Talk:Hugo Krabbe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good day Gitz6666. I propose to review your GA nomination "Hugo Krabbe". Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me whenever you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, do not hesitate to complain (see WP:CIVIL).

I will start with the preliminaries and then go through the article's section, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, @Johannes Schade, for your willingness to review my article. It's very appreciated. Please not that also for me English my second language and it is far from perfect. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Gitz, thanks for your quick reaction. I just discovered the discussion "GAN comments" on the article's talk page and am quite confused. This discussion seems to refer to a previous GA nomination (GAN), but the one started here between us is marked GA1 and not GA2. User:Buidhe was involved and User:Nederlandse Leeuw. I also looked at the peer revuew by User:Czarking0. Any comments? Thanks ans best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a second attempt. Apart from that, I don't know much about the procedure since GANs are entirely new to me. My guess is that the review process hadn't been formally initiated until now. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine.

Before the article content

 * Optional Short description, parameter birth_date – I would add the lifespan in years as "(1857–1936)" (see WP:SDDATES) and omit the "public" (I see that the article International law mentions the term "public international law" but "public lawyer" does not seem to be widely used).
 * Optional Infobox, parameter undefined – I suggest (but am not very sure about it)
 * Optional Infobox, parameter undefined – Please remove, it has no effect

I believe you do not want the frame around the image.
 * Optional Infobox, parameter image – I would use the template "CSS image crop" to ged rid of the frame; e.g. | image =


 * Optional Infobox, parameter discipline – I would believe the discipline is "law" or "international law" and not "public lawyer". Johannes Schade (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. In the infobox I replaced "public lawyer" (which didn't make any sense) with "public law". Public law comprises international law, constitutional law and administrative law, and these were the disciplines HK investigated and taught. Is the most comprehensive and yet precise indication ("law" is too generic, "international law" too narrow). The template:CSS image crop is amazing, thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox (continued)

 * Optional Infobox, parameter discipline – The lead calls his discipline "public international law" and links it to the article International law. Which one is right? Whatever you choose, link it also in the infobox. Links in the lead, the body, and in each entry in the infobox are considered separate (MOS:REPEATLINK).


 * Optional Infobox, parameter Institutions – Link "Leiden University" (MOS:REPEATLINK)


 * Optional Infobox, parameter Notable ideas – Wikipedia has an article Monism and dialism in international law link the word "monism" to it.

Lead
The lead should probably also mention that Krabbe was a professor at the universities of Groningen and Leiden.


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... (3 February 1857 – 4 February 1936) ... – I know many or most biographies do it so, but please consider also the option to give the years only, i.e. (1857–1936) in the lead and then give the full dates in the body. Besides, as I understand it, you cannot give the dates only in the lead, as you do. With very few exceptions, everything in the lead should summarise more detailed information in the body.


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Hans Kelsen ... – The juxtaposition of the name Hans Kelsen at the end of the 2nd sentence and the beginning of the 3rd sentence is awkward. I would think that most readers never heard before of either Krabbe or Kelsen. I feel that Kelsen should be introduced further down and the immediate repetition of the name should be avoided, but there are obviously also other solutions.


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... identified state and law ... – I would guess you mean "identified the state with its laws" or in other words "identified the state and its laws with each other". I wonder whether there is not a better verb for "identify".

We will probably have to return to the Lead after a first traverse of the text. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this. Two questions:
 * I removed the full dates from the lead. Do you think we should report them in the body of the article or should we rather leave them in the infobox and in the infobox only? It is not an essential piece of information and in order to include it in the body I would have to add a sentence on purpose.
 * Yes I think they should appear in the body. I think they are essential in the Life section, which should go from the cradle to the grave. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that "...identified state and law" is OK. I made a quick research and I can see that the expression is used in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and elsewhere. A viable alternative, however, is "...identified the state with the law", which is used by Stanley L. Paulson (the US authority on Kelsen) here and by others, Finally, also " claim(ed) that the state and the law are identical" is also possible (e.g. Somek here  and others). I opted for Paulson's solution but I am open to suggestions.
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine.

