Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War II/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm much obliged to you for taking this one, and will get round to dealing with your points asap, thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

 * There are a couple of citation needed tags (one was there already and I added a couple as part of my initial read). Can these pls be dealt with? ✅
 * Gday. Hope you don't think I'm being rude but I re-added one of the sentences you deleted as I happened to find a ref for it. I believe this info is important to the article so hopefully I didn't make it sound like I wanted you to delete it. Of course happy to discuss if you disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the lead you state: "In total, 40,690 Belgians (over half of them Jews) were killed during the occupation and around 8% of the country's pre-war GDP was destroyed or removed to Germany." This info is good but I wonder why it is only included in the lead and not in the body of the article? Would seem that it could be worked into an "Effects" section or something like that (or at least in the "Liberation" section). Once this is done the citations could be removed from the lead per WP:LEAD -
 * The "Background" seems a little short. In particular the summary of the Battle of Belgium. While I agree there is no req to detail the campaign given it is ably covered elsewhere I think a bit more than three short sentences is req'd here. Also perhaps include military and civilian casualties during this campaign?
 * Wonder if the Free Belgian Forces should also be briefly introduced here (after the part about the government in exile perhaps)?
 * Suggest using the short citation format per WP:CITESHORT as it will eliminate the need to repeat the same bibliographic information for repeat citations (suggestion only not a GA req as you appear to use a consistent format which is sufficient per the criteria).
 * I prefer avoiding these where there are some works only cited once. When there's a mix of citation styles, I always think it looks a bit odd.
 * I think you misunderstand my point here - I'm not saying to only use short citations when you use a ref twice, I was suggesting to adopt it for all citations. Regardless, it is not a req so it was a suggestion only. Happy that you use a consistent style at the moment so that is fine (it just seems needlessly repetitive). Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Occupied Belgium was targeted on numerous occasions by the Allied bombers from both the British RAF and American USAAF with sizable civilian casualties." Who were the Allies targeting and why? Probably needs to be included for context.
 * Are any figures available to indicate the total number of Belgians killed during Allied bombing (I note you list some figures but they seem to be for individual operations / periods).
 * There may be some useful information in Richard Overy's book The Bombing War: Europe, 1939-1945. This snippet view from Google Books includes some information about civilian casualties in Belgium prior to D-Day for instance (which should probably be included). Anotherclown (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added one fact from there, but the preview doesn't have a page number so I've had to make an educated guess based on the number provided by the Google books preview...✅
 * More detailed review to fol. Anotherclown (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple more initial comments before I get into the full review:
 * In the resistance section. I think the article would benefit from providing a summary of the activities of the resistance (e.g. helping downed airmen, sabotage, assassination, Intelligence gathering, Clandestine press etc). Perhaps also mention its role after D-Day? Obviously no req to add a large amount as this is also covered elsewhere quite well. Just looking for a summary sentence.
 * I think it does that already - do you want a summary sentence at the start?
 * No worries - I will complete a complete review and come back to you if I think further coverage is req'd here. Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading it through I agree that you have covered this, no need for a summary sentence. Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * Perhaps you might also provide some examples of passive resistance (so readers understand what it is / was)? Again only looking for about a sentence here. ✅
 * The Strike of the 100,000 is already cited - the difficulty is finding citable activities... Will add some if I can find them.
 * Was that the only form of passive resistance? Anotherclown (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly could include figures on the number of resistance mbrs captured and killed during the war.✅
 * In repression section – are figures available for the number of Belgians incarcerated by the Germans? What about the number killed by them etc? Anotherclown (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: a large number of duplicate links to be removed: - all done, to the best of my knowledge
 * Antwerp
 * Vichy
 * Roma
 * Jozef-Ernest van Roey
 * Poland
 * Flemish Movement
 * Flamenpolitik
 * Algemeene-SS Vlaanderen
 * Le Pays Réel
 * anti-clericalism
 * Courcelles Massacre
 * Partisans Armés
 * Front de l'Indépendance
 * D-Day
 * Belgian government in exile
 * Yes these are done now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead paras seem a little unbalanced with 2 very small ones (one a single sentence) and one very large one. Suggest breaking up the second paragraph into two. Would seem to be a logical break at "From 1942, the occupation became more repressive..."
 * Through out article you use some very short / stubby paragraphs (even single sentences). In some case these could easily be merged to form actual paragraphs (suggestion only). ✅
 * In the lead: "The German occupation of Belgium (French: Occupation allemande, Dutch: Duitse bezetting) in World War II..." suggest minor reword to "The German occupation of Belgium (French: Occupation allemande, Dutch: Duitse bezetting) during World War II."
 * Missing word here I think: "and with its leaders already in exile in Germany, territory was declared fully liberated in February 1945..." consider instead: "and with its leaders already in exile in Germany, the territory was declared fully liberated in February 1945..."
 * Belgian Army should be wikilinked at first instance (you do so further down in the article).
 * Repetitive language here: " By 1944 the Germans were increasingly forced to share power, as day-to-day administration was increasingly ..." ("increasingly" used twice in the same sentence). Perhaps reword one?
 * Adolf Hitler should be formally introduced with full name and wikilinked at first use (you do this but later in the article, using surname first on a couple of occasions prior).
 * Typo here I think: "...he consistently refused to publicly support for the Allies or to denounce German actions...", consider instead: "...he consistently refused to publicly support the Allies or to denounce German actions..."
 * Prose is awkward here: "The military government controlled newspapers of what could be published and what news they could print." (specifically "of what") Perhaps consider rewording. - The military government controlled which newspapers could be published and what news they could print
 * Prose here: "Occupied Belgium was targeted on numerous occasions by the Allied bombers from both the British RAF and American USAAF with sizable civilian casualties." Consider instead: "Occupied Belgium was targeted on numerous occasions by Allied bombers from both the British RAF and American USAAF with sizable civilian casualties."
 * Inconsistency in terminology: "World War I" vs "First World War".
 * "...who had been made Prisoners of War (POWs)..." - suggest using lower case here, also no req to introduce "POW" abbrev as you don't use it anywhere in the article that I could see.
 * This is still outstanding. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Typo here: "many of them in hid by gentiles and in particular Catholic priests and nuns..."
 * Possible missing word here: "In 1944, Rexist massacred 20 civilians in the village of Courcelles in retaliation...", perhaps: "In 1944, Rexist forces massacred 20 civilians in the village of Courcelles in retaliation..."
 * Missing words here: "After a brief period of fighting, it became clear that the Walloon Legion suffered from lack of training and political infighting." Consider instead: "After a brief period of fighting, it became clear that the Walloon Legion suffered from a lack of training and from political infighting."


