Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adele Spitzeder/archive1

Adele Spitzeder

 * Nominator(s): So  Why  06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prolific German swindlers who pioneered the Ponzi scheme before Charles Ponzi was even born. The article received GA status in April and underwent peer review with much help from and, the latter agreeing to be my mentor for this nomination as well. This is my first FAC, so please excuse any mistakes I might make. Regards  So  Why  06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the mass ping but I made some major expansions to the "public image" section after you supported. Would you mind reviewing those as well? Regards So  Why  07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A couple of minor tweaks, but the additions work well, and the section is up to scratch. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08
Passing comment, might want to work on your p and pp's in your citations. A p is used for a single page, pp is used for multiple pages. An endash is used in lieu of a hyphen when denoting a page range as well. Not sure I'll do a whole review, but wanted to point this out.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't realize sfn supported pp. Regards So  Why  07:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review
ALT text is OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * File:Adele Spitzeder - Die Gartenlaube.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Adele Spitzeder - Harper's Weekly.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Adele Spitzeder Karikatur Volksküche.jpg: Use seem fine, where does the date come from?
 * File:Grab-Anna-Schmid-Friedrich-Schmid-Anna-Schmid-Alter-Suedl-Friedhof-Muenchen-GF-18-14-26.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.


 * Wrt File:Adele Spitzeder Karikatur Volksküche.jpg, the source does not specify a date but since it depicts something that has to have happened during Spitzeder's banking days and those were from 1869 to 1872, the publication must have happened in that period. Regards So  Why  09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked the source "Nebel" and it says "Ende September 1872" (End of September 1872) on p. 91. Changed it accordingly. Regards So  Why  18:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added another image. Would you mind checking it as well? Also, I'm happy to improve the ALT texts if necessary. Regards So  Why  15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Dank

 * Very happy to see you here, SoWhy! My understanding is that articles can't pass FAC if they rely on Interlanguage link ... my information may be out of date, I'd be happy to discuss it at WT:FAC if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Define "rely" ;) - A ill link is helpful compared to no link. I recommended in the peer review to write at least stubs, for a nicer look, but have seen FAs with ill links, for example The Cloisters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal tolerance level is zero ill's at FAC, but I don't make the rules. If other reviewers think they're fine, then I'll quietly exit this review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SoWhy, would you please write stubs about the seven topics? - If not we should discuss this in general on the FAC talk, because an ill link is really more helpful to the reader than no link; it establishs sort of notability, and leads to more information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the notion that having a ill is better than having no link at all (or a redlink only). After all, per WP:REDYES, placing red links to notable topics is encouraged and I don't see the harm in it being accompanied by a small link to an existing article on another project. So I think this should definitely be allowed. That said, I will endeavor to turn these red links blue. Regards So  Why  14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When translating the topics in question, stubs suffice. The links look decently blue then, and the connection to more information in the other language is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, stubs are sufficient. And, as I think I've mentioned, my grandfather was German-ish ... I'd love to have more German-themed FAs ... this isn't an anti-German thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That thought never crossed my mind. I created the parents' articles now but it might take me a couple of days to do the rest, since opera and stuff like that is not my wheelhouse. Feel free to help out of course Regards  So  Why  16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This one's news to me. I'm pretty sure I got The Founding Ceremony of the Nation through in 2017 with at least one ILL.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, read above: it's Dank's personal limit, but who wouldn't respect that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The notation for interlanguage links is intentionally meant to look like there's something that needs to be done that hasn't been done yet ... that conflicts with the message we're giving out about Featured Articles, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dank, we heard that you think so, and said that we respect that. I see it that way for real red links, while ill-links are links to articles, just in a different language, which means a world of a difference for me. Higher education for girls was rare at the time, so I'll probably write Höhere Töchterschule eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine. No desire to get into a policy discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, I'm quite happy with the quality of the writing, and I came here expecting to give a quick prose support. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I'm unwatching, since some of our best prose reviewers are now on board. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Gerda
I gave detailed comments in the PR, read it again now, and am happy to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Public image
 * "playing outside the bank and provided free meals" - needs a comma or some other way to not connect the meals to the bank ;) - better.
 * "The constant and deliberate long queues" - not sure that conveys what it is meant, but may be jut me. - "The constant and intentional long queue", - what's an intenional queue? keep simple?
 * "to up to 4,000 patrons" - what exactly? - per day? at all?

