goebbels often played the role of a "realist", having to temper down the military's presentation of events. I hope it's more comprehensive now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Better, but the new prose has some issues. "The policy of the news blackout was clearly backfiring." has very heavy editorial voice, and is not very clear: why was it backfiring? Perhaps just remove it.
• Similarly, you can simply remove "All the while" and leave the rest of the sentence.
• I'd prefer you replaced the "Goebbels launched the program" with "Goebbels launched his effort" as it does not seem to have been a formal program.
• "Since then the state propaganda" will be a lot clearer as "The state propaganda after that..."

• Revised. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The communiqués since focused" again, not clear. I presume you mean "The communiques transmitted after [date] focused on ..." in which case the text should be amended.

I've edited for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Images

• The second image should begin, IMO, with an explanatory caption saying "an image produced by the propaganda dep. in 194X etc etc" before mentioning the official caption.

• Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• Lede is generally fine, but I'm not a fan of the phrase " failed to reflect realities on the ground." They didn't fail: they very deliberately distorted ground realities, unless I'm misreading a lot of the article...
• "they often failed to reflect realities on the ground or proved too exuberant" Is still very odd usage. Why not just be forthright, and say "they often exaggerated the success of the German army" or something to that effect? "Exuberant" is a term you would use to describe a child at a birthday party, not so much a war communique...

• Revised & added citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

General comments

• In general, I think this is a fairly solid article, and the relatively few prose issues I have raised above. However, there are some issues with comprehensiveness/necessary background. I'll leave you to address these: please let me know when you are through.

• I believe I've addressed them in the recent series of edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• First, with respect to background, there are some terms that should be explained, even though they are linked, because they are central to the understanding of the article. These include the following: home front, total war, clean Wehrmacht, ministry of propaganda, Flensburg government. All of these could use a couple of sentences of explanation.

• "I've provided in-article explanations and more specific linking, such as to the German home front. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Second, with respect to comprehensiveness: if I step back and try to understand the big picture that the article presents, there are some things I do not entirely understand. First, the actual "process" of production; who provided raw material? Who wrote? Who edited? Who broadcast? Second, what level of control did Goebbels have over the material? Finally, and most importantly, what have historians/analysts said about the role/impact of the communiques after the war?

• I've restructured and added material to address these questions. It was not quite clear before that although Reich Ministry of Propaganda was responsible for disseminating the communiques, it did not draft or edit them, which was the responsibility of the OKW's Propaganda Department. Goebbels influenced and provided guidance, but did not have the final say. Hence the materials that the Ministry authored or instructions they sent to the press were at times at odds with both the Wehrmachtbericht and the materials put out by Hitler's press chief. The literature explains it by pointing to conflicting and overlapping "networks" of propaganda, and the chaotic nature of the NS regime itself. I hope this is clearer now. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Much better, thank you. Only a few minor things remain.

• There is some inconsistency with source formatting. All the book should be treated the same: if you mention the country of publication for one, you should for the others, too. Likewise city, unless that's not available. The Bibliography should not have page numbers.

• Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also, in my view the urls for books should be to google books, where available, because the function of the url is to allow somebody to verify the text, not to encourage them to buy it. If they want to buy it they could find the link easily enough.

• I do like linking to the publishers (sort of "official pages") so that readers can evaluate the source, if desired. I don't see this as encouraging to buy, but to provide more information on the source. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but googlebooks allows them to access some of the text, which publishers do not. I cannot compel you, though.

• More serious issue: this result is a problem. You should be careful to avoid this in the first place, but please rephrase.

• Reworded. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Just want to make sure you have seen these, as you seem to be active, but not here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Apologies. I believe I've addressed the issues that remained. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. One specific comment about Goebbels remains; I also want to give the lede a second look. Vanamonde (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)