Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg (1st Albanian)

 * Nominator(s): and 23 editor (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because it has undergone both a GAN and MILHIST A-Class review in the past several months and we believe it meets FA criteria. We are available to respond to and address all positive criticism and objections. Thank you, 23 editor (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Provisional Support

This is a great little article about what was clearly a chaotic formation. I think it's very well written and put together and will easily meet FA with a few little tweaks. I'd like to see some clarification on a few points, but I'll list them tomorrow (I'm typing this on an iPad and it isn't easy!). Nice work. Ranger Steve  Talk  20:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise, time has not been on my side lately, and I'm about to go away for 2 weeks without internet access. My support stiull stands, my issues are merely language/understanding clarifications and not anything serious. If this is still open when I get back, I'll add them here. Ranger Steve   Talk  10:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * How are you ordering books by the same author in References?
 * Hi Nikki, chronologically, have fixed the errant Bishop one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in when you provide states/countries for publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Went through and made them all either loc, state or loc, country. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Images appropriately licensed.
 * Unless you mean two different people, I think that "was" should be used here: A Wehrmacht plenipotentiary general, and a special representative of Heinrich Himmler, SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS und Polizei Josef Fitzthum, were based in the Albanian capital of Tirana
 * two people, I have clarified.


 * So the Balli Kombëtar were formed by the Italians? I think a sentence of explanation as to how they differed from the police and army is in order to orient the reader.
 * done.


 * The formation section seems to contradict itself by talking about the difficulties in recruiting Kosovar Albanians, so Himmler want to expand the pool of available manpower, but then says that the bulk of the recruits were Kosovars.
 * It was confusing, it was really about the difficulties the Partisans were having recruiting the Kosovars, not a difficulty the Germans were having. Thanks.


 * Probably ought to add the Sturmgeschütz Abt. to the order of battle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nafziger doesn't mention an assault gun battalion on the ORBAT, but there clearly was one in the Kampfgruppe. I can only assume the assault gun battalion was added (possibly from corps or army troops) after the division was officially disbanded.
 * I'm not sure exactly where it came from as information is scanty. Just a point of advice, Nafziger isn't the most reliable and should be checked against other sources whenever possible. Georg Tessin's Truppen und Verbände der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS (in 15 volumes) is probably the most reliable general source on German units barring individual unit histories.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nafziger lists Tessin and the other key ORBAT source, Mueller-Hillebrand, Das Heer l933-l945, l956 Vol I &II, Verband der Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS l939-l945 as its sources, so I'm pretty relaxed about this particular Nafziger ORBAT. Not to say there isn't any transcription errors, but there is no mention of the assault gun battalion until after the division was disbanded. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Great! Thanks for the comments. 23 editor (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "were encouraged to open Albanian language schools, something that had been banned by the Yugoslav government": If you're saying that Albanian language schools had been banned, then it's better to say that: "were encouraged to open Albanian language schools, which had been banned by the Yugoslav government"
 * Done.
 * "Kosovo Albanians then sought retribution against Kosovo Serbs as they were angered by the presence of Serb and Montenegrin settlers in the region and by the oppression that Albanians had experienced at the hands of the Serbs during the Balkan Wars, the First World War, and while the area was part of Yugoslavia." Garner's and other style guides recommend against "as" here since it could be read as something like "when". Also, the last bit is a nonparallel series. One possibility: "Kosovo Albanians then sought retribution against Kosovo Serbs for Serbian settlement in the region and for the oppression that Albanians had experienced at the hands of the Serbs during the Balkan Wars and the First World War, and under Yugoslav rule."
 * Done.
 * "neighbors": neighbours
 * Done.
 * "Himmler saw the Muslim Albanians as a potential source of manpower in Germany's war against the Yugoslav Partisans, due to the difficulties experienced by the Partisans in recruiting Kosovo Albanians to join their ranks.": I sympathize; this use of "due to" is common in both journalistic and scholarly writing. I'm not a linguistic purist, but I hope that WP:Checklist will give you an idea of some of the rat's nest of problems that arise from cause-and-effect words. And there are plenty of other misuses ... these terms sometimes obscure the fact that the text is verbose, vague, deceptive, redundant, or intellectually lazy, and sometimes all five. I find it's a useful rule of thumb in my own writing to omit any of those terms when I can do so without loss of clarity ... and doing so gives a gain of clarity, more often than not. Likewise, later on, instead of "which resulted in numerous atrocities. As a result, the Germans had to disarm ...", I recommend "and committed numerous atrocities. The Germans had to disarm ...". Instead of "many Albanians deserted, with some of the desertions resulting from attacks by Serb Partisans on areas northeast of Gusinje. As a result, Army Group E claimed that the division had ...", go with: "many Albanians deserted, some after Serb Partisan attacks on areas northeast of Gusinje. Army Group E claimed that desertions showed that the division had" [if it's accurate that the claim was attributed specifically to the desertions].
 * These specific ones are done, will look through for more. Thanks.
 * "The Germans found that Kosovo Albanians were more cooperative than Albanians in Albania itself, mainly because they feared a return to Yugoslav rule. Consequently, many of the division's recruits were Albanians from Kosovo.": Same here ... you have two cause-and-effect words ("because" and "consequently"), and you don't need either of them: "Germans divisions recruited more Albanians [is this right? I don't know how many "many" is] from Kosovo than from Albania itself, finding ..."
 * Done.
 * "Most, or all": Most or all. ("Most, or all ..." means something different.)
 * Done.
 * "3,000–25,000 Kosovo Albanians": Don't start sentences with numerals, per WP:NUMERAL.
 * Done.
 * "reorganized": The "Oxford -ize" is fine in BritEng if you're consistent ... you are, in this article.
 * One of the outcomes of collaboration on articles... We'll leave it as is I think.
 * "this claim has been refuted": When I read this, I usually wonder who believes the claim has been refuted ... if that's the consensus of historians, that's fine, but if it's you, that's OR.
 * I think the most accurate description is "challenged", rather than "refuted". The claim may be a bit fringish, but I think "refuted" is too strong. Changed to "challenged".
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Generally fine writing, and you guys do a good job taking reviewer comments on board. - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. All of the above are now done. Will look for any remaining cause and effect issues. Always get something out of your prose (and other) comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks PM. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Thanks to 23 editor's notification on a related project's talk page, I learned about this FA candidate and read a very interesting article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. I have two observations:
 * ... and was intended to protect ethnic Albania but remain under German control. I suppose "ethnic Albania" (?) was inadvertently typed instead of "ethnic Albanians".
 * ... requested the expansion of the borders of the puppet state of Albania. Maybe (I leave to the nominators) it could be stated here that the requested expansion was at the expense of Serbia and Montenegro. Vladimir  (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Vladimir. Thanks for reviewing the article. In response to your observations, 1) "ethnic Albania" is another way of saying "Greater Albania" 2) Good point, I'll add at whose expense the territorial expansion was. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't do #2 because the source doesn't say the expansion would have been at the expense of Serbia and Montenegro (it could have been at the expense of Macedonia, too; besides, these regions were all part of Yugoslavia anyway). 23 editor (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement #2 is followed by ref 11, "Tomasevich 2001, p. 153", which says: He also asked for the rectification of existing Albanian borders with Serbia and Montenegro. Vladimir  (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) ✅

Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.