Talk:1940 Field Marshal Ceremony/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very appreciated. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework the first two sentences of the lede so that the first sentence says what it was and the second says where and why.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No quote marks around general field marshal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hyphen in this: field marshal-promotions
Fixed. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't list the promotees in the lede as it's supposed to summarize the entire article.
I disagree. I feel it's important to mention who the generals in questions was in the lead, and so I have kept it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, but it makes no sense to duplicate the list; the only difference is that you give positions in the main body. It violates WP:MOSINTRO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who considered France to have the strongest army in the world? As a superlative it needs to be cited, even though it's in the lede.
I have reformulated. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typos : power and prestigious, and symbolic ornamented.
I have reformulated. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely; symbolic ornamented is still present.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know from the get go that we're discussing German field marshals, so why tell the reader that twice in quick succession?
I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might rework the Battle of France para so that the Heer and the Luftwaffe are in separate sentences. Alternatively, replace this with a table for easier comprehension.
I have merged the entire section with the next one. Hopefully it's OK now. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim one or the other as they're redundant: looking forward and expected
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • richly decorated field marshal batons Delete all the adjectives here as you've already described the batons.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide the original German phrase "Sichelschnitt" for sickle cut and link to the appropriate section of the Battle of France article.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're overusing "field marshal promotion"; rephrase some of these.
I have rephrased some, but also kept some in places I felt it was necessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony was the first occasion Hitler appointed field marshals due to military achievements and was celebrated like no other promotion ceremony in Germany.[19][29] The remaining five years of the war saw an additional twelve field marshal promotions, most of which were without ceremony, such as Friedrich Paulus's field marshal promotion, Delete all usages after the first of "field marshal". The reader already know what rank you're referring to; don't insult zhe's intelligence.
OK, I see what you mean now. Will delete some more. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cyanide
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wehrmacht is the armed forces, it doesn't have armed forces of its own.
Well spotted, I have removed it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about using place of publication and title case or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I can't help but notice that this article still provides virtually no coverage to the ceremony it purports to cover. It also doesn't discuss why Hitler chose to promote so many generals so quickly, and the process through which this decision was made and put into place. The purpose of the 20 July plot section is unclear to me, and isn't a substitute for an 'aftermath' section in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kierzek, AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, Brigade Piron and Trappist the monk for your contributions in the face of the GA-review. To answer your question Nick-D, I have merged some sections, added information and reformulated some, so as to create a long section about the ceremony itself. I definitely discusses the ceremony itself more now. Don't you agree? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the 20 July plot, I believe it is relevant because the 20 July plot was, kind of, a turning point in terms of military loyalty to Hitler. Take Manstein for instance, he, as you well know, said "Prussian field marshals do not munity". And Model, just to give another example, felt compelled to commit suicide explicitly because he had heard Hitler's long speeches about Paulus surrender. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it's not immediately clear why the 20 July plot material is relevant to an article on the promotion ceremony four years earlier. Either add a transition sentence or two to link it or delete it as irrelevant (you're getting into field marshal trivia here without a transition to connect the pieces).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As these officers were largely loyal officers of the Nazi regime who played a key role in waging its aggressive wars (with several being responsible for war crimes), focusing only on the relatively honourable aspect of the post-promotion careers of the field marshals introduces significant bias into the article. The ceremony is only accorded a single para... Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will look further into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new material is an improvement, but is still focused on the positive aspects of these mens careers. Several went onto be convicted war criminals (including with responsibility for aspects of the Holocaust), and several presided over major defeats, but the article portrays them as simply serving as soldiers and dumps blame on Hitler. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In §The ceremony was this sentence:

Some believe that it was the personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein that prevented Manstein's field marshal promotion.

The sentence has been replaced with this:

Senior members of the General Staff believed it was the personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein that prevented Manstein's field marshal promotion.

I don't understand how the link to Erich von Manstein#Dismissal, apparently a 1944 event, is the answer to the clarify template that I added. If there was a personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein in 1940, either identify the nature of the dispute or drop the sentence from the section. Similarly, Senior members of the General Staff believed ... is just about as vague as the original Some believe ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist, the source linked to the claim explains it all in further detail. There was indeed a personal dispute between Hitler and Manstein and people know anything about Manstein knows this. Manstein's article mentions parts of the dispute in different places so there was no perfect place to use the link, but ultimately decided #Dismissal was the best place to direct. In any case, just because you haven't heard of the dispute or don't understand it, doesn't mean the dispute should have an article of it's own. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, people who read this article are like me and know nothing about Hitler and Manstein. You cannot depend on readers to have the same knowledge that you do.
I'm not asking for a whole article about the dispute. If the dispute is important to this article, then you must state the nature of the dispute. Sending readers off to another page where the first date in the section is 1944; where neither a dispute nor even the word mentioned; and to then expect readers to cast about in that page for the reason is not acceptable.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, I don't recognize the problem. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do recognize the problem brought up by Trappist and you need to elucidate the nature of the dispute. Adding a sentence will do as the current link is too vague to be useful. Particularly since you linked to Manstein in the first sentence of the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will tweak it then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • No other field marshal promotions were celebrated like this ceremony throughout the rest of the war. This is awkward, delete "ceremony" and substitute "for" for "throughout".
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hermann Göring had already been promoted field marshal in 1938 and was instead promoted to Reichsmarschall, and was the only one to have held this rank. Put this bit about the only person to have held that rank in a note as it's not directly relevant for this article.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework the Field Marshal paragraph to explain the rank in the first sentence, in both Imperial and Nazi usages. Emphasize that it was the highest rank ordinarily achievable rather than using peacock words like prestigious and respected.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Hitler and Nazis came to national power in January 1933, they began an enormous expansion of the military; it was part of Hitler's desire to restore the army's power and prestige. How does the second part of the sentence relate to the first? In other words, what exactly does "it" refer to? The restoration of the rank? It's not clear to an ordinary reader what you're referring to.
I don't see the problem here at all, I think the second sentence matches the first one perfectly? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out a thesaurus, you're still over-using "richly decorated". Try ornate or some other synonyms.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A German field marshal received a yearly salary of 36,000 Reichsmarks and was exempt from income tax. Rephrase with some sort of introductory clause to improve flow. Something like "More tangible benefits included".
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • grand ceremony of promotions rephrase to "grand promotion ceremony" One ceremony with many promotions.
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further he hoped the promotions rephrase to "He also hoped".
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the first paragraph in The ceremony section to follow Hitler's invitation to the ceremony.
I don't quite see how that could be done? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add more details to the ceremony itself. I presume that there was an audience, who attended? Ordinary citizens or Nazi bigwigs?
I think it's rather vague to say "add more details on the ceremony itself". There is an entire section for the ceremony itself and the article has already described those people who attended: Hitler and his generals. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were all of the promotees already Generalobersts or were some Generalleutnants like Manstein? This needs to be mentioned for fairness: everybody else was an army or army group commander, while Manstein was only a corps commander. So there may well not have been any slighting at all by Hitler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, I've got an idea which will require a major expansion so please give me a day or two. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, take your time. Be advised that you've got a fair amount of material already that really doesn't relate to the ceremony itself and you don't need to add to that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66, me and Kierzek are now done expanding and improving. You may continue you're review now. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above that the mention of Manstein here is odd. His promotion two years later to FM skipped over GeneralOberst, so AFAICT to go from a brand-new full General to FM would be irregular (for the Heer at least, I see the LW had two new FMs this way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.145.199 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Failed at nominator's request--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1940_Field_Marshal_Ceremony/GA1&oldid=642826666"