Life

 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Born ... University – The first sentence brings us from his birth to university. in one long sentence. I would break that sentence at least into two. Beyond the length of the sentence, the reason to break it is that in the 2nd sentence to jump back to the time when he already worked while still in highschool. A biography should as far as possible present events in chronological order.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... his diploma ... – "his diploma" sounds very vague. Do you mean his matric?
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. While in collage ... – I believe this is based on Kranenburg (1937b) "terwijl hij reeds als ambtenaar in de practijk der administratie werkzaam was, aan deze Universiteit gepromoveerd", meening that he was employed by the Dutch state (in fact the courts) at a time near the end of his studies before his thesis. The work "college" in English can mean either a highschool or a college as part of a university (see College). So please reformulate this sentence to make this clear that he was studying at the university at the time.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. On 2 July 1883 he obtained his doctorate ... – Peletier tells us that his Ph. D. advisor was Johannes Theodorus Buys. It would be nice to mention him as the Dutch (quite short) and the German (with some more detail) Wikipedias have articles on him.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Krabbe was subsequently ... – The parentheses in this sentence serve purposes that are too disparate. Please try to do without them or at least use them less. You are probably right to give these three Dutch administrative ranks without translation. It seems all three mentioned rank names are now obsolete.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. In 1888, he became ... – Please reformulate to make it clear that his move from Justice to the Department of Home Affairs is more important than the change in the name of his rank. I suspect that the names commies-chef and hoofdcommies mean the same rank, only that Home-Affairs styled it more Dutch and Justice more French. These are low ranks. I would guess his move to Home Affairs was a clever career move with some help from his liberal friends, among which, Professor Buys.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 6th sentence. Under the direction of the minister ... – I feel this should be treated with a bit more detail. The reader must understand that the Dutch democracy at that time was quite plutocratic and elitist, which was not an exeption in Europe at the time. Give a date for when this reform of the electoral system was proposed and finally rejected.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 7th sentence. Partly through Tak van Poortvliet's ... – I suggest to start a new paragraph with the beginning of this sentence as we enter now the subject's university career. With thanks and greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Before the article content – revisited
, not or. However, for the infobox parameter "no_works" use a list, e.g.. With thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask you to add an English-variant choice. I suggest:, but you can of course choose a different one. This template should be inserted between Short description and Use dmy dates.
 * Optional Infobox, parameter undefined – Please remove, it has no effect
 * Optional Infobox, parameter notable works ... – Despite WP:NOBR, the use of the break tag is often difficult to avoid entirely. In Wikipedia always use


 * Sorry, I didn't understand which parameter you'd like me to remove from the Infobox. With regard to "notable works", I used  because I didn't understand how to create a list (some text is missing after your "e.g."). I also used italics for his works - I hope it's an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Life – revisited

 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... and Maria Adriana Machteld Scholten. – I suggest you insert "his wife" before her name as you cite (rightly so) his mother's maiden name in this place.
 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Stedelijk Gymnasium in Leiden – Wikipedia has an article about the school Stedelijk Gymnasium Leiden. I suggest you link to this rather than to Gymnasium (school).
 * Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... De werkkring van den staat ... – The word werkkring "work ring" is difficult to translate. I think your translation comes from the German version of the article, which uses office (besides, in the plural: "Büros"). Krabbe's speech is available at Google Books at https://www.google.com/books?id=uQpWAAAAcAAJ. I had a look and I find that Krabbe's speech focuses on the question of how far the state should intervene and how far it should refrein from action— the "laissez-faire" of the liberal economists—and unsurprisingly answers it with: "as far as the law gdictates it". I therefore think that the German translation is quite misleading. I thought of "The State's Scope of Action", but perhaps you can find better.
 * Optional. 3rd paragraph Krabbe was the teacher ... – The various components of this 3rd paragraph should be moved to where they belong in the chronoloy of the "Life". As already said, a biography goes from the cradle to the grave and that is where it stops. His marriage should also appear in the Life section in its chronological place.

✅

Illustrations
His full portrait, aligned left at present, should appear on the right-hand side of the text so that he looks inside (see MOS:PORTRAIT). In order to equilibrate the page, it would be nice (in my opinion) to find a third picture that could appear on the left side, perhaps showing one of the buildings of the University Leiden? Perhaps you have a better idea.

✅
 * Yes, your image of Leiden University in 1897 is relevant and pritty. Well done.

Life – revisited again
The "Life" section once consisted of three paragraphs but is now one huge continuous piece of text. I believe it should be broken up into several paragraphs again (at least three?). I think this would make this section more readable.

