Wikipedia:Peer review/Nazi Germany/archive1

Nazi Germany

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It may not be helpful to give detailed comments while the article is undergoing extensive editing, but one area that will definitely need attention is the infobox. It is far too long and has far too much information in it, a great deal of which relates not to Nazi Germany itself but to countries occupied or annexed by Germany. All those flag displays are especially confusing. The purpose of an infobox is to give simple headline information that can be quickly absorbed, not to try to summarise the article – that is the function of the lead. A considerable reduction of the infobox content would greatly improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. That's a good observation and I will deal with it later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments I'm getting in rather late here, but hopefully some comments will still be useful. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate all involved for taking on such a big and important topic. The following should be seen as being mainly focused on areas of potential improvement rather than criticism per-se.

• The first paragraph is an outstanding summary of Nazi Germany, and a textbook example of WP:MOSBEGIN in practice
• "The return to economic stability gave the regime enormous popularity" - from memory, Richard Evans argues that while the Nazis were generally popular in the 1930s, there were significant limits on this. As such, 'enormous popularity' seems too strong.
• "All opposition to Hitler's rule was ruthlessly suppressed, with the leadership killed, imprisoned, or in exile" - the rank-and-file of opposition movements were also persecuted and murdered
• Modern historians such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans emphasise the immorality of the Nazi regime's decision to fight the war to the bitter end (a very high proportion of all German casualties and war damage took place from late 1944, after it was clear that the war was lost), and the brutal tactics which were employed to this end. I'd suggest including a flavour of this in the final para of the lead.
• "Many voters decided the NSDAP was capable of restoring order, quelling civil unrest" - but never a majority. Even in the 1932 election they failed to reach 40% of the vote.
• "In the election held on 29 March the NSDAP received an overwhelming 98.9 per cent support." - while it's obvious that this wasn't a free election, it should be stated explicitly
• The history section should have a much stronger emphasis on the economic performance of Germany during this period - Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction is outstanding, and Richard Evans also provides good coverage.
• In particular, the coverage of the war is much too strongly focused on military events - I'd actually suggest de-emphasising this given that this is a history of Nazi Germany as a country, and focus instead on the impact of the war on the German population and economy.
• The material on the invasion of Poland notes that Jews were forced into Ghettos at this time - the large scale killings which accompanied the invasion should also be noted.
• "Against the judgment of his many of his senior military officers, Hitler ordered an attack on France and the Low Countries in May 1940." - Hitler ordered this attack to be made much earlier that this; it was delayed repeatedly
• " By 1943 the convoys were accompanied by merchant aircraft carriers, which helped turn the Battle of the Atlantic in favour of the Allies." - breaking the German codes and the availability of long-ranged aircraft were also critical (the code-breaking is generally considered the key factor). Also, it's not really the case that the Germans were winning the Battle of the Atlantic at this time - while they'd had a few good months in early 1943, the Allies were generally doing better and the overall loss rate for shipping was low.
• "The Germans did not build any aircraft carriers during the course of the war, and shortages of key materials kept U-boat production to far below the planned targets." - no need to mention aircraft carriers (the Germans couldn't have feasibly employed them even if they had existed), and a vast number of U-boats were built. After mid-1943 this construction program was a waste of resources as the fleet was ineffective due to the success of Allied countermeasures, and massive design and quality-control problems with the supposedly 'advanced' types of U-boats which were developed in the final years of the war.
• There's no need for three paras on the melodrama which marked the end of Nazi Germany
• "Political courts called Sondergerichte sentenced some 12,000 members of the German resistance to death, and civil courts sentenced an additional 40,000 Germans." - you should also note the roving military court martial tribunals which were responsible for thousands of deaths in the last months of the war (see The End by Ian Kershaw for excellent coverage of this)
• The 'Government' section should note the vast mess of Bureaucratic empires which developed during the war (especially in its last years) - this is hinted at, but its a big deal.
• The 'Military and paramilitary' should note the regular military's active role in the Nazi war crimes - at present only the SS is identified in the last para
• "Speer produced a dramatic rise in production" - Adam Tooze strongly disputes this, arguing that while Speer was competent, he inherited an already-enacted program of improvements which lead to the greater output
• "From 1933 to 1938, hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated" - can you provide the figures here? From memory, a high proportion fled, though many tragically only went as far as France or the Netherlands.
• "with the government seizing any property they left behind" - the Jews were prohibited from taking much with them
• Hitler's key role in the decision to launch the Holocaust, and the approximate timing of this decision, should be noted
• The material on Nazi food policies is written as if these were never implemented - they actually were, resulting in a huge number of deaths in eastern Europe (see Hitler's Empire by Mark Mazower and The Taste Of War by Lizzie Collingham)

