Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Wolters


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 21:45, 21 March 2009.

Rudolf Wolters

 * Nominator(s): Fainites (talk), Mattisse (talk), Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because... in my view it meets the criteria. It is a GA that has had a peer review. It is an offshoot of my very well received Albert Speer article, about his (well, take your pick) either Boswell or Mr. Smithers, Rudolf Wolters, who did so much for Speer for so many years, and in his final years, exposed Speer's knowledge of the persecution of the Jews. There is no hagiography here, Wolters is himself a very mixed character, as the article reader will find out.Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from 
 * The following ref name is used more than once for different references
 * woltlet
 * Dabs and external links are found up to speed. -- ₮RU  CӨ   23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs and external links are found up to speed. -- ₮RU  CӨ   23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those issues have been resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting is found up to speed.-- ₮RU  CӨ   03:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Generally, this is a quality article, researched in depth and presented in compelling prose. My various relatively minor concerns have been adequately addressed, below. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have one major concern, and a small number of minor quibbles/queries.


 * Article structure: This is my main point. The last, very long, subsection is called "Speer released". The section is about much more than that; it covers all the years up to Wolters's death. The paragraph should be appropriately subdivided, most of it under a new main heading which could be called "Later life" or some such. Wolters, not Speer, is the focus of this article. Apart from the structural necessity, subdivision would help break up a whopping slab of prose.
 * (Minor points from now) I'd like to know how Wolters supported himself before his first paid employment in 1931. He doesn't appear to have come from a wealthy family - how did he survive?
 * I'd also like to know how, having been a close associate of a major war criminal, Wolters apparently escaped investigation by the Allies at the war's end.
 * In the Spandau section, paragraph 3, you reintroduce "Riesser". I had forgotten who she was. Could you call her "Marion Riesser" here?
 * Denazification: this began, according to the link article, in 1946. If it lasted "nearly 20 years" it had finished by 1965 or 1966, which was well before Brandt became Chancellor.
 * Any chance of more images for the latter part?