One of these paragraphs could cover his marriage and children. This is a topic that would perhaps merit more detail. His wife's father, Johannes Tavenraat (1809–1881), was a painter of romantic landscapes. The Dutch and the German Wikipedias have articles about him. Krabbe's daughter, Maria Krabbe (1889–1965), became a speech therapist and feminist. She wrote a book "Beelddenken en woordblindheid", "word blindness" being an old term for dyslexia. The Dutch Wikipedia has an article about her.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 4th sentence. ... Ill ... – I suggest to also link to the Dutch article to offer the reader the choice of the language, thus: Johannes Theodorus Buys . Ill can link to more than one language in the same invocation (see Template:Interlanguage link). Strangely enough, the Dutch article had in error been called "Joannes Theodorus Buys". I renamed it to "Johannes Theodorus Buys". Besides I would think that in English His second firstname should be Theodorus and not Theodoor. What do you think?


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 5th sentence. ... of Gelderland and North Holland, – I suggest: "... first of Gelderland and then of North Holland," to make it clearer that these were two successive steps.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 8th sentence. ... that, if approved, would ... – I suggest: "... that, had it been approoved, would ..." to make it clearer, from the beginning that this endeavour failed.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 11th sentence. ... intercession, in 1894 Krabbe was appointed ... – I suggest: "... intercession, Krabbe was in 1894 appointed ..." placement after the auxiliary verb.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, further down. ... Laiden ... – Leiden.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, further down. ... an important constitutional lawyer ... – I suggest simply: "... a constitutional lawyer ..." (encyclopedic style).

✅ Excellent suggestions, thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Main themes revisited

 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Soon before ... – I suggest: "Shortly before ...". Soon is used with future tens or "future in the past".


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... a theory of law and state which was ... – I suggest: "... a theory of law and state that was ...".


 * 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Legal normativity ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I have some difficulties to understand what Legal normativity is. Do you thin a link to the article Normativity would be helpful?

✅. Thanks. As explained in, I replaced legal normativity with "binding force of law}}. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Theoretical and normative background

 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. These two strands of jurisprudence ... – Perhaps better: "Both these strands of jurisprudence ...".


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Gerardus Heymans, who was a personal friend of his ... – I they were friends, why does the article Gerardus Heymans not mention Krabbe? I suggest: "Gerardus Heymans, who was a friend of his while in Groningen ...".


 * Optional. 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. ... and helped him to translate his works ... – I suggest: "and helped him translate some of his publications int German." This almost surely concerns the "Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität", but Kranenburg does not say. Krabbe, indeed states in his preface that a friend, who wants to stay anonymous, has translated the work. It is hard ro believe that a colleague from a different discipline found the time to translate a work of 250 pages, but so they say.

✅

Theory of souverainty and state
This section consists of one huge continuous piece of text. I believe it should be broken up into paragraphs to make it more readable.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 1st sentence. ... Dutch law science ... – Is law a science? Perhaps Dutch jurisprudence?


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... The fact that ... – I think it is Microsoft Word that always tells us we should avoid "the fact that". They are right.


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... two well-established American academics ... – You probably mean "well-known' or "renowned".


 * Optional. Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Krabbe's international acknowledgement ... – You probably mean "standing". Best regatds, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * that's brilliant, Johannes, thank you. It will take me a few days to implement your suggestions. Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. That was excellent, Johannes, thank you. Please note my comments/questions above about citations and bibliography. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Life – revisited 2nd time
Dear Gitz thanks for breaking the Life section up into paragraphs.


 * 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Johannes Theodorus Buys ... – The German link does not work. This is my fault: the article in the German Wikipedia is called "Johannes Theodoor Buys" (not Theodorus). So it should have been Johannes Theodorus Buys.


 * 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. ... Johannes Theodorus Buys (1809-1881), ... – The Ill's label should have been Johannes Tavenraat (not "Theodorus Buys"). The two years in the lifespan should have been separated by a n-dash (not a hyphen), as always in ranges in Wikipedia.


 * 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, citation. .... – The page range is excessive. Please do not make readers or reviewers read through 5 pages if you can point them directly to the right page (see the essay WP:CITATIONUNDERKILL). The passage supporting the statement is entirely on page 155. Your citation should therefore read: . There are probably other citations with excessive ranges that should also be amended.


