Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Hermann Detzner

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hermann Detzner

Is this article ready for a FAC nomination? I've reviewed it frequently, made minor tweaks, and it looks ready to me, but it needs another eye. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

Well done so far - interesting tale for an Australian to read, too. At a fairly quick glance the prose, referencing, illustration and general structure looks pretty good. A few things:

The lead would generally have at least two decent-sized paragraphs at FAC. Also you don't normally include places with the birth/death dates as they are here; usual fashion would just be the name followed by "(16 October 1882 – 1 December 1970)" .

I fixed the dates. Thanks. short of adding more of the article detail to the lead, there is little to put in there.

Looks good and perfectly substantial now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's a tiny bit on the short side for FA. The detail is fine up until 1919 or so, then there's very little till the controversy around 1929-32, and then it looks like zero till he dies in 1970. Is there nothing else to add in there?

he "eschewed public life" from 1932 until his death. There is literally Nothing. He did run on the speaker circuit in the 1920s, but I have only implications of that from the sources, nothing direct.

Certainly seems more detail in general now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find that you're asked to put a bit more detail into the alt text for the images at FAC.

my most recent FAC / alt text experience suggests I'm too wordy. We'll see what they say.

Heh, it's a balancing act...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you can get away with some red links at FAC, there seem to be quite a few here - are they really all likely to need (or get) their own articles?

I took some out. Left in Johann Flierl, who should have his own article, even if he doesn't yet. Thiele and Keyser also should but probably will not get them, unless someone shows up who is actually interested in German missionaries in New Guinea.

A few well-considered ones is fine I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The See Also section looks largely redundant and should be removed unless there's any useful links there that aren't already in the main body of the article.

will reduce this.

Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth going through the A class process? I realize this is short (38kb) but there are shorter articles, and I think this is well done, and interesting. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the evident quality of this particular article, I wouldn't say there's a need to go through A-Class Review particularly, but it's useful for a closer examination of content and sourcing by more reviewers. Also if awards interest you, MilHist has them for three or more successful A-Class reviews from August 2008 onwards. Anyway, I don't think it's short anymore and, yes, it's certainly well done and interesting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking another look. If/when the Unification of Germany is promoted, I'll go ahead and nominate this for FA, but in the meantime, I think I will ask for A class review, since improvement is always a good thing. Will you support that? :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.