Talk:Dachau (US Army report)

[Untitled]
This article is "in progress" and was translated (which still has to be optimized) from the respective German article, which was written by the person posting this (Pittigrilli) and German WP author Schreiben. It shall be transferred to the article space of the en-WP once all the nasty red things present now are 'terminated'. If the template "In progress" chosen should not be suitable, please post here what to use instead for the transition phase to the article space. Pittigrilli (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above is now defunct as the article was transferred to the normal article space with friendly and quick help from en-user Buidhe. Thanks again, Pittigrilli (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does 'Bibliography' below 'References' make sense?
With the structure of the references introduced by Buidhe, I think that the order with references first now makes the article less readable, esp. for 'non-netizens' and the elderly. I would thus opt for putting the references at the very end, with Bibl. and external links first. Pittigrilli (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to moving the references before the bibliography, but the external links should be after both according to MOS:LAYOUT guidelines. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

objection to "emphasis unusual for a military report"
Yeeno added a tag named 'improper synthesis?' to the above passage. I try to clarify this: Yes, this statement is neither from the report itself nor taken from any of the literature. It is also in the German version and was formulated by myself. Of course, this is an assessment which goes into the direction of "original research", but imho it is allowable in this case - when one has personally read some military reports or intelligence reports, these are always (no exceptions) written in the absence of any sentiment - military men write about 10,000 dead soldiers or civilians just like a researcher writes about the Holocaust or severe Agent-Orange-caused birth defects. It is their job to be as professional and neutral as possible in terms of life and death. A bit like we work in the Wikipedia, as well... Hence: I think the conclusion is ok. On the other hand, I would also have no problem deleting the statement "unusual for a military report", if others should disagree with my conclusion. Pittigrilli (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pittigrilli It would definitely be worth noting, if we could get a cite for it. Are you familiar with any authors or sources that might've noted his usual tone? Yee no   (talk) 🍁 20:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Latest edit in 'Summary'
Hi Yeeno, I like your overhaul, thank you. I noticed that you made a change to the content introducing "stir" etc., which I deem very good. The German article, which was initially identical word by word to this translated version (until the changes here), just got a "Lesenswert" attribute (such as "Good read", "Recommended Read") via an election process by the German Wikipedia community. Is your review a milestone on the path to getting sth. like this here, as well? What else would be needed? I know there are regulations and a help site, but I find these rather confusing due to the great number of options. In the German WP, there are only the attributes "Recommended Read" (Lesenswert, see above) and "Excellent article", which means something like "High-End" or "not further improvable". In the en-WP, I think I have identified A, B, and C-class good articles and at least two more. I would thus welcome any advice... Pittigrilli (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pittigrilli: The content assessments (Start, C, B) can be done by individual users as part of Wikiprojects. In this case it's WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history and WikiProject United States. It looks like the ""Lesenswert" attribute is analogous to Good Article Status (GA) (meaning it meets some basic standards), while the "Excellent article" would be the Featured Article, meaning, like you said, the article is the best it can be and "not further improvable". Copyediting from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is not a necessary step in any of these, though if you nominate it for GA status the reviewer will probably tell you to do some copyediting anyways. There's also WP:Peer Review, where you can invite others to provide suggestions on improving an article, usually in preparation for a GA or a FA nomination (It's usually really backlogged). Though for this article you can probably nominate it for GA after I'm through with copyediting, and whoever reviews it can probably give you some more suggestions on what to improve. Cheers, Yee no   (talk) 🍁 18:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the elaborate and very helpful answer. I wrote the German article together with another German author for an internal Wikipedia writing contest. It has undergone a factual review during that phase, which was under time pressure, and landed in the first one third of the competing articles. A second review was during the nomination for "Lesenswert", which review can be seen in its entirety on the talk page of the German version of the article, and where we undertook some adaptions and improvements. The only remaining "blank spot" is that there is hardly any no information available if the Dachau report of the 7th Army was used in ANY war crimes trials. This was objected to in the German review, but we found none. I am still in contact with a German history professor who might help with this issue. Given all this, I think that your assessment is correct and that I might nominate it for GA after your review. Thanks again, Pittigrilli (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)