Thank you for expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I hope it's clearer now. Regards So  Why  10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The first yes. Asked more pecisely for the others. Btw, I opened a peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Spitzeder intentionally let long queues form so that she appeared more popular. I added a bit more detail and rephrased the whole thing, I hope it's okay now. I also clarified that 4,000 refers to the seating available. I'll check the PR later. Regards So  Why  12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that would be an intenionally long queue, no? - The new wording is fine, so only the 4,000 customers left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article now reads a tavern providing beer and food at discounted prices and with seating for up to 4,000 patrons. I'm unsure what is still unclear, could you please elaborate? Regards  So  Why  12:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was unclear about that I mean the third question, about the feeding of the 4,000. Is that number "ever", or "per day" or what? If ever, it doesn't seem high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
On first read, excellent. On more thorough reading, I would advise the following: Lead
 * You need to go through and blitz some nouns in favour of pronouns. A general rule is once they've been named, follow each sentence with a pronoun. If ambiguity exists, such as in this case, Spitzeder being mentioned in the same sentence as another female/females, revert back to the name once, then follow the pronoun route.   Cassianto Talk  07:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. So  Why  09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ehringer tried to flee with 50,000 gulden that she claimed was a gift from Spitzeder, but they were both arrested with the money" -- Was the money also arrested? Was the money used to finance their arrest? Stupid, I know, but it could be tighter. Suggest "...but they were both arrested for being in possession of the money", if indeed that was the case.
 * Done. So  Why  09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In "Early life" we jump from Adele to Spitzeder and then back again. I think I see what you're trying to do - to avoid the confusion between Betty and Spitzeder - but in places, it's really not needed. If you are calling Betty "Betty", then there can be no confusion with Spitzeder, despite them sharing the same surname.
 * Done. So  Why  09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They'll be some who'll want to know what a "confidence trickster" is. Rather than forcing them away to find out, a handy link upon first mention in the lede would be of benefit.
 * Done. So  Why  09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Spitzeder was estimated to be the wealthiest woman in Bavaria." -- by who?
 * Hopefully done, please check if it's okay like this. Thanks for the comments! Regards So  Why  09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The largest such newspaper in the city, the Volksbote was in serious financial troubles which it solved with a 13,000 gulden loan from Spitzeder.[57] The Volksbote in turn responded to each criticism in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten by defending her business".[57] -- Do we need to repeat ref 57?
 * I merged the two sentences with a ";" which takes care of both the duplicate ref and the unnecessary partition of what is essentially information that belongs together. Regards So  Why  07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support -- checked and all ok. A great article indeed.   Cassianto Talk |

SC
There are a few places where you have four refs together; it may be worth considering bundling the refs together to ease the effect on the eye. (I have a personal rule of three normally, but everyone's mileage differs).


