Talk:German involvement in the Spanish Civil War/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: the citation check tool reveals a number of errors with consolidation (action required)
  • Westwell (2004). p. 31. (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • Thomas (1961). p. 441. (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • westwell31 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Disambiguations: two dabs (Ganesa and Guernica) - [3] (action required)
  • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing - [6] (no action required)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • The lead has 5 paragraphs, however should only have a maximum of 4 per WP:LEAD. I would suggust merging the first sentence into one of the other paragraphs.
  • This sentence is a little repetitive: "of the various attempts of Nazi Germany to influence the war. It attempted, in the most". Specifically "attempts" and "attempted". Perhaps reword?
  • Would it be possible to more clearly define the dates of German invervention in the war in the lead itself? This might add to the context of the article (suggestion only).
  • "Hitler decided to support the Nationalists in late July." Which year? This is a little unclear to me.
  • "Around 5,000 German or Austrians served", should this be "Around 5,000 German and Austrians served"?
  • "Admiral Raeder urged the German government". Incorrect presentation here: "Admiral Raeder" should be Admiral Erich Raeder at first instance per WP:SURNAME.
  • Presentation here again: "Germany was represented by Ribbentrop", "Ribeentrop" should be Joachim von Ribbentrop per WP:SURNAME.
  • Capitalisation here I think: " split on whether to support the nationalists", should be "Nationalists" IMO.
  • "and possibly be embroiled in a European war", maybe reword to "and possibly become embroiled in a European war as a result."
  • "in civilian clothes and unaware of where they were going". Grammar here I think, maybe should be "in civilian clothes, unaware of where they were going."
  • Irregular capitalisation here: "and accompanied by German Air transport began". Should be "and accompanied by German air transport began."
  • Some missing words here I think: "A wide belief was that the soldiers would train Spanish Nationalists, and not engage." Not engage in what? Perhaps "A wide belief was that the soldiers would train Spanish Nationalists, and not engage in the fighting."
  • "Other military aid was provided." Perhaps "Other military aid was also provided."
  • "The German navy also provided various"; caps here I think, should be "The German Navy also provided various..."
  • Missing word here: "various surface ships and coordinated movement of German supplies to Spain", should probably be "various surface ships and coordinated the movement of German supplies to Spain."
  • Typo here I think: "Soviet air support for the Republican was growing", should probably be: "Soviet air support for the Republicans was growing".
  • Overlink of Hermann Göring (once in Motivation and volunteers section and the other in Early intervention section).
  • Missing word here: "(under Franco's direction) began bombing raids the city as a whole". Should be "(under Franco's direction) began bombing raids on the city as a whole."
  • Another missing word here: "effects of civilian bombings and deliberate burning of the city" should be "effects of civilian bombings and the deliberate burning of the city"
  • I'm not sure what this sentence means: "Germany immediately began to ship industrial production back to Germany." Could you perhaps reword it to clarify?
  • "it acted against enemy shipping, ports, coastal communications". I would consider avoiding words like "enemy", perhaps reword to "Republican"?
  • "10 ships were attacked in the second half of 1937" should be "Ten ships were attacked in the second half of 1937" as numbers which begin a sentence should be written per WP:ORDINAL.
  • "In total, eleven men were killed in action, and five others", "eleven" should be "11" per WP:MOSNUM.
  • Grammar here: "Flown by Soviet pilots, it claimed they had mistaken it for the Nationalist ship Canarias", perhaps "The planes were flown by Soviet pilots who claimed that they had mistaken it for the Nationalist ship Canarias..."
  • More here: "it did formally withdraw from international patrols to enforce the agreement", should perhaps be reworded to "it formally withdrew from international patrols to enforce the agreement."
  • Context here: "ultimately, the air superiority which allowed certain parts of the Legion to excel would not be replicated because of the unsuccessful Battle of Britain." Perhaps reword to " ultimately, the air superiority which allowed certain parts of the Legion to excel in Spainn would not be replicated during World War II because of the unsuccessful Battle of Britain."
    • These issues have now been resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Overall good use of WP:RS IMO.
  • Overlinking of Hugh Thomas in references, only needs to be linked once.
  • A couple of the references lack ISBNs (e.g. Thomas and Cienciala) are they available?
  • A few of the references lack a place of publishing (e.g. Westwell, Thomas 1987, Payne, Cienciala, Leitz, and Heydecker and Leeb), can this be added?
    • Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the citations uses an inconsistent style to the other "Gannes, Harry and Repard, Theodore. Spain in Revolt Victor Gollancz Ltd. London 1936". Short citations are used through out the article per WP:CITESHORT so this format should also be used here. Also do you have a page number of this?
    • Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Coverage looks sufficient to me, although I am no expert.
    • I still think that this article does a good job of showing how the Germans helped the Nationalists conduct military operations, but a poor one on detailing the material aid, military and economic, that they gave/sold to them. I suspect that the types and amounts of non-military aid may be difficult to find, but that's certainly not true for the military aid. At the very least a list of the numbers of weapons should be provided with notes whether they were given or sold to Franco.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Cheers Sturm. Grandiose is this information available? Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Happy with your additions, barring any further suggestions from Sturm the coverage seems sufficient to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

  • Images seem to be PD so should be ok (I'm no expert here though).
  • I have tweaked the placement of the images as there were three very close together, please revert if you do not like this.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This is a good article in my opinion, however there are a number of issues with prose that need to be worked through before it gets promoted. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: issues from the "technical" section addressed, I hope. Will shortly address remaining points. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: 'I've done down to '"Other military aid was provided." Perhaps "Other military aid was also provided." To me, the latter seems tautological, with the word "other" meaning the same as "also" in this form. I wonder what you think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 3: Done the others, some with variants other than that proposed (none controversial). However, I've kept 'In total, eleven men were killed in action, and five others' because of MOSNUM's phrase "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" as this seem to justify an exception. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most issues now addressed. Just the point raised about military and economic aid to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving what would ordinarily be a response above, I'm really struggling in the three books I have available (Beevor, Howson, Westwell) to identify what part is missing. In none of them is any sort of civilian aid mentioned (food, clothing, that sort of thing) as it is with France and Russia. As far as military supplies are concerned, I believe the article does as fair job. Taking aside actions of German soldiers, there is still discussion of:

• The number and dates of arrival of German soldiers, their peak and total serving.
• Similarly for German aircraft, along with their efficiency/effectiveness and numbers shot down etc..
• Supplies to the Republicans

I therefore believe that aid like rifles, ammunition, that sort of thing, might be the point under discussion. The article does make reference to it, perhaps a little too fleetingly. However, I think that there is only a bit more to add on this front, and I'd welcome any further description of what you're/I'm looking for. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think this was the point Sturm was making. As such if you have any more info on this please included it, however if there isn't anything else I'm happy to cross this off. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed the problematic reference (above) and having added two further sentences, I'm personally confident that any omission is minor (if preferable, for, say, an FA). The criteria mention "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail" are acceptable and I think that this issue is well below this (I say this mostly at Sturm, since unfortunately I have not been able to add that much). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy with that and I'm pleased to pass this article now. Well done and thank you for your patience. Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)