Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger/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 10:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant expansion and improvement via GAN and MILHIST ACR in the last couple of months, and I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment

Probably because I've just read the other FAC on an SS division, I'm a bit surprised at how short this article is. Is there a lack of detailed sources for the unit? There are some somewhat large leaps in its story, particularly in the expansion section. Ranger Steve  Talk  21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, all the details available from the listed sources are included. Kaltenegger is the most detailed source available, to my knowledge. Given it was a battalion or brigade for most of its existence, it is probably not all that surprising that there is not a huge amount of detail regarding its operations as a division, and of course, that goes double for the periods when it was a smaller unit/formation. This is the fourth SS Mountain division article I have brought to FAC, and I have been conscious of its length when compared to the other articles (13th, 21st, 23rd), but we can only include the detail that is available. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Images are both fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments: This looks like a great article, and I have the following things to say.
 * In the infobox, 1944–1945 should be changed to 1944–45 per MOS:YEAR.
 * Done.
 * Throughout the article, "Waffen-SS" is written as "Waffen-SS". Why is this?
 * MOS:FOREIGN states that non-loanwords are italicised as foreign words not yet in everyday use in non-specialized English. There was no consensus when discuss at MILHIST Talk, so I have applied the suggested MOS rule of thumb (using the Merriam-Webster dictionary), which does not list Waffen, but does list SS. Thus Waffen is italicised and SS is not.
 * Are "anti-partisan duties" and Anti-partisan operations the same thing? If so, they should be linked at first mentioned in the article.
 * In the infobox, "anti-partisan operations" is written as "anti-Partisan operations", with the "P" in "Partisan" being capitalized. In other parts of the article, the "P" is not capitalized. The article should be consistent in its presentation of this term.
 * Fixed.
 * German language is overlinked.
 * Because it is a template and is needed for accessibility reasons, I believe this is ok.

Otherwise, the article looks good. Great work! 23 editor (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, 23!

Comments
 * Is there a reason as to why the division only reached half of its intended size?
 * Am reviewing the sources to see if it is mentioned. Likely due to the war going so poorly for the Germans, but I'll report back once I've checked.
 * Any updates? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've added some clarification. The source uses words to the effect that it "proved impossible" to recruit up to its authorised strength. Kaltenegger doesn't say why it "proved impossible", unfortunately. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are the ranks under "Commanders" not italicized while the others throughout the article are? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks.
 * Support -- Although the article is quite short, I have no objections to an FA promotion. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support by MisterBee1966
 * You wrote "In mid-1942, the Waffen-SS formed a company intended for anti-partisan operations in the rugged and high-altitude border region between Italy, Austria and Yugoslavia known as the Karst". The name "Karst", to my knowledge, denotes a geological formation (which can be found in many places) and is not a particular region between Italy, Austria and Yugoslavia. Hans Brandt, a doctor in geology, was a "Karst" researcher. Please clarify. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, "karst topography" got its name from the German word for this region, per this. It is also referred to as the "Karst Plateau", but "Karst" with a capital is also used widely. Not sure what you want me to clarify? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what I want is a better explanation of the namesake. Maybe linking to Karst Plateau would work better. You have it linked in the lead but when trying to understand the namesake it confused me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, copy. Will do. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To improve explanation of the namesake Karstjäger further may I suggest adding a sentence like: "The name Karstjäger was derived from the concatenation of Karst, denoting the region of operations, and Jäger, the German military term for light infantry." Just a suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion. Added. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Since you tell us how many battalions are in the artillery regiment, add how many are in the Gebirgsjäger Regiments.
 * Done.
 * I believe that there's a new book out on the division in Italian if you can read that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll be on the look out for it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it's in French, ISBN 2840482568. I'm troubled by the lack of info on this unit's combat operations. I understand that this is a very obscure unit, for which material isn't readily available, but for FA I'd need to see something detailing what it did in combat. The 21st Division article at least gave me a sense of that. I'm not going to oppose, but I don't think that this article meets the criteria for completeness.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is in both languages, although one version appears to have two authors. I have some concerns about the scholarly credentials of the author(s) and [publisher on that one. The publishers appear to be "memoirs" publishers, and I can't find the book cited in Google Scholar. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] (send... over) 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I managed to find a bit more in Kaltenegger in relation to battalion-level operations, and have added that. Here is the additional material. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better, although I think that your qualms over the book are mistaken. There aren't very many academics doing research on Waffen-SS units, so I'm not at all surprised that neither author is an academic nor the book cited in Google Scholar. So I don't really think that either is a strike against them. And Heimdal is a major French military history publisher, I have a couple of their books myself, although they do tend to publish more illustrated books as those sell better than textual material. The same could be said of Schiffer in the US, but still they published solid books on the 13th and 14th Waffen-SS divisions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Image check: All images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Spot checks: I was able to check the sources for citations 3a, 6, 8, and 18a, and every time I found the statement fully supported by the source, with no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. (But I think you meant page 4 for ref 18a, not page 5.) – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment -- just a format/structure thingie but the second para under Origin and the sole para under Expansion are pretty long, especially the former; suggest you split... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 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.