Talk:HIAG/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: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will start the review shortly, probably not in one single run.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • In the lead "It campaigned for the legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, using contacts with political parties to manipulate them for its purposes." Its purpose is a bit fuzzy here. Reading the German Wiki, I suggest rewriting the sentence slightly (in meaning maybe not necessarily these words). "It's main objective was to achieve legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the former members of the Waffen-SS, portraying them as normal soldiers of World War II. To achieve this objective, the HIAG used contacts with political parties, supported historical revisionism encompassing multi-prong propaganda efforts, including periodicals, books and public speeches, alongside a publishing house that served as a platform for its publicity aims." Thoughts? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • article currently contains overlinking, please check for multiple links to Der Freiwillige, Otto Kumm, Gustav Lombard, Paul Hausser, Otto Weidinger, Einsatzgruppen, clean Wehrmacht, Jochen Peiper, neo-Nazi, SS-Totenkopfverbände, Historical revisionism (negationism)
  • article currently contains inconsistent American and British spelling, examples include defense, defence. Artilce seems to be using British English. Check for "honor", "organization", "civilization", "organizational", "realization" and "characterization". These words give the impression that American English is used. Check "pretenses"

I don't see "pretenses". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...veterans were ready to "do their duty for the Fatherland" and Felix