Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unification of Germany/archive2


 * 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 22:43, 30 August 2009.

Unification of Germany

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...First, the article meets all content, citations, sourcing, image, and notability requirements. Second, according to all reviewers, it is well written, broadly constructed, accessible (although long), and well designed. Third, it is a top priority article for the WikiProject Germany. The citations and formatting are rationally constructed (see note on article talk page) and consistent within the article (at least they are at the time of this nomination). Its previous nomination was unsuccessful: due to its length, only 2 reviewers read it. Although it is not shorter, I have marshaled some reviewers from the project to offer feedback. Thanks for your attention and constructive criticism. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I supported it last time round after extensive proofreading and fact-checking; it has changed little since then, and I still support now.  JN 466  15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some initial comments:
 * Some of the images are improperly placed, according to the MOS; images shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers (honestly, I don't know why this is, it seems silly to me. The MOS says it apparently can cause technical problems, but I've never seen any).


 * for most of those, it was a matter of trying to place the illustration "fairly" near the text. Even if I moved it to the middle of a section, the picture often "appeared" right under or beside the heading. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok with me, this isn't a big enough concern to oppose over. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "Roads and railroads" section, there's the line "at fashionable watering places such as Baden-Baden" - is that in reference to the famous spas there? The average reader will probably not make that connection, so it would be better to state it explicitly. (And maybe link to Kurhaus (Baden-Baden), for an example).
 * I've clarified this, and added the link as you suggested. thanks!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with some of the prose; some it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. For example: A common language may serve as the basis of a nation, but it takes more than language to unify several hundred polities. in the "Rise of German nationalism..." section and Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly", this institution should in no way be construed as a broadly, or popularly, elected group of representatives. in the "Problems of reorganization" section. Perhaps something along the lines of Cultural bonds like a common language serve as the basis of a nation, but the unification of several hundred political entities requires deft political and military maneuvering as well. (though I'm not entirely pleased with the second half of that sentence either) for the former, and Despite the nomenclature of "Diet" and "Assembly", this institution was not a group of broadly or popularly elected representatives and explain how the members of the body were selected (this is more along the lines of Show, don't tell).
 * Re: language of essay versus encyclopedia: first, those statements are cited to the sources, second, I have no problem changing the text to something like you suggest, but, as we know, the art of writing is never perfect.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re show don't tell: I thought that was degenerating into too much detail for the broad article on unification, and referred people to the full articles on these specific subjects.


 * Not sure if this applies, but at a recent FAC for an article I wrote (FAC here, see the bottom), Sandy commented that main was inappropriate for the article. I don't know if it's fine here (might want to ask Sandy specifically, since she's more familiar with it than I), but if it's not, you might want to consider using detail instead.
 * I have no trouble with "detail" instead of "main" ...previous reviewers made me change it to "main." !!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The line nationalist orators from across the conservative to radical spectrum of politics in the "Hambach Festival" section seems redundant; maybe just from across the political spectrum?
 * Again, previous reviewers wanted me to clarify what this mjeant.
 * Seems fine to me then. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the section about the 1848 revolutions, Frederick Wilhelm IV is quoted as describing the crown offered by the Frankfurt Parliament as being one made of "clay". This needs a source (even if it's sourced to the citation, you can double it with . I can do it for you if you're unfamiliar with how it works).
 * I have no idea what you just wrote. :) As far as I can see, it has a source in the footnote. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of combining duplicate references, there are a few references, two to Sheehan, pp. 466–67 and two to Sheehan, pp. 610–613 that need to be merged with the above ref code. There may be more that I've missed.
 * I am opposed to using reference codes to give a b c d etc, because I think they are too confusing to read, especially with an article having over 100 references.
 * Fine by me then. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also on the subject of footnotes, I generally prefer to separate citations from notes (like here). You can use coupled with to do it. I usually use something like "Note" as the group name, which provides a link like Note 1 in the text.
 * Again, as I wrote to you earlier, and as I said in my note in the talk page, this is a personal preference thing for editors, and I prefer not to use notes as well as citations/footnotes in such a long article. Too much to-ing and fro-ing. Furthermore, I can expect that someone will add to this article years from now, and won't know the reference codes.  Call me old fashioned, but I find it easier to read this way, and easier to write/add to this way. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, this is a preference choice; the guide suggests that one style be followed throughout, and I have done this. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all for now, I'll review the rest of the article when I have more time. This might seem a little imposing, but all of the above things are pretty minor details, so I'm not a long way off from supporting. The article looks pretty good to me so far. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for going at this! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything has been addressed so far. Very quick work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. quick, yes, because this is more fun than the dissertation.  But now, back to that grindstone!  :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - a couple minor things from me :)
 * I don't know if I missed this earlier, or if the citation got moved around since then, but the last sentence in the "First efforts at unification" section (the line In 1848, nationalists sought to remedy that problem.) doesn't have a citation. Is that supposed to be included in the footnote in the preceding sentence?
 * Also, the line about the Battle of Königgrätz doesn't have a citation.
 * The paragraph about the Hohenzollern Candidature is unreferenced.
 * The line He to Berlin approached the Prussian king... seems to be one of those situations where you write something, revise it, revise it a third time, and by the fourth revision, forgot that the first few words don't match the rest (I know, 'cause I do it all the time) :)
 * The first paragraph in the "Beyond the political mechanism: forming a nation" section needs a citation.
 * that is all one paragraph. By moving theimage away from the heading, it splits it.  I can repeat the citation, if that helps.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Once these last few things are ironed out, I'll be happy to support. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * all done! Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - my minor concerns above have all been addressed (very promptly, I might add), and I see nothing that prevents the article from meeting the FA criteria. Excellent work, Auntieruth! Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article seems very well written. I will follow up more later. You already know that I weekly disapprove of the Notes section. I personally prefer separating citations and footnotes. Secondly I want to document that the title of the article would be better represented by "German Unity" or "Road to German Unity". Again you know this. Both are no show stoppers for my support. However an omission which I do consider vital is that no where do you mention Das Lied der Deutschen by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben. To this day it is a symbol of German unity and the German national anthem. It was abused and misinterpreted over time and I strongly feel that it should be built into this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MisterBee1966


