Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Günther Blumentritt

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Peer review

Günther Blumentritt

edit

I am the original creator of this article. I have brought it to B-class, and after continuing to edit it I believe it is within striking distance of GA or A-class. I would like some additional feedback and constructive criticism to get me there. This is my first article, so I feel I need extra guidance.

Also, I would like to appologize in advance for the state of the edit history. As I said, this is my first article, and I have recieved several suggestions already about keeping down the number of edits. Lesson learned.Revcasy (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • References comments - for your first article, this isn't so bad. Don't worry about the number of edits; I had something like 675+ to my first.
    • I know that you included the years for Hart becuase you have two different books, but would you mind adding years for the other book refs? It looks odd to have years for some but not all.
    • Check your citation styles; you vary between using commas and p. vs pg., among some other things. I'll fix this for you if you don't understand what I mean. :)
    • What is "MT - G.S. & OKW Affidavit No. 610. (June 24, 1946) - Gen Blumentritt, Columbia Law Library" referring to? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an affidavit in the collection of the Columbia Law Library taken by the International Military Tribunal for the Nuremberg Trials. I was not sure how to cite it so I just included all the information I had about it.Revcasy (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert

edit

Just a few comments from me:

  • I concur with ed17's comments about the years for the citations and the p. v. pg. These should be consistent.
  • Regarding the Affidavit, perhaps it is available as a link somewhere on the web that you could include so it can be verified?
  • This might be stating the obvious, but an image of the subject himself would greatly improve the article. Currently you have an image of the subject's commander, von Rundstedt, but no image of the subject. If one were available, I'd suggest adding it to the infobox at about 250px;
  • Section headers shouldn't be completely capitalised unless proper nouns. For example it should be "German invasions"; "Combat command and German surrender"; etc
  • The Early life section seems to be more of a Early and personal life section. I'd suggest removing the military career information from it and making it a stand alone Personal life section. You could then deal with the Early military career information in a seperate section, providing some more details about what Blumentritt did during World War I;
  • I can't remember where it is stated, but I don't think it is MOS compliant to include an inline citation within a heading as has been done with the Awards section;
  • I suggest converting the external link next to Curd Jurgens in the After the war section to a proper in line citation.
    • Can you give me a specific example of an article where this was done so I can see what you mean and how to do it? WP:Cite states "Because of the difficulties in associating them with their appropriate full citations, the use of embedded links for inline citations is not recommended as a method of best practice and is not found in featured articles. It is easily converted to a shortened footnote or parenthetical reference." Perhaps I should simply use footnote style for this link? Revcasy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Featured article tools there are three dab links that need fixing: [1].— AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966

edit

Ian Rose

edit

Great to see an article on this general receiving someone's attention, well done for that alone Revcasy...! In addition to what's been said above:

  • Personal life and Awards section headers still have capitals that aren't required under MOS.
  • Since there's only one entry and it's mentioned under the After the war section, I'd drop the Filmography section.
  • Related to above, in After the war, the film title needs to be italicised per MOS (and you can lose the editorialising about the brevity of Curt Jurgens' screentime -- many actors appear only briefly in such all-star vehicles).
  • If you want to take to A/FA, I think we need more info on his post-war life and career. What you have here satisfies the detail requirements for GA level but not IMO anything higher at this stage. If you have little more on his life itself, you could perhaps add info re. the books he wrote, which also adds to what you're telling us about him (then you could lose the bullet list, which never looks pretty in a prose section).
    • Definitely want to re-write After the war section. Ideally would like it to be extensive. He corresponded with and gave interviews to several historians, and is cited by many more, so he has subtly shaped the received narrative of the war as written during the cold war and post-cold war. His experiences in Barbarossa also influenced American military doctrine re: the Soviets during the cold war. He was "interviewed" extensively by the OSS and other military intelligence while a POW (predictably more concerned with their new Soviet rivals than the war crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime). Unfortunately there seems to be no acknowledgment of any of this in the sources. His role in German re-armament was also large and influential. I will see what I can do without veering into WP:NOR Revcasy (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be good. For instance, as it is, we find him incarcerated by the Allies after the war and then suddenly we're into his career in the 1950s, with no discussion of investigations, release, etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Awards section looks too fussy with a list of awards, a box for promotions, and the image of the Iron Cross. If we must have lists of awards and promotions (I don't like them at the best of times and think each one should simply be worked into the body of the article chronologically, but my opinion on this is not the only one) then they should be in similar format. We could certainly afford to lose the medal image from here, perhaps it could justify itself at the appropriate spot in the main body.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Moved the Iron Cross pic. Still trying to figure out how to format the lists so that they look the way I want. Revcasy (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, just another thing on images... I note the fair-use rationale for the colour pic in the infobox. That's fine I think but if there is a free or public domain black-and-white image, that should be used instead if you want to take it to FA eventually, where policing of image use is stricter than GA or A-Class. If you can't locate a black-and-white portrait that's free or PD, that's fine, stay with what you have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Günther_Blumentritt&oldid=1138359180"