 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, citation. .... – Access to the source seems to be restricted. This needs to be made explicit in the source description, possible by the use of a parameter like undefined. Besr regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ (for all restricted references, I used the "url-access" parameter) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Life – revisited 2nd time (continued)

 * 3rd paragraph, 2nd 3rd sentence, last citation. .... – Always give full page numbers in ranges, hence "441–442", see MOS:PAGERANGE. This problem might also occur elsewhere. Please fix it everywhere. You should also adopt and observe a fixed order for the parameters of Cite book and the other Cite templates. I suggest to adopt the order given in Template:Cite book in the horizontal and vertical lists of the full parameter sets. Also, date should be used for the publications dates of books. The year is meant for the year of a periodic in Cite journal, as I understand it. In the documentation see "Date" under "Description", which discourages the use of the year, also see "Title and year" under "Examples", where you will see that date is used for the year of publication. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 5th paragraph, 2nd 3rd sentence, 1st citation. .... – The DOI, given in the description of Kiewiet (2018), opens the website of the cited journal, which indeed shows the cited article, but in continous HTML text without facsimile of the printed text and the page numbers are therefore missing. Worldcat calls the Utrecht Journal for European and International Law (ISSN=2053-5341) an "ejournal", it probably does not get printed at all. Eventually most journals might go that way. After some searching around, I found that one can download a PDF from that website that shows the page numbers. It would be helpful for the reader or reviewer to alert them to the availability of this download. Perhaps in form of a comment after the Cite book, e.g. " – Download PDF to find the page" or similar. I use such comments quite often to explain some particularity of a source; see e.g. Charles Vavasour, 1st Baronet, of Killingthorpe. Perhaps you have a better idea how to help the reader. I have encountered similar problems with references for books or journal articles published without page numbers. It sometimes then becomes inpossible to find the relevant passage. I would appreciate your comment. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, @Johannes Schade. I'm not at all sure this would be better, but another option would be to place the text "Download PDF to find the page" after the page number rather than after the reference. Compare
 * (Download PDF to find the page)
 * with
 * perhaps the second one is a bit clearer? I'm not sure. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * perhaps the second one is a bit clearer? I'm not sure. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 5th paragraph, 3rd sentence, 2nd citation. ... – This source does not seem available of the web. How could you read it?


 * It's a second-hand citation from footnote 95 in Kiewiet 2018:
 * Is it OK or should I remove reference and text? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Gitz, This is a case of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which prescribes that second-hand citations should be handled as:


 * "Elzinga (1990), p. 72–73, cited in Kiewiet (2018), p. 67"


 * Unluckily, SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does not tell us how to achieve this. I looked around and your Harv seems to be the best solution (I do not think that SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT intends to prescribe the use of parentheses around the years):




 * I have also tried Sfnm but did not get it right to suppress the semicolon separator as the ps serves to provide the extra text and to suppress the semicolon, but does not seem to be able to do both at the same time.




 * As I understand it, there is no inconsistence between the use of Sfn on one hand and that of on the other hand. The former is just a short for the latter. The long form is more flexible as you say. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder where the #257 comes from as the article starts on page 407.
 * 5th paragraph, 5th sentence, 1st citation. .... – This source is listed under the heading "Writings" in the section "Essays and lectures" and only there. I feel this article should appear twice, once under his works and once in the list of sources. Its URL is given as: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_gid001192701_01/_gid001192701_01_0061.php#257


 * I removed the #257 (it was not necessary) and I tried to create a second reference in "Sources" but this creates a conflict in the template:Sfn. The most I could do is to create a reference that looks simillar to those created by the template:cite journal, e.g. the following one:


 * * Krabbe, Hugo (1927). "Staat en recht". De Gids (in Dutch). 91: 407–418.


 * Can you came up with a better idea? I don't like this reference because imitating the template looks artificial to me and the result is not aesthetically pleasing either. Perhaps if the template:Sfn prevents us from creating duplicated references, we should refrain from doing so? If we can't have duplicated references, then I think it's better to have it in the "Writing" section because the topic of the essay is theoretical rather than biographical (there is only a passing reference to his activity as a teacher). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Gitz6666, you are right, the duplication of the Cite book causes an error. I think the list of works should not use the template. Read MOS:WORKS in detail and look up some of the examples cited. This also allows to omit the "Hugo Krabbe". Best rehards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've renamed the section "Other quoted sources" to clarify the subject of the bibliography. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've renamed the section "Other quoted sources" to clarify the subject of the bibliography. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 5th paragraph, 5th sentence, 2nd citation. .... – This is an article of the Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland. The argument of the first should be spaced "W. M." not "W.M.", see MOS:INITIALS.