 * Maybe we can agree to disagree on the notes thing. In terms of the title, I might have chosen a different one, but I'm "content" (if not thrilled) with this one.  It is very "encyclopedic."


 * Das Lied der Deutschen -- good point, and it is added, plus another one on the Zollverein. I need a source on Das Lied, though.  Do you have one?  I could probably hunt down something at the library tomorrow, but if you've got it, we'll just add it (to Vormaerz).  I could expand it slightly more, if necessary, but right now I have to walk the dogs.  real life calls!  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this re Das Lied der Deutschen.


 * Google books on Das Lied der Deutschen


 * In English, one almost always refers to "Unification of Germany" or "German Unification". "German Unity" would not refer to the process of becoming unified, it would refer to the impulse to do so, or continuing to remain so. "Unification" is certainly the correct word. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's at least very close. I'll make my specific comments on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * link "Heinrich von Gagern", "Lake Constance", "Palatinate"
 * done


 * pfennig shouldn't this be capitalized?
 * it was not, but I can do that


 * put Kleindeutschland and Grossdeutschland in italics
 * done


 * Reichstag, provide English translation and link only once
 * ok.


 * Studies of the Jewish Question, why is this in italics?
 * It is the name of a book.


 * August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben his name appears first in section "Roads and railroads". Link in first occurance
 * ....it is....


 * Heerenstrassen provide a translation
 * it's in the sentence.
 * Upps then it is misspelled! There is no German word Heerenstrasse it should be Heerstraße or if plural then Heerstraßen. I casually read this and thought you meant Herrenstrasse. Please correct the spelling.
 * done


 * References: Do you happen to have ISBN numbers of the bibliographies referenced in the article?
 * if I had them, I listed them
 * Try searching here WorldCat. Dummheit schützt vor Strafe nicht as one would say in German :-) MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * in process/done


 * Question: Does the textual information below pictures require citations?
 * If I thought it did, I added a citation.
 * I frequently got the feedback that anything that has a date or fact needs a citation. Surely something like "This depiction of Germania, also by Philipp Viet, was created to hide the organ of the Paul's Church in Frankfurt, during the meeting of the Parliament there, March 1848–49. In this image, Germania is standing, holding her sword upright. The sword was intended to symbolize the Word of God and to mark the renewal of the people and their triumphant spirit." requires a citation, at least for the last sentence.
 * okay, done.


 * Kulturkampf: italics
 * done
 * Sorry but I still find another one in section "Writing the story of the nation"
 * got it now. thanks.


 * Maybe have a look at the template . It allows you to set a language tag on the references. It also assures that all the information is in the same order.
 * isbns added to bib
 * I'll check out that template for the next article.


