Talk:Trial of Erich von Manstein/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that this article requires additional work. The Defence section is all too brief, with only broad-stroke summations (compared to very detailed accusations under Trial and Prosectution). Were certain charges absolutely refuted on the facts, or just on general grounds related to operational responsibilty? Shouldn't there be (at least) a separate Judgment section, where the Court's findings are detailed in the same manner and length as the Trial section? There should also be a more detailed explanation of Churchill's position in this. Why was he moved to not only lobby on behalf of von Manstein, but to also contribute to his defense? How did the "conduct of the trial" result in partial responsibility "for creating the legend of a "clean" Wehrmacht"? It sounds like they threw the book at von Manstein...and the Wehrmacht, with charge after charge of terrible and criminal deeds. Did the prosecution botch the case? Did von Manstein mount an overwhelmingly superior defense? Were the accusations simply proven to be untrue or manufactured by the Soviets? In my opinion, too many loose ends to rate this as GA.  Gulbenk  (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added some more material to the defence section and added some material on Collingwood's summation. Material on Churchill's involvement is already covered: He believed prosecuting German generals would interfere with the reconciliation process with West Germany. Some of your questions will have to remain unanswered, as the available sources do not cover these points. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa for that information, and for your work on this article. As it stands, this is an unbalanced article with structural flaws, written with a seemingly naive understanding of the terminology and procedure (which are both foreign to some of us, and distant in time). Somewhere, there must be a detailed recitation of the Court's findings, listing the rationale (point-by-point) for their verdict (just as there was a point-by-point recitation of the charges). If that is not included, we are left with a mystery and a very prejudicial view of the proceedings. Prosecution arguments should be given roughly the same weight as the defense (defence in the UK). The verdict should be roughly the same form and length as the charges. One can get away with less, certainly, but the end product is an okay article, not a Good Article. Gulbenk (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checking in on the status of this review as it has been nearly a month since it has been touched. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still interested in proceeding, whenever Sturmvogel has the time. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd completely forgotten about this. I'll look it over momentarily. Gulbenk, you make some good points, but everything depends on the coverage available in the sources. Barring somebody actually reproducing the text of the verdict, we probably won't have the ability to balance things in the manner that you'd prefer. But that's more of an issue for a hypothetical ACR or FAC than GA where the article has to only reasonably completely cover the subject.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
 * External links good, image appropriately licensed.
 * Is there a post-war picture of him available?
 * There are a couple of overlinks that need to be gotten rid of.
 * Two of the three modern biographies of Manstein have been referenced, but what of Stein's Janus Head? I have this and it has a pretty significant amount of coverage of the charges and the defense. I'm no hurry to close this and I think that this is a pretty key source for this article so I'm willing to wait while you get a copy.
 * Add links to the trial records to a further reading or external links section.
 * Probably should change the introductory sentence to read a commander in the Heer, not of the Wehrmacht, which was the umbrella term for all of the German armed services except the SS. That's all I see on a first pass, I'll try to do another before the end of the month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead with the suggested changes. Regarding photos, we have 12 Bundesarchiv photos on the Commons but all of them date from WWII. I am not in a position to buy the suggested book, which would be $40 Canadian for a used copy and $70 for a new copy. It's not available on inter-library loan. If you think it's critical for this article, I will withdraw the nomination and let someone else tackle it, someone who already owns the book. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a shame because the book has a couple of hundred pages of material on the trial, including excerpts from the trial transcripts. Otherwise I'd have just copied the material from my copy and sent them to you. So you should probably go ahead and withdraw the nom then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Thanks very much for your help. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For clarification I must mention that I at the 25 July 2014 made a request for a Good Reading review. I've never done so before, and hence I turned myself to an (other) administrator. It was very clumsy done, by not knowing that it already had been rewied once before. Not that long time ago. It was especially stupid of me since I had used its talk-page. I'm not quite aware of how it came on Yor desk, Sturmvogel. But I strongly want to point out that I feel guilty for Diannaa and other contributers. Of cource more time should have passed prior of a new review. My request was made with the best intension. I even thought that since I have had long discussions with Diannaa regarding the Erich von Manstein article, that I ought to be suitable in order to make such a request, due to impartiality (given our long previous discussion). I of course also believed the article to be of good reading status. I still think that, if comparing with quite a few good reading articles. I'm not arguing anything about the outcome of the review, but I'm truely sorry for my clumsyness in this matter. Boeing720 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)