I don't see any reason why these points shouldn't be settled quite quickly, and I look forward to moving to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've split the subsection in question. I can't think of a better term than "Speer released", which I think conveys much more than the actual release from Spandau, but the time after that as well.  I don't have a source on how he survived without income.  Perhaps his parents and friends subsidized him, or he worked in menial professions.  Starving students get along, it is almost proverbial, and if his parents put him through college and grad school, they could have kept up the support until he went to Siberia for the railroad.  These things happen.  The civil denazification proceedings against Speer did not commence until (I think, I don't have my refs with me) 1952 when he was given very short notice of them at Spandau.  Brandt did put an end to them.  The Nuremberg and other tribunals had nothing to do with denazification.  I've reintroduced Riesser.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for how Wolters evaded investigation, he was not a Party member, was not captured, and his post at the OT was not intensely political. Maybe they did investigate him.  But he hung out in the British zone who were fairly lax about such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the Willy Brandt thing. It apparently happened in 1966, when Brandt was Vice-Chancellor, according to this source.  Since as you point out, Wolters needs to be the focus of this article (and that was the difficult part for us in writing this article, since the figure of Speer just towers over Wolters everywhere you go), I've just noted that Brandt ended it.  I can say "future West German Chancellor" but that starts begging questions.  Just call him Willy Brandt, people can click if they don't know who he is.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We've struggled to find any images at all of Wolters. There's hundreds of Yogi (Speer) but very few of BooBoo (Wolters). It may be possible to obtain a photograph of one of his more modern buildings on a trip to germany later in the year.Fainites barley scribs 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The odds are I will be in Germany in May. However, I have no idea if I can go to Dusseldorf or Coesfeld, and the article adequately meets FA as it stands.  The thing is, since almost no attention was paid to Wolters in his lifetime, there were few images of him.  For the buildings he did later, we can't justify fair use, so would need free use, which means Fainites or me going and getting pix while we are in Germany.  However, I think we have enough at present to make it through FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fainites barley scribs 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The image question is not central. I am less convinced that the heading "Speer released" is adequate for the long section which follows, even though Wolters' death has now been transferred to a separate section. The main subject of "Speer released" is the deterioration in Wolters' relationship with Speer following the latter's release. It would help navigation through the article if the section heading reflected this, or if the section was further divided. I won't press the point if other reviewers don't think it an issue, but please consider. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've retitled "Deterioration of relationship". I am by no means wedded to that title, if anyone has a better idea, please implement it.  I broke the section where I did because it seemed the most logical point.  To break anyplace earlier would have been artificial.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: Well done. Just one comment. Would it not be better to have redlinks (e.g., for Ernst Wolf Mommsen, Matthias Schmidt,...) rather an external link to the German wikipedia? In that way, someone could see the need for an English version through statistics tools. See Manual_of_Style_(links). Also I don't think there is supposed to be wikilinks within quotations (see Manual_of_Style_(links)). --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On behalf of my collaborators and me, thanks. Four minutes into my birthday per Wikipedia, nice present.  I have removed all but one link within quotes, the one I have left is in the Spandau section and refers to "Ludwigsberg Central Office" (for war crimes).  There is no way to work that into the surrounding text and it is not going to be known to the reader.  Better to leave it.  As for the other point, I've looked at the MOS and it is no help:  Is it better to have a redlink or a link to a foreign language Wikipedia?  I'm inclined to go with the latter.  The former gives the reader no guidance, the latter gives the reader the opportunity to go to Google Translate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort of support (1a). But I find things that need to be better expressed throughout. Here are examples from the top.
 * End of opening para: "After Speer's release, the friendship slowly collapsed, and the two men never saw each other in the final decade before Speer died in 1981." Possibly: "After Speer's release, the friendship slowly collapsed, and they saw nothing of each other in the decade before Speer's death in 1981.
 * "Bestselling"—perhaps "best-selling".
 * "..., until and the two men became so embittered that Wolters allowed papers showing Speer's knowledge of the persecution of the Jews to become public in [year]."
 * I know "also" is my hobby-horse ... but I can't really see how it helps in the last sentence of the lead.
 * "architectural-based" ... can't it be just "architectural"?
 * "Wolters passed a generally happy childhood, punctuated by the chaos of the war years and childhood illness—the latter resulted in his being taught at home for a year by two priests." --> "Wolters passed a generally happy childhood, punctuated by the chaos of the war years, and by a childhood illness that resulted in his being taught at home for a year by two priests."
 * My mania against "also" has created an opportunity to improve this more broadly:
 * "In 1924, Wolters met Albert Speer, who was a year behind him. Wolters transferred to the Technical University of Berlin later in 1924; Speer also transferred there the following year." -->
 * "In 1924, Wolters met Albert Speer, who was a year behind him. Wolters transferred to the Technical University of Berlin later that year, followed by Speer in 1925."


 * Sounds too passive: "Wolters obtained his degree in 1927, remaining at the school to receive his doctorate two years later." --> "Wolters obtained his degree in 1927, and earned his doctorate at the school two years later."
 * Jolt: "In 1933, Wolters returned to Berlin, where he briefly worked as an assistant in Speer's office before taking another position with the Reichsbahn, this time with pay." So the first one was without pay? The reader has to reverse-engineer this. Add "unpaid" before "assistant", moving to "before taking a paid position ...".
 * "so GBI became somewhat of a political sanctuary". the GBI, perhaps; and "something of a".
 * En dash for "North–South Axis" ... it is translated from the German, so we have license to correct.

I think this one is destined to be promoted, but please polish it. Perhaps don't buzz me again, since there are problems elsewhere on the FAC list. Tony  (talk)  10:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have made those changes.  One thing though, the reference to Wolters' work with the Reichsbahn being paid was not an implication that he worked for Speer for free, but that, as is mentioned, the first time he worked for the railroad he was not paid.  Since it was several paragraphs before, and you've just shown that the reader might forget that, I've made it explicit.  As you have requested, I will not buzz you back to revisit the article, but take your full support as given.  If Sandy wants me to have you come back to the article,  I hope she will tell me that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: most of the images check out fine, except File:Coesfeld Fußgängerzone.jpg: why does it carry the wording "This picture may have usage restrictions"? Jappalang (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. And yet it is from the Commons.  I'd like to keep it for the article, but if it is going to be a hitch for FA, I'll delete it.  Does anyone have thoughts on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... perhaps approach the uploader and clarify with him the meaning of this (and perhaps get him to remove it)? He seems to speak only German...  Jappalang (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead, I've replaced with another photo from Coesfeld which does not have the same language and was uploaded by a different editor. I'd be grateful if you would indicate that the article's images now have a clean bill of health.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, with that replacement, the images in the article check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Three supports, no opposes, all checks done.  The defense rests.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.