Talk:Rommel myth/GA2

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

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments
Firstly, this is a fine and well-researched article, decently structured and referenced.


 * The article text names several books, journals and films explicitly (rather than just in references). I think this is only necessary when the work is itself notable, in which case its date should also be give in the article text. More minor works should not be named explicitly. For example, " Peter Lieb concludes in an article published in the German journal Contemporary History Quarterly (de): Rommel' 'did not play...'" should I think read "Peter Lieb concludes that Rommel 'did not play...'". If you agree with this approach then we should make sure that we have only major, named and dated works in the text, all the others being confined to references.
 * Agreed. I corrected a few instances of this; if some remain, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is strikingly little illustrated for its length. Given the strength of the myth and the fame of the hero-subject, this seems to justify fixing by adding more images. I appreciate that there is a need to maintain neutrality, but given that we are discussing a myth, we should show what the myth consisted of. There are some photographs on Commons, including File:Erwin Rommel 1.jpg. I think we need also to show something of the propaganda (actual newspaper headlines, perhaps, in facsimile) and posthumous mythic images (film posters, book covers) to define the myth visually. These can be accompanied by explanatory captions which will help to disarm the images if need be. Key figures with a controversial aspect, like Liddell Hart and Irving, might well be pictured also.
 * I've added photos -- does this work? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you.


 * Where a book or film is the subject of a whole section of the article, I suggest we should have a "main article" link to it. This would for instance be appropriate for Rommel: The Desert Fox and The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel.
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not quite clear what language variant is being used. It seems mainly (and very reasonably, given the topic) to be educated European English (not quite the same as British, I observe, but not American either), in which case I'd suggest we use "film" rather than "movie", "cinema" rather than "movie theatre", and indeed "theatre [of war]" rather than "theater". Currently the language is not consistent. I expect there are other instances that deserve similar treatment.
 * Corrected; if more instances remain, please let me know. The original intent was British English, so I changed "recognized" to "recognised" etc as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

 * "Many historians conclude that Rommel remains ..." It would be good to name a few of them, as "Historians including Jones, Smith, and Robinson conclude...".
 * Based on the sources in the article, almost all contemporary commentators paint Rommel in the shades of gray, so I just removed "many". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Etymology' appears to be a misnomer for the first section, which might better be called 'Terminology' or something of that sort. An etymology would derive the name from Sanskrit or Proto-Indo-European via Old Gothic.
 * Done.


 * "arguably one of Germany's least strategically important theaters of World War II" - how many were there? I suggest simply "arguably Germany's least strategically important theater of World War II".
 * Done.


 * The 'Contradictions and ambiguities' section is the weakest part of the article, its title suggestive of a ragbag. Since the entire article is about the complexities of a myth, I think we should aim to move each paragraph of this section into an appropriate part of the article, creating additional sharply focused subsections if need be.
 * Agreed. I relocated some of the content elsewhere, and renamed the section: "Historiography and continued debate". It would also seem that two last paragraphs from "Terminology" could be moved there as well. The extensive Terminology section makes the article "top heavy" of sorts, as it pre-supposes certain knowledge of the topic. I feel that the last two para would be better at the end. I would like additional input on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done -- thanks for the feedback! K.e.coffman (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's far sharper. I've trimmed the section heading for the same reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Liddell Hart drew comparisons between Rommel and Lawrence of Arabia, "two masters of desert warfare", according to Liddel Hart." Please remove the last four words.
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "enthusiastic, with the book going through eight editions". Better would be "enthusiastic: the book went through eight editions".
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "boosting his [Speidel's] suitability". Why not just say "boosting Speidel's suitability".
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An image of the cover of Infanterie greift an ("Infantry Attacks") should accompany the text; and the German title should be given in the text, with the English translation in parentheses after it.
 * Done re: copy. The linked article does not provide an image, and I don't think it's a big deal to omit it, as the section is quite short. Please let me know if it would be essential to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine.


 * The German title Sieg im Westen should similarly precede "(Victory in the West)".
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Peter Caddick-Adams describes Rommel as "representative of a clean Wehrmacht, so we have authority to describe the Rommel myth as part of the wider Clean Wehrmacht myth, and should do so in the main text (and in the lead), rather than confining it to "See also". Incidentally that article has a useful illustration which would fit well here.
 * Question: the image in Clean Wehrmacht is that of a neo-Nazi demonstration. I think it would be somewhat off-topic to include it, as neo-Nazis tend to gravitate towards the Waffen-SS rather than Rommel. Please clarify. Separately, I've integrated Clean Werhmacht better, as several authors make the connection. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good solution.


 * When briefly discussing the Clean Wehrmacht and how the Rommel myth fits within it, you might usefully link to Nazism and the Wehrmacht.
 * Good suggestion, I added it to the appropriate section as "See also|Nazism and the Wehrmacht". Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There are embedded redlinks for articles that exist on German Wikipedia. One or two like "Thomas Vogel (Historiker)" have titles that do not work in English. Please find a way to replace these with plausibly English article titles.
 * Thomas Vogel is taken up by two footballers, so if an article is created in en Wiki, it needs to be Thomas Vogel (historian). I changed the red link to this; if this is still problematic, I can remove the inter-language link. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats' fine for GA. Of course it would be great if there were English Wiki stubs for the redlinked authors!


 * Some terms and names do need wikilinking, even if they are familiar enough to historians: blitzkrieg, Goebbels, Guderian among others. Please do a check.
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Rommel Myth Debunked" is discussed twice. Maybe this can be tidied up.
 * The purpose of the 1st mention is to indicate that the "Rommel myth" terminology is not a recent invention. I revised; please have a look at the changes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tweaked the second one slightly, hope that works for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works well, thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "an article published in the German journal Contemporary History Quarterly" - do we need this much detail in the main text?
 * Removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "who states that generals showing their pride is normal" might be better as "who states that it is normal for generals to show their pride".
 * Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Concluding remarks
This was a fascinating article to review, with sensitive handling of a difficult topic. I believe the article is sharper for the review, and that it is now more than worthy of GA status. I hope this will be a useful preparation for FAC; I'd still advise you to give it a thorough polish, and to run it through a peer review before you attempt that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thorough and efficient review. Much credit also goes to for providing the German-language sources and perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)