 * language tags are missing. I believe that you have to add (in LANGAUGE) for instance (in German) to the reference if it's not in English.
 * done

More later MisterBee1966 (talk)


 * Support All of my issues have been resolved. I may comment on your talk page. Well done and good luck with your nomination. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not the most thorough reviewer when it comes to the latest community decision on image placement and Manual of Style tweaks. However, I believe it meets all of the FA criteria, and I can confidently say I believe it to be one of Wikipedia's finest articles, written by someone intimately familiar with the topic and worthy of a gold star. Recognizance (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. It looks like all of the several dozen small issues I raised have been addressed. Very diligent work, Auntieruth55. I suspect this may still need a "fine tooth comb" pass from someone who is more familiar than I with all current Wikipedia style guidelines, and someone may want to take a closer look at the footnotes, but it certainly satisfies me. - Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This article reads exceptionally well, the style is high quality and I found nothing of substance to criticise. I have a number of very minor suggested amendments and queries which I will follow up on the talk page, but nothing significant. Comments responded to sensibly - very happy. Well done to Auntie Ruth! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this article for GA status, and while I was impressed at the time with its thoroughness, I am more impressed now with how much it has improved. The lead, in particular, provides a more detailed and clear, but still concise, introduction, and the article is visually easier on the eyes thanks to the many pictures on which much work has been done. This is a fine and careful article that meets the FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Well-researched, well-written and comprehensive. --Boson (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. When I nominated, there were no dabs.  then one magically appears.  Oi.  It's fixed.  The link should be Bad Ems.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment just driving by, I see Hohenlohe links to an article about a family, when a principality is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, I did mean the family, basically, since I could find no article on the principality itself. The closest we have is a stub on Hohenlohe-Langenburg, which is unsatisfactory in dealing with the complexities of the family's many properties.  The present day Hohenlohe (district) has little geographic relationship to the princely family's territories, although some, perhaps much, of it was ruled by the family in the past; this family is particularly illustrative of the problems of understanding the transition from the old dynastic state to the "modern" territorial state.  I've clarified the sentence, I hope, but the link remains the same.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * additionally, the List of states in the Holy Roman Empire (H) also links Hohenlohe (the state) to the princely family. Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Image review - I noticed that there was an image review last time, so I went back to the version of the article that the reviewers were working off then. They had signed off on all the images then, so I have looked through only the new images. Those look good, and a quick look (not as detailed as I usually would) indicates that the older images are fine. So: image review shows no problems. NW ( Talk ) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. This looks very good. The tone is just right and the author(s) are clearly experts in the field and write well. However, I do find quite a few issues in the writing from looking at the top, which suggest that an independent run-through of the prose throughout (not a long job at all) is in order:
 * "some glaring"—can the "some" be dropped? If possible, please do. I think the "also" can go, later in that sentence.
 * changed "some" to "several"


 * "Emerging modes of transportation made it easier not only to conduct business, but also facilitated to facilitate recreational travel, leading to contact, comparison, and sometimes conflict between and among German-speakers from throughout Central Europe." The grammar. What kind of "comparison" was facilitated?
 * I've taken it out. Comparisons with each other.  how much like me are you types of comparisons.


 * "However, the negotiators at Vienna did not take into account the Prussia's growing strength"—you might be happier with "However, the negotiators at Vienna took no account of the Prussia's growing strength".
 * fixed.


 * "Small Germany" might be in quotes first time it appears in the main text; it's "little Germany" in the caption: is that intentional?
 * I used them interchangeably.


 * The reader won't mind larger-than-average sentence lengths, but this one is stretching it: "They conclude that factors in addition to the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik led a collection of early modern polities that included dynastic states, imperial cities, and ecclesiastical cities, and which ranged in size from such expansive polities as the Kingdom of Prussia to such compact entities as the comity of Schönburg-Glachau, to reorganize political, economic, military and diplomatic relationships in the nineteenth century." Possibly "... cities; these entities ranged in size ...", or a full-stop new sentence.
 * ya think? Fixed. :)


 * We sure do need that link for "irredentism", and it's a pity it can't be neatly glossed in parentheses as well (readers shouldn't have to divert to the link-target to learn the definition of a word—hands up who thought it was to do with tooth enamel); I'm unsure that "nationalism" needs a link.
 * previous reviewer thought it did. I'm happy to take it out, but will he go off the end if I do???  You don't like irridentism?  It's exactly the right word.


 * Last sentence in lead: "The political and administrative unification in 1871 solved, at least temporarily, the problem of dualism by creating a Germany without Austria." You might consider this new grammatical theme: "By creating a Germany without Austria, the political and administrative unification in 1871 at least temporarily solved the problem of dualism." The last nested phrase could remain unchanged, but I though it was uncomfortable after a hanging "solved".
 * fixed


 * "small but complex territories"—complex in what respect? The "but" indicates that such complexity is not normally associated with small size. Then there's a parallel comparison with "well-defined" (which could be hyphenated).
 * fixed. "They ranged in size from the small, complex territorial arrangements of the princely Hohenlohe family branches to the sizable, well-defined territories as the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Kingdom of Prussia."