 * Acting
 * "to quit the engagement": "quit" always seems a little informal to me. "Leave" would be a shade better
 * "offered a spot to work": is this an acting role she was offered? (Spot is a little too informal and unclear)
 * "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden each month for life": this needs to be sorted – I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's a bit garbled
 * Changed all three. Regards So  Why  10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "attributed her lack of success to her appearance": this may need a little more explanation, as this is the first mention of her appearance (did the newspapers say she looked too old, or frumpy, or unattractive, etc)
 * The source literally says "Allein, Sie hatte keinen sonderlichen Erfolg, woran übrigens weniger der Mangel an Talent als vielmehr ihre äußere Erscheinung die Schuld tragen mochte, welche für die Bühne offenbar nicht besonders geeignet war", which can be translated roughly as "However, she did not enjoy particular success, not from a lack of talent but rather more likely because of her outward appearance, which was apparently not particularly suitable for the stage". I will check if I can find a source that has a better description. Regards So  Why  10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added more descriptions of her appearance. Regards So  Why  19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "with her girlfriend Rosa" I know you deal with the question of her sexuality in a section below, but I think you either need to soften the term, ("her friend") or drop in a couple of words of explanation
 * I don't think softening is a good idea since it would also change the meaning. But it might be good to have a sooner mention of Ehringer in the paragraph. I'll see what I can find. Regards So  Why  10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that I mixed up the names here, Rosa was her second girlfriend but when she returned first she was with Emilie. Mea culpa. I'll go through the sources again and add more info where I can find it. Regards So  Why  10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Growth
 * "One of her employees was Rosa Ehringer,": just "Ehringer" needed here, as we've already been told her name is Rosa
 * Changed. Regards So  Why  10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Image
 * "barking orders": this comes over as less than neutral, as there are many ways to give orders. If there is a source that says "barking" (or similar), then it's best to say that "according to xxxx she 'barked her orders' to everyone", or whatever.
 * This source calls it "laut und herrisch" ("loud and overbearing"). I'll see if I can find something else or reword it. Regards So  Why  10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I rephrased that paragraph to match the sources more closely. Regards So  Why  19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Personal life
 * I'd be tempted to scrap this section and add some of the info further up (to the part where you have "with her girlfriend Rosa" – other bits, such as Emilie Stier, you can either footnote or drop into the chronology); the final sentence you can put at the end of the Bankruptcy section, where the rumours about her homosexuality part is. (One of the reasons I'd get rid of it, is because it only deals with the homosexuality and nothing else. It's a brief mention, which is good, but can be used further up to give weight to the story as it develops).
 * I'd rather try and develop it further, I think there is more to write once I can recheck the sources and now have the main book at home that I lacked when I first wrote the article. Regards So  Why  10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded with information on her various relationships. Regards So  Why  19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting subject, by and large nicely covered. – SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I have addressed them all. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards So  Why  19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent work, and thank you for the additional work you've put in over the last day or so. The personal life section reads nicely now, and has enough there to stand on its own, and the changes you've made elsewhere all work well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
Excellent to see a newcomer to FAC, and with such a sound first attempt. I shall be supporting, but a few very minor comments before that: That's all from me. I hope these few minor suggestions are helpful. –  Tim riley  talk   10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * "National Theatre Munich" – I see the WP article omits the expected comma before "Munich", but I don't think we should follow suit here. Piping as National Theatre, Munich would follow the orthodox English form. (I see the National Theatre Munich article was created commaless, by the late and much-missed, in whose absence I'll raise the point of the missing comma on that article's talk page.) As the Spitzeder article is in AmE there is, I suppose, a case for making that National Theater, Munich here, but I don't press the point.
 * "quit the engagement" – "quit" was much used in English centuries ago but is now seen as either old fashioned, legalese or Americanese. Better to have a plain "leave"
 * "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden" – not English. Perhaps, "She turned it down at the behest of her mother, who offered her 50 gulden" or suchlike.
 * Still not in English: "23,000 gulden which she turned it down at her mother's wishes". Deleting the "it" would do the job.  Tim riley  talk   21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You, Sir, are correct. I probably thought about writing "she turned it down" before settling on the current sentence and forgot to remove the "it". Regards So  Why  05:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "attested her the necessary talent" – unexpected use of the verb. I don't think you can attest somebody: what is needed here is something like "attested that she had the necessary talent".
 * "attributed her lack of success to her appearance". This is a bit vague. The reader may reasonably wonder in what way her appearance was inimical to success.
 * Growth of business
 * "from an insider tip to a large company" – I can work out what this means, but it could be put more clearly and elegantly. Perhaps the point would be as well made simply as "quickly grew into a large company".
 * Later life and death
 * "Spitzeder was released from prison in the fall of 1876" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by season unless the seasonality is relevant. (What is fall in the US – or autumn elsewhere in the English-speaking world – is spring in the southern hemisphere). The month would be better here.
 * "sensational exposes about her" – "exposés" needs the acute accent (even in AmE, surely?)
 * "she published her memoirs" – in the lead it was a singular "memoir". Best be consistent.
 * "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear though, so she... " – the "though" is a touch chatty. I might make this something like "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear, and she ...".
 * Literature
 * We have a mixture of 10- and 13-digit and hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs. The MoS bids us use hyphenated 13-digit version when possible, if appropriate. There is an excellent tool here to convert and hyphenate where needed.


