Talk:Guido von List/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting one. Happy to offer a review, but I may not get all the way through it tonight. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * First: Your sources all seem excellent. Most of your authors have Wikipedia articles- wikilinks might be helpful (especially for those books by academics but with smaller publishers)
 * I've added the links! If only there were more English-language sources that could be used, although I could not locate any. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What does "millenarian" mean?
 * I've added a link to Millenarianism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have the painting? It might be a nice addition.
 * Sadly not; Goodrick-Clarke mentions it although doesn't include an image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Thus, on an 1862 visit to the catacombs with his father, he knelt before a ruined altar and swore that when an adult he would construct a temple to the ancient god Wotan." How sure are we that this happened? It sounds like the kind of thing that someone might have made up later. Similar with the wine bottles. (The way you tell the latter story comes across as a little prosaic, rather than documentary.)
 * Good points. I've fiddled around with the prose to make it clearer that these stories came from his later accounts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't like the Deutsche Zeitung link to the German Wikipedia- there's Template:Interlanguage link if you're keen on having one
 * I'll just remove that; it wasn't something that I put in in the first place, but I think that I inherited it from before I began work on the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "entered into a correspondence" As on another article, this strikes me as a very odd construction
 * Changed to "began a correspondence". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not the biggest deal, but there's some inconsistency as to whether you translate titles. "Die Juden als Staat und Nation" is a particular example of one that could be translated
 * Basically, where Goodrick-Clarke included a translation, I added one, but where he didn't, I didn't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Also working as a playwright, in December 1894 his play Der Wala Erweckung ("The Wala's Awakening")" His play was also working as a playwright?
 * I've rewritten this particular sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What does "belletristic" mean?
 * This was the term used by Goodrick-Clarke, so I adopted it; I'll add a link to Belles-lettres. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "exoteric" is jargon
 * I've added a link to Exotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Hammer noted that" You're yet to introduce this person
 * Oops - I've corrected this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Theosophical Society is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else. There's no mention of Theosophy in the biography section, either
 * I've added a mention of the Theosophical Society into the Biography section. It seems apparent from Goodrick-Clarke's account that while List was never actively involved in the Society, he was very clearly influenced by its publications, hence why there is far greater discussion of it in the "Ideology" section than in the "Biography". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "but rather on ideas that he received as a result of clairvoyant illumination" Given that the existence of clairvoyance is (to be polite) unproven, I think this is a little uncritical
 * Very fair point. "ideas that he claimed to have received as a result of clairvoyant illumination" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Freemasons and Rosicrucianism" Is Rosicrucianism the name of the organisation? Or should this perhaps be something like "through later esoteric traditions such as Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism"?
 * I like your proposed wording, and have changed the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Others aware of the Armanist teachings according to List were prominent Renaissance humanists such as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Giordano Bruno, Johannes Trithemius, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, and Johann Reuchlin, deeming himself to be the reincarnation of the latter." This sentence needs work
 * "According to List, a number of prominent Renaissance humanists – including Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Giordano Bruno, Johannes Trithemius, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, and Johann Reuchlin – were also aware of this ancient Armanist teaching, with List claiming that he was actually the reincarnation of Reuchlin." ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "anti-Semitic sentiments" Elsewhere, you don't capitalise the s- consistency would be good
 * I've standardised it in the lower case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I still need to look at a few bits (not least the images), but that's what I'm seeing on my first read-through. A very interesting read. You generally do a good job of presenting him in "neutral" way. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "had become the "revered guru of Ariosophic paganism"" By when?
 * I've gone with "Writing in 2003, the historian of religion Mattias Gardell believed that List had become the "revered guru of Ariosophic paganism"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Concerning the images... I've had a play around, including with File:Deutsch Mythologische Landschaftsbilder2Page523.jpg, but given the date given on File:Deutsch MythologischeLandschaftsbilder2ndVolume.jpg, I'm now less sure. Do you happen to have a copy of the book? I think the information needs to be clarified. I'm pretty certain that they're PD, we just need to be clear on why. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy of the book in question, I'm afraid. I'll take a look, but copyright issues aren't my strong point! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've messed around with them, including the same PD statements in both and giving one of the pictures a Summary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's resolved my worries- thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And another quick thought- categories as an author and playwright? Journalist? There are possibly also nationalist categories that he belongs in. Category:Pseudohistorians would be another good one! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the "Pseudohistorians" category as I think that that's a good idea. I've also added "Journalist" and "Playwright" categories too! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for undertaking this review, Josh! I hope that you enjoyed reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another quick comment... You link Wotanism to Heathenry (new religious movement); we have an article about a (seemingly separate) movement at Wotanism, but I note that Wotanism (Guido von List) currently redirects to Ariosophy. Something seems to be wrong somewhere, but I'm not sure what. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I linked to Heathenry (new religious movement) intentionally, because I thought that that was probably the best place for it. As you pointed out, the "Wotanism" article links to the ideology of the Wotansvolk Neo-Nazi group, which isn't really appropriate (although they were influenced by List, I think). However, List's work was an early form of Heathenry (before the term "Heathenry" had ever come to be used for this movement) so I do think that the link is appropriate. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and promote now, because I think this article's great- very well written and immaculately sourced and illustrated, with an appropriately scholarly, neutral tone. Though I think this makes an excellent GA, I must clarify that I would be nervous about supporting this at FAC at this time (if you were thinking of taking this to the next level) for the simple reason that I suspect that there will be some good sources available in the German language. I appreciate that this makes it very difficult for people without access to these kinds of sources, but such is the nature of research, I fear! If we had good reason to believe that there was no high-quality scholarly research in German (which is, I think, unlikely) then I could likely support. (I've been through this myself: I considered Nietzsche as a subject for my PhD research, and one reason among several that I decided not to pursue it was precisely that I've no grasp of German, meaning I wouldn't be able to read his works as originally written or a good hunk of Nietzsche scholarship.) From my cursory Googling around, I think you're already citing an impressive number of sources. Anyway, I'm promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've placed the article in Good_articles/Philosophy and religion. I have no objection if you wish to switch it to some other category. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)