✅

Main themes – revisited

 * 1st paragraph, end, citations. ... [17][18][19][20] – What needs to be supported at the end of this introductory paragraph is where the summary of Krabbe's thought in 5 themes comes from. Unless this is found in more than one source, a single citation should suffice. - or did you invent these 5 points?
 * Yes, I invented the 5 points, meaning that no RS says "Some of its main ideas can be summarised in these five points". However, based on the sources [17][18][19][20] I summarised the main ideas that the sources attribute to Krabbe. Perhaps I could have avoided the reference to [17][18][19][20] as each point has its own specific references, but I thought it was useful because [17][18][19][20] are the sources you should look to if you want to have an introduction to Krabbe's work (i.e., they don't deal with the biography, but with the ideas). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 2nd paragraph, end, 2nd citation. .... – This citation refers to the source description under "Writings". But this source should also be listed under "Sources". Please remove the useless "mode/2up/" at the end of the URL here and elsewhere wherever it occurs.


 * Re listing the source under "Sources", see my question and observation here above following your "I wonder where the #257 comes from". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

✅
 * 3rd paragraph, end, 2nd citation. .... – his refers to all the 6 pages of Stella, This range is probably excessive.

Theoretical and normative background – revisited
Headings should always be preceded by an empty line.


 * Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. The translation ... – Expand to: "The English translation ...".

✅
 * Only paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... and professor od political science ... – Expand to: "... and the professor of political science ...".

Theory of sovereignty and State – revisited
The capialisation of the heading should probably be "Theory of sovereignty and state". I do not think there is a good reason to uppercase "State".


 * 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... ... – It looks to me as if this is not a citation that support some content in the text before it but some additional statement. I feel it should be brought up to the same level as the text around it in this pargraph. Otherwise, it could be an undefined. Efns open a second more technical or critical level of reading. Quotations must be supported by citations. I do not know what is supported by ; the source does not seem to be available on the web. In addition it is in Italian, which most readers can probably not understand. Is it essential or could it be replaced by another source?

✅


 * Stella 2013 mentions "supranational law". I've done what you suggested and I think it's an improvement - thank you again. However, to do so I had to make a few changes to the whole paragraph, so please have a look again and check if everything is OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Gitz, well done but I would suggest "milestones on the road " (paths seldom have milestones) and "culture rather than power". Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Writings
✅
 * See MOS:WORKS which recommends "Works" or "Publications" as title for the list of writings. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Gitz, in the descriptions of his works, I believe, titles should not be linked to the URL of the online reference but to possibly existing Wikipedia articles about the book. See the section "Bibliography" in the article Isaak Azimov (an FA), which is given as an example in MOS:WORKS (even if the heading "Bibliography" is not recommended). I must admit  there are articles in Wikipedia that do it as you do. Like you I found a link to a source on the Internet is essential. I found Samuel Rawson Gardiner as an example, but it is only rated C-Class. Perhaps you can find a better example. I think all the entries under Works should follow the same chosen pattern (and not use Cite Book). Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe external links are very useful and, in a way, they are the showpiece of the article. This article is not only the richest source of information on Krabbe ever published online or in print, but it is also a repository of links to the online editions of his works. Providing this kind of links is a best practice that, if generally followed, would make Wikipedia articles useful for researchers and experts in the field: finding this kind of information is relatively easy, but time consuming. I’d be happy to remove the link from the title, but we need to find an alternative solution, so that the links are not lost. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Gitz, I do of course agree with you. The link to the full text on the Internet is essential. I have spent some more time looking for good examples and have not had much success. I saw John Neal (writer) (FA), Honoré de Balzac (FA), J. D. Salinger (GA), and F. Scott Fitzgerald (GA). In the first, the link to the text is labelled "full text", the others abuse the citation footnote for this purpose. I still maintain that the way it was done in Samuel Rawson Gardiner is the best I can find. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gitz, we are getting very near now. You citation [50] is rather a comment or explanation. I would make it an Efn and cite Canihac with an Sfn inside it. The Citation [53] throws an error "Harv error: link from CITREFKrabbe1919 does not point to any citation". I think that means you need to add a Cite book for Krabbe (1919). I think this is all. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've created two explanatory footnotes, but to be honest I'm not fully convinced: they don't explain anything, they just add a bit of information which, being tangential if not irrelevant, could not be included in the body of the article; however, the Efn makes them very visible and draws the reader's attention to something that is, indeed, tangential if not irrelevant. In this case, having only one type of footnotes seems preferable to me, but I might be wrong and on this I rely on your judgment (compare with these two articles of mine in the Italian Wikipedia, where I used explanatory notes with no regrets: it:Gregor Brück and it:Discorsi a tavola). Anyway, I couldn't replace Harvnb with Sfn because if I use Sfn within Efn I get a footnote instead of a reference.
 * Thank you also for pointing out CITREFKrabbe1919. I've also removed three sources that weren't quoted in the article: a few days ago I installed User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js which shows you these unused references as errors; I don't know if they are truly "errors" or possibly useful information for the reader, but after installing that tool I can't ignore them and must remove them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Gitz. I would think the difference between "explanatory" footnotes and citation footnotes is quite clear in most cases. The word "explanatory" is to be taken in the largest sense: a comment, clarification, historiographical remark, any statement written by the wikipedians in a note. The citation footnote typically is just a reference to something written elsewhere but may of course include a quote (I tend to use this a lot).