 * I think I got everything, some of it was the same SC mentioned as well. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards So  Why  19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to support now. I greatly enjoyed this article, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. We could argue about the lack of hyphens in the ISBNs, but life really is too short, and I hereby drop the subject. If, as I hope and expect, the article is promoted to FA it will be a fine achievement on the main author's part: creation (translation or no) to FA within a year. Very ritzy.  Tim riley  talk   16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot that the Citoid engine adds the ISBNs as well, I thought only about those in the bibliography section. Too bad they are not hyphenated automatically though. Regards So  Why  18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WBGodric

 * ... and a cross around her neck, often insulting her customers with crass language.[27][46] This, however, actually enhanced her standing with the common people.[46] ... - How? Does the source go into the details? I think a reader will be inclined to know the reasons about how exactly the crassness and insults led to enhancing her reputation. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a bit like the "He's saying it like it is" approach populists often use. She insulted customers and told them point blank that she won't give them any securities and in return, they said "Wow, she is so frank with me, I should give her my money!". I expanded the section a bit and rephrased that part, I hope it's clearer now. Regards So  Why  12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
 * Formats
 * Ref 49 requires pp.
 * Ditto 55
 * Ditto 57
 * Ditto 60
 * Ditto 61
 * Ditto 62
 * Alphabetic sequence: I'm not sure what principle you've applied in sequencing the references list, where no author is provided. No doubt there's a logic in what you've done; could you explain?
 * "Historische Commission bei der königl" requires "in German"
 * Likewise Hitzig etc, 1873, Nerger, Nettersheim, Plickert, Schumann, Spitzeder 1878, Strohmeyr, Währisch, Winkler
 * Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher location in book sources. You generally omit this, but see Nettersheim

Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability. I am not competent to judge the quality/reliability of the many German language sources, but have no reason to suppose that they are not of the standard of the English sources, which appear to meet the necessary criteria.