 * Does MoSNUM say to use numerals with centuries? "14th century".
 * either, I thought. I went through and made sure they were all written.


 * "With few exceptions, the Empire's Prince-electors had since the fourteenth century chosen successive heads"—I'd switch the locations of "with few exceptions" and "since the 14th century". Maybe.
 * German speaking states: no hyphen suddenly?
 * fixed


 * Some of those beautiful images are very very complex: can we please have their size enlarged? 300px would be good for a few ("Wartburg", the Confederation map, Germania, Völkers ...). The satirical commentary image is tiny: much bigger, please. You might need to tweak the location of one or two, to stop the squeezing of the text. The captions tend to be gigantic:enlarging the image size, trimming the text and relocating some of it into the main text are three ways of addresssing that.
 * re the size, and squeezing. They have all been moved to keep in line with MOS about image placement, and not being below or above a heading. I'd like to keep them relatively near the text they relate to.  (Along the lines of show, don't tell....)
 * We'll see what they look like enlarged (they've been made smaller during one review or another), but some of the captions disappear when I enlarge the image. I'd like the captions to be explanatory, because if someone cannot/will not read the text (lengthy), they can get the gist of the article from the pictures.  How do I enlarge the images to 300px without losing the captions?
 * I've asked Eubilides for help. But if you know....Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony  (talk)  00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, are your issues addressed? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want a caption you need to specify the " " keyword. Perhaps you removed the " " when you put in the size? Anyway, I put in that keyword to restore the captions. While I was in the neighborhood I changed the images to use "upright" rather than absolute pixel numbers like "225px", which have the unfortunate effect of shrinking the images for editors who've set their preferences to 300px for image widths. Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Done, with the help of User:Eubulides! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, Oh, and take a look at the German.WP attempt! Incidentally, it shows this en.WP article as being featured already .... ?. I've left a note here.
 * I don't know why that is. I don't fully understand their system.  It seems to apply haphazardly.  very unlike the Germans I know. ;)  And the article on unification is extremely "slender" (I like your word choice)... Perhaps it is less important to Germans than we think it is.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Tony   (talk)  00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor comment. Done; thanks. Some of the image captions need trimming. The excess verbiage can be moved into the main article text. It's visually odd to have an image box that devotes more screen space to the caption than to the image itself. Some of the images are over this line (at least in my browser) and too many of them are close to the line. (Please don't "fix" this by simply making the images larger or using a smaller font for the caption. :-) Eubulides (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and Done (captions shortened. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So do you support this? or ....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The (few) parts of the article that I've read seem quite good and are of featured-article quality. However, I haven't had time to read the whole thing carefully, which I feel that I must do before supporting the article. I just now briefly looked at it and see that somebody went through and made the images pretty large; I shrank the images that were waaaaay too large and suggest that some of the others be trimmed down a bit in size. This is an encyclopedia article, not a coffee table art book. Eubulides (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You want them smaller, Tony wants them larger. Perhaps I should lock you two in a room and you can come to some agreement?  ;)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Tony and I agree. The specific images that he said should be bigger, I think should be bigger too. But the other images don't all need to be that big. An image needs to be large only if it contains important detail that would be lost at the default size. Eubulides (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * okay, I think I've got it right, as you and Tony wish it now. I reduce a few, and moved the coat of arms to just below Germania, fixed the caption, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A review of WP:ITALICS is needed throughout. done  unless the word is in another language, it's not italicized unless it is a title.  Bourgeois is not
 * There's something wrong with the punctuation in this caption, (see WP:MOS):
 * The Thinker's club. the sign on the wall lists the rules, the first of which is, No Thinking fixed


 * There are punctuation problems in a few other captions. fixed
 * There are image placement issues (I fixed one as a sample). See WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS, images within sections not above them, but no left-aligned images under third-level headings.
 * I finally get it. I thought it couldn't be under the header but it could be in the section. Duh.  fixed.  Now, however, the images don't go left-right-left-right....that's okay?
 * Yes, sometimes left-right has to be sacrificed for WP:ACCESS issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the language icons are after sources, some are before: should be consistent. (I prefer before, so a reader won't click on a link only to discover they can't read it.) done.
 * Be consistent on page ranges in citations and use of p. vs. pp. (most use pp. but some use p. for ranges, some have spaces, some don't, and the page range should either include two digits or not): replaced pp. with p throughout  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ Sheehan, p. 467–8. went through them all. they should be good now
 * ^ Sheehan, p. 466–467.


 * Incomplete citations:
 * 41. ^ Veit's Pauls Church Germania fixed. not sure where it went to....Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.