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most major points appear to be cited using WP:RS, but still a couple of citation needed tags to be dealt with (re Vinkt Massacre and Note 3).
 * I have a ref for note 3, but cannot add it without breaking the code for the note itself. It is 
 * I've added this now - pls revert or change it if you don't like how I did it etc. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No issues with OR that I could see.
 * Minor MOS issue here:
 * "Lemkin, Raphaël (2008). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (2nd ed.). Lawbook Exchange Ltd. pp. 125–6. ISBN 1584779012." Term "Ltd" should be delete per Template:Cite book documentation.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Whilst I appreciate that this article uses summary style (as it should as an article of this nature) and links to a number of more detailed articles, I think there are a number of areas which need to be expanded (not by much though - perhaps a half sentence to a sentence in most cases) in order to add key details that would be expected by a reader of a summary of these events. Some areas for expansion that I see (some listed in my prelim cmts):
 * "Belgium had pursued a policy of neutrality since its independence..." from whom and when? Might add to the context.
 * I've added 1830, but to be honest the time distance involved (110 years!) would mean that it would risk over-exaggerating its importance to this article?
 * I'm happy with the change you've made here. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " The military was reorganized into a defensive force and the country left several international military treaties it had joined in the aftermath of World War I." Perhaps list the treaties?
 * If you're interested, they're the Locarno Treaty and the Franco-Belgian Accord of 1920, but again I think they are not particularly relevant considering the scope of the article?
 * No worries - probably are a little off topic. Happy that they are included in the parent article (Belgium in World War II). Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The government fled to France (and later the United Kingdom) and established an official government in exile." Perhaps mention Prime Minister Hubert Pierlot here (you mention them later, but would seem logical here)?
 * "... along with so-called "stolen" newspapers like Le Soir or Het Laatste Nieuws, which were published without their owners' permission..." published by whom?
 * Context of the Allied bombing is req'd (as above).
 * I'm not sure I understand, can you clarify what context you mean? I think that the types of targets are already specified, but I'm not sure how/if the Belgian targes (pre-1944) fit into any macro strategy?
 * All I'm looking for here is a brief explanation as to why the Allies were bombing targets in Belgium (i.e targeting German forces, war industries, infrastructure and transport network etc that was being used to support the German war effort as part of the allied strategic bombing campaign etc). As the encyclopeadia is meant to be written with an assumed level of knowledge of a 12 year old this might be unclear to some readers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true! - I've added a bit, along the lines of your suggestion. If you don't think it sufficient, let me know and I can add some more to it.''
 * Total figures for Belgian civilians killed in the Allied bombing (if available).
 * "...and after fusing with Rex's Flemish wing." Who or what is "Rex"?
 * "Degrelle offered to form a "Walloon Legion" in the Wehrmacht..." who is Degrelle? Needs to be introduced with full name (and wikilinked if it exists) at first instance. - very good point!
 * Free Belgian Forces should be mentioned (as above).
 * I'm afraid that, even after writing it, I don't think that they're important enough to mention in this article. Before liberation, the Free Belgian forces were actually pretty small and quite insignificant outside the slightly megalomaniacal world of the government in exile. This article is ultimately about the occupation itself, and there is a summary article (Belgium in WWII) which deals a bit more across the board with everything, but I just don't believe they fit here...
 * I agree they don't require significant coverage here - problem I see is they aren't even introduced until the last paragraph and even then only indirectly. All I'm looking for is half a sentence to a sentence added to the end of the background which mentions them and provides a link. I do believe this is relevant and requires more than a link in the see also section (otherwise a casual reader might get the impression that the only Belgians that continued to fight after 1940 were fighting for the Germans or were in the Resistance). Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A suggestion for how this might be worded: "Meanwhile, a small military force known as the Free Belgian Forces was created from Belgian and colonial troops to fight as part the Allied armies." (or something like that). Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A few other outstanding points from my prelim cmts including resistance casualties and examples of passive resistance.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images all seem to be free / PD and mostly have the req'd information. One minor point:
 * File:Binnenplaats_kazerne_dossin.jpg - probably needs the date (1942 according to the description in the article) added to its file description on Commons.

Happy with the changes made, thanks for that. I have made a couple of additions myself (including a ref IRT the Free Belgian Forces) and a copyedit. Pls see my edits here and review them and let me know if you disagree with any points. Otherwise I think this is probably done so will close if that's the case. Anotherclown (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article is quite good and is definitely close to GA. There are some technical, MOS and prose issues and a few extra details that I think are req'd but otherwise this is nearly there. I am of cse happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Due to the size of the article once the points above are dealt with I will re-read it to double check I haven't missed anything and may make some additional cmts at that time. I will probably ping a few other editors to get their opinions (due to make lack of knowledge of the subject). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made so far look quite good to me - still a couple of outstanding points but nearly there. Anotherclown (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they seem perfectly reasonable changes! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries passing now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)