 * Thanks for the source check. I apologize for the pp mistakes, those I added after the first reviews and I forgot about it. I added the language parameter and removed the one publication location. As for sequencing, I ordered the list by author's last name and where there is no author, I used the publication's name (hence "Augsburger Allgemeine", the name of the newspaper, comes before "Bachmann"). I couldn't find any guideline on how to do it correctly, so I went with what seemed right. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Regards So  Why  20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not worth bothering with, unless someone else complains. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Greetings, ! Since it looks like this is your first spin through FAC, it's customary to get a spot-check of your sources for any potential verification or plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested one. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what that entails but if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards So  Why  14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * PS: I don't know if it helps but the main biography I used, "Nebel 2018", is partly available on GBooks. I just didn't know how to add that to the article in a meaningful way but it might be useful for a spotcheck. Regards So  Why  06:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll do this, but it'll probably take me a few days.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you be willing to spot-check a few of the German-language sources? Many thanks, if you have time! -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no time until 5 September, concert and full house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I ordered the Nebel book on ILL, but it hasn't arrived yet. I hope it will in the next couple of days.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably not allowed but I could just send you scans of any pages you need from the one I have Regards  So  Why  07:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I have the book now and will start with the check.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The number of issues found below for just one section is troubling, and may indicate a larger issue with accuracy in citations or in interpreting the sources. Based on your audit so far, do you feel the issues warrant a larger audit? -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started on going through another section. I'm sorry about my slow pace.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm truly sorry for that. When I started out, I translated the de-wiki article and added refs later. Then I replaced the previous ref system with Harvard-style refs. Somewhere during that process, I must have mixed up some of the sources. Most of those problems should be related to the sections that existed before the ref-style-switch but may I ask for a day or two to ensure that the rest is accurate? I don't want to cause you more work than absolutely necessary. Regards  So  Why  05:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went through the whole article again, copyediting where needed. There shouldn't be any problems left if I didn't miss anything. Thanks for your patience. Regards So  Why  12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Carabinieri
Hi, I have a quick question. The page numbers on all the references to Nebel appear to be slightly different from the edition I'm using. For instance, the information about her move to Vienna and her schooling there appears on pages 26 an 27 in the book I have, while the article gives page 21. What edition of the book are you using? I have the second edition (from 2018), but the weird thing is that the first edition also appears to have the same pagination as the second based on the table of contents at DNB.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of the later page numbers line up, so maybe this is a mistake?--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have used GBook's pagination for some of the earlier refs that I added before I had the book myself. I'll do a quick check and fix any such mistakes. Regards So  Why  18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed those I found, as I suspected they were all among the first I had added for this source based on the GBooks version which has wrong numbering. The rest I added after I had the book in hand and thus should be correct. Btw, my edition is the first edition, also dated 2018. Weird... But again, sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for taking the time! Regards So  Why  18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've only gone through the "Early life" section, but I've found a few issues:
 * "Her parents met in Berlin" A bit pedantic, but ADB only mentions that they both worked at the same theater in Berlin, not that that's where they first met. Nebel (p. 23) is a better source.
 * Fixed. --SW
 * "which led to the family moving to Munich". Not mentioned by Währisch, should probably also use Nebel.
 * Changed to Strohmeyr since Nebel is clearly incorrect here (he writes the move was in 1833 when Josef already died in 1832). --SW
 * "When Josef Spitzeder died after only one performance on 13 December 1832" Währisch only says that the death was sudden, not when it happened nor that it was after only one performance.
 * Fixed. --SW
 * "Betty then married Franz Maurer and took an engagement at the Carltheater in Vienna in 1840, where Spitzeder attended a Höhere Mädchenschule run by the order of the Ursulines; after a year, she entered the convent's boarding school" Why cite Killy/Vierhaus?
 * Probably a mistake, removed. --SW
 * "In 1844, she persuaded her mother to move back to Munich" As far as I can see, Nebel only says that they moved back to Munich, not that she persuaded her mother.
 * I'm sure I read it in one of the sources but I cannot find it anymore. Fixed. --SW
 * "At age 16, she went to a renowned school led by Madame Tanche" I don't see where Nebel says renowned
 * Should have been Währisch 2010 which says it was "sehr bekannt". --SW
 * "she was tutored in foreign languages, composing and piano-playing" That makes it sound like that was at school, but according to Nebel it was after she left school.
 * So it was. I think originally the wording was correct originally but with this edit it was changed and I didn't catch it. Fixed now. --SW
 * "In 1856, she debuted at the Hofbühne in Coburg to great acclaim playing Deborah and Maria Stuart." It's Mary Stuart in English. This should probably link to the plays rather than the historical figures. Neither source mentions 1856, Nebel says 1857.
 * Strohmeyr (p. 133) says 1856. Changed accordingly to reflect both sources. --SW
 * "In her memoirs, she claims that both the duke of Coburg and the duke of Württemberg praised her talent" That makes it sound like the praise was for her performances as Deborah or Mary Stuart, but as far as I can tell it's not.
 * She only played those two roles in Coburg, so it can't have been for anything else. But I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite it. --SW
 * "Since there were no vacancies at Coburg, she left the Hofbühne to take an engagement at Mannheim before returning to Munich for a few guest roles at the National Theatre" Should be pp. 20-21.
 * So it should. Fixed. --Sw
 * "Contemporary sources such as Der Neue Pitaval attested that she had the necessary talent but attributed her lack of success to her appearance" That suggests there was more than one such source, but the article only cites one.
 * Rephrased. --SW
 * "Her "masculine" behavior is generally highlighted, smoking cigars, being loud and bossy, having no interest in clothing that accentuates the female physique and enjoying the company of young and beautiful women" This is a direct translation of Nebel.
 * Rephrased. --SW