 * The explanatory note should use Efn and will, as it is written by a mere wikipedian, often need to be supported by a citation, typically in form of an Sfn. The writer decides what should go into a note rather than the main text. The writer also decides what is irrelevant and will simply be omitted and left to the reader to think. The article Frederick the Great has 6 explanatory notes called "Information notes". They are all supported by citations. Also see Help:Explanatory notes


 * The second-hand citation is a special case of the citation where we cannot use Sfn. I still think that your Note [51] should become an Efn. Best regard, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Johannes, two questions:
 * You say I still think that your Note [51] should become an Efn, but you didn't mention Note [51] before - you mentioned Note [53], which is now Efn [b]. Would you like also Note [51] to become en Efn? To me Note [51] (Schmitt 2005, p. 24. Schmitt is quoting from Krabbe 1919, p. 39.) looks purely bibliographical: it supports the statement in the text (as Carl Schmitt noted in 1922, Krabbe did not subscribe to the neo-Kantian epistemological and methodological assumptions of Kelsen, and was rather engaged in a sociological investigation...) and clarifies that that the quotation made by Schmitt from Krabbe ("[w]e no longer live under the authority of persons...") is taken from Krabbe 1919, p. 39.
 * I think I just reacted to how odd it looks on the list of citations. I see "Schmitt is quoting from Krabbe 1919, p. 39" as a comment of yours upon what Schmitt wrote. This comment explains that Schmitt cites Krabbe which otherwise would not be clear to the reader. You could of course also move this sentence into the main text by saying "where Krabbe says and is cited for it by Schmitt 'we no longer live ...'[citation]"
 * Re Sfn vs Harvnb in the Efn. If I use Sfn, I get this: If I use Harvnb, I get this:
 * I very much prefer the second: it's simpler and more accessible; moreover, it immediately makes it clear that Canihac is a source; finally, it supports the text in the body These ... ideas [were] typical of the interwar "peace-through-law movement". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Gitz, I tend to agree with you, but as I understand it Wikipedia prescribes otherwise. See WP:CITE on in-text attribution. WP:INTEXT insists that the indirect or direct speech attributed must be followed by an inline citation. Read and form your own opinion. See the examples given. See the remark in WP:INTEXT "It is preferable not to clutter ...". I think that pertains to mentioning Canihac in the text of the note. Just say "The 'peace through law movement' was advocated by ... [citation]" or something of that sort. You will know better than me how to formulate this. I feel one should avoid to mention the authors of the sources, surely so in the main text and perhaps at a lesser degree in the notes, unless there are good reasons to do so (as with Schmitt above). See also how User:Wtfiv strictly observes these rules in Frederick the Great, but then uses Harvnb in the way you propose to do in his/her more recent FA Joan of Arc. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Johannes, for this explanation. I see your point, and you're right, obviously, but I think that the solution adopted in "Joan of Arc" here is preferible for the following reason. The Efn sentence the "peace-through-law movement" was also advocated by Walther Schücking, Hans Wehberg [de], Erich Kaufmann [de], Max Huber and Alfred Verdross [de] + fn leading to Canhihac 2019 is not satisfactory because Canhihac's list is seriously incomplete. One should add at the very least Hans Kelsen and others, like William Howard Taft and the founders of the French Association de la paix par le droit, such as Frédéric Passy. Mentioning Alfred Verdross (who was a Nazi sympathiser) and omitting Kelsen and Passy doesn't make any sense. I could provide sources on the "peace-through-law movement" to complete Canhihac's list but unfortuntately they do not mention Krabbe, so we would be in the WP:SYNTH territory. However, what is now in the article is fully verifiable and informative: These cosmopolitan and progressive ideas, typical of the interwar "peace-through-law movement"... + Efn leading to Canihac 2019, p. 721, who also mentions Walther Schücking, Hans Wehberg [de], Erich Kaufmann [de], Max Huber and Alfred Verdross [de] as advocates of "peace-through-law movement" (obviously Canihac also mentions Krabbe). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have promoted. Thanks for your amazing collaboration and patience. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)