Talk:Eduard von Capelle/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My only major problem with this article is that there seems to be an important gap right in the middle. First of all, despite Capelle holding a senior position in the Navy there is no mention at all of what he did during the first year of the war - in what capacity did he contribute to the German war effort during this period? Secondly, the article says "By late 1915, Capelle had fallen out with Tirpitz over the handling of the naval war" but gives no details - what was Capelle's problem with Tirpitz's leadership? Did he think it not aggressive enough? Too aggressive? Too reliant on submarines? Since this seems a pretty important event in his life (important enough for him to take early retirement at any rate), there really should be more on it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The RMA wasn't responsible for a whole lot during the war - the system was fairly convoluted, but Tirpitz and Capelle had no control over how the war was conducted, all authority resided with the Kaiser, at least nominally. Really, after the 1912 novelle, the relative importance of the office declined, since there were no further budget issues to be resolved, until the war situation forced the Navy to scale back and reorient its production.
 * As for the falling out, I've only seen that in Tucker, and that book is somewhat less reliable - I came across a fuller account of his retirement and recalling to replace Tirpitz - see how it reads now. Basically, Tirpitz vacillated for the first three years of the war between the fleet and the U-boat arm, and by 1916 he had settled on unrestricted submarine warfare. Bethmann-Hollweg maneuvered to get him fired, and Capelle promised to support B-H, and so was brought out of retirement. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A contradiction follows this - although Capelle and Tirpitz seem to have quarreled on the direction of the Navy during 1915, the article then says that he was weaker than Tirpitz because of the failure of their joint strategy? Did they agree or not?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be clearer now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "and Capelle could do nothing about it" - why? (I know why, money obviously, but say so in the article).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarifid. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Was he married? Did he have children? What did he get up to after 1919? I realise his military service is of paramount interest, but these details are the sort of thing you'd xpect to find in a biography.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to track down any of this type of information, but I'll keep digging. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Biography would be better renamed as "Early life" or "Early career" the whole thing is a biography after all.
 * The prose, particularly in the lead and the first paragraph of "Biography" does not read particularly well, with lots of short sentences that chop up the text and prevent it from scanning effectively. Try and join some of these sentences together to form more developed prose.

OK, been thinking about this one for a couple of days and I've decided to pass it. The lack of personal information is a little troubling, but if you can't find it in any reliable sources there is nothing to be done about that. Otherwise excellent work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)