I'm also a little confused by the format of the Währisch reference. Why does this use cite book? I'm also unsure about the use of the autobiography and queer.de as sources. I'm not sure about whether queer.de should really be considered a reliable source, but in any case it's just a summary of the Nebel book. So why not get the information straight from the horse's mouth and cite Nebel? It's a much better source. I'm also not sure how reliable the autobiography of someone known as a fraudster is. Most of the information from this source could also be cited to Nebel.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I used cite book because cite web does not allow to cite a chapter but this source comes with an overview and a more detailed subpage. If you know of a better way to handle this, I'm open to suggestions. I removed the queer.de source and replaced it with the underlying source where needed. As for the autobiography, it contains some details that Nebel does not, so I added Nebel alongside it. I think that should be okay, shouldn't it? As for the rest, I added comments above. Thanks for taking the time! Regards So  Why  13:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the long delay. I've checked a little more. Here's what I found:
 * "She continued to pay interest in cash, which was not common, leading to favorable word-of-mouth advertising" I was unable to verify this. The Wagener reference doesn't have a page number, which makes it difficult to check. The only thing I was able to find is that Spitzeder paid that first investor in cash. The other source is writing about the year 1872.
 * Sorry, I mixed up "Wagener" and "Währisch". The latter has Sie gab ihm für ein Darlehen von 100 Gulden einen Monatszins von zehn Prozent und zahlte ihm für zwei Monate im Voraus die Zinsen gleich bar auf die Hand. Diese Methode sprach sich in Windeseile herum und in kürzester Zeit kamen sehr viele meist einfache Leute aus den Vorstädten Au und Giesing und drängten ihr ihre Ersparnisse förmlich auf. That said, this and the previous sentence basically are the same, so I combined them into one. --SW
 * "Officially founded shortly afterwards in 1869, the Spitzedersche Privatbank quickly grew into a large company" After what exactly? She started lending money in 1869, so I'm not sure I understand the timing here. Also, while the article says she began lending money in late 1869, Schuman says it was in the Spring of that year. Also, Pfluger doesn't say anything about the bank becoming a large company, only that business went well.
 * Agreed. I thought I had squashed all de-wiki translations, I must have missed that one. Changed accordingly. As for the start, I must have missed the part in Schumann about the spring of 1869 but it of course needs mentioning. I added it. --SW
 * "Because her customers were mostly workers from the northern outskirts of Munich, especially the town of Dachau, her bank came to be known as "Dachauer Bank" Neither source mentions the northern outskirts of Munich.
 * Source from the next sentence was missing there which verifies "aus dem Norden der Großstadt". --SW
 * "she soon had to rent additional rooms in her hotel to accommodate her forty or more employees" Währich says up to 40, as do some of the other sources.
 * Changed. Not sure how that happened. --SW
 * "Contemporaneous English-language publications such as Harper's Weekly referred to it as the "Spitzeder swindle"." I was unable to find this in the Harper's Weekly article, but I probably just overlooked it. What does the it refer to? It sounds like it's referring to a Ponzi scheme general (which wouldn't make much sense if no one else had used it at the time). If it's just referring to Spitzeder's actions, I don't see any reason to mention this. --Carabinieri (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a different issue, sorry for the confusion. I added the right one. As for the reason for inclusion, I gather that this was the name used to describe this kind of scam since "Ponzi" did not exist yet. That English-language sources had its own name for it seems significant to me. Again thanks for the work and no worries about the delay. I added notes above as well. Regards So  Why  08:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just to be clear, are you now satisfied with the results of your spotcheck? That is, do you feel confident that the sources in general are used accurately and avoid plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing? Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that Carabinieri has gone dark for the time being, and we need to wrap this up. Do you have any sense of where they were in this process? -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know as much as you do, i.e. what they posted above and my comments regarding it. I assumed that they were now satisfied but I had no further contact with Carabinieri other than the discussion above. If there is anything I can do to help, please feel free to ask. Regards So  Why  15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay—I'll look over the article today and attempt to assess where the spot-check was. -- Laser brain  (talk)  10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

 * Is it Schuhmann or Schumann? I see both spellings.
 * Wagener in References but never cited. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Schuhmann" is the more common spelling in German (literally "shoe man"), so I probably unconsciously used it a couple of times. Now fixed. Wagener was removed with my last edit, I just didn't realize that there were no more citations to him on the page. Regards So  Why  07:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Carry on. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  17:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)