Talk:Myth of the clean Wehrmacht/GA1

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note=User:Szzuk is nominator. User:Jack90s15 and User:K.e.coffman are co-nominators. Article creator is User:Kudpung.

Comment: For my good friend Szzuk. Will start reviewing soon, looks a long one.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Very well written. Lead was a bit long and unfocused - see MOS:LEAD 'It gives the basics in a nutshell', 'the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs' and ' a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway'. But I found it good enough so as not to give a fail.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Well referenced by a number of reliable books
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images were used appropriately, for the most part i.e. the image of the saluting Wehrmacht soldiers was slightly irrelevant. A bit of work and it should be fine in no time.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written and sourced. Well done, a lot of time and effort has clearly been put into this.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written and sourced. Well done, a lot of time and effort has clearly been put into this.

General notes from reviewer
Some notes for me to look at, don't think these are my final thoughts - just some stuff to look over.
 * Date in introduction of International Military Tribunal Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Comma 'In 1950...' Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Wikilink for West GermanySymbol confirmed.svg
 * The whole of Germany's rearmament or just West Germany? Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'Foreign public opinion must be transformed' (to what from what?) Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Wikilink for Nazis Symbol confirmed.svg
 * The myth began to grow - When? Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Wikilink for 'et al'  Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'In actuality there was no difference between the leaders of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi Party on how the war should be conducted' - I find that hard to believe. Symbol confirmed.svg [Clarified]
 * "subhuman" - punctuation should be outside of wikilink Symbol confirmed.svg In the lead I changed "sub-human" to "subhuman", I think that is correct
 * 'The war of annihilation threatened the Soviet state and the extermination of the civilian population' - is this sentence really needed? Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Wikilink for 'Einsatzgruppen' in top imageSymbol confirmed.svg
 * Comma in list at start of 'Crimes in Poland, Serbia, Greece, USSR' section should be removed Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'The armies behaviour in Poland' - apostrophe needed? Symbol confirmed.svg
 * ' Author Ursula Schele estimated that that up to ten million women in the Soviet Union could have been raped by the Wehrmacht and one in ten of those could have become pregnant' - what does this mean? I fixed it to acknowledge how it was from the mass rape Jack90s15 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'History' section to be changed to 'Background'?Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Wikilinks for 'join the European Defence Council and NATO.' I think this should be "European Defence Community or just the defence of europe. Can someone check or I will delete it. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'During the war Foertsch had worked' comma needed Symbol confirmed.svg
 * '...demands for German re-armament to begin.' should re-armament all be one word.Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'The myth began its formation shortly after the war at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg' - clarification needed, the war wasn't there. Symbol confirmed.svg

Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging . Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

More comments:
 * 'They blame the Soviet Union for signing a non-aggression pact with Germany' Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - is this the pact? Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Operation Barbarossa needs wikilink Symbol confirmed.svg
 * 'Russell said he was a hero' -> 'Russell said Manstein was a hero'? Symbol confirmed.svg

(Note to Willbb234 and Szzuk: I have just moved the "General notes from reviewer" section from the article talk section to this review page; all review comments should be placed on this page. Also, review pages should only have a single level-2 section header, so this is now a level-3 subsection. Thanks!) —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Szzuk (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

for that picture its showing how the high command of the Wehrmacht was rooted in NazismJack90s15 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)