(up to the 'Health' section) Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D and thank you for your valuable comments. I have been undertaking a total re-write of the article, so yeah, some of your comments (particularly regarding changing the focus of the History section) would have been a lot more valuable earlier on. I have not yet done any work on the sections Health, Women, Culture, Environment, Legacy and hope to get through them by the Core Contest deadline of Sunday the 12th. I will incorporate as many of your ideas as I have time for before the contest deadline and will continue afterwards, as we do not have Tooze locally and I will have to bring it in on inter-library loan. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The material on the Allied air raids is mainly focused on precision bombing - the deliberate British focus on attacking civilians from about 1942 onwards should be noted, as should be the fact that the USAAF's 'precision' campaign was not very precise really.
• The 'Health' section should probably note the notorious medical experimentation program, and the relationship between the medical system and the euthanasia programs (from memory, most medical staff strongly opposed this and tried to save their patients)
• The lengthy section on the role of women and family is a good idea
• "The regime sought to restore traditional values in German culture" - were these genuinely 'traditional' values, or the Nazis interpretation of such?
• I'd suggest focusing on how the Nazi era is remembered by modern Germans in the 'legacy' section - it continues to have profound effects on the nature of the German government (for instance, the strong emphasis on protecting civil rights) and how Germans see themselves.
• To be really pedantic, Germany also lost a tiny proportion of territory to the Netherlands at the end of the war (see Dutch annexation of German territory after World War II). Territorial evolution of Germany#Belgium also implies that a trivial amount of territory also permanently became part of Belgium. I don't think that either country is worth noting in the infobox though!

I hope these comments are helpful - I'm sorry that I didn't see this PR earlier. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks again Nick-D for your helpful comments. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Casliber (belatedly)

• Hitler made a pact with Joseph Stalin and invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. - I'd use a different verb to "start" here, such as "trigger", "precipitate" or even the more colourful "ignite"....am just thinking of engaging prose...
• The Germanic peoples—who were also referred to as the Nordic race—were considered to be the purest representation of the Aryan race, and therefore the master race. - if there is any way of reducing the number of "race"s in this sentence all the better....
• On 12 March the Wehrmacht entered Austria, to be greeted with enthusiasm by the Austrian Germans - confused, does this mean the Austrian people (as they speak German) or....
• Link Romani at first instance.
• Looks good - I do wonder whether politics and military material are better reworked into a longitudinal history section as this might streamline some material
  • Thanks Casliber! -- Dianna (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Boson (belatedly):
  • The lede looks a bit too long and detailled to me, and could better summarize the rest of the article. I would prefer 4 more focussed paragraphs. Perhaps words like Führerprinzip could be introduced later.
  • The background could perhaps be better explained (in the Background section). Later, violations of the Treaty of Versailles are discussed, and it is mentioned that electors thought the Nazis could restore order but the situation of civil unrest at the beginning of the period is not really explained.
  • The seizure of power could perhaps also do with some more explanatory narrative. For instance, "the NSDAP used a process termed Gleichschaltung (coordination) to rapidly centralize their power and control over Germany" does not really say what was involved. Perhaps a sentence or two could be added.

--Boson (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your valuable observations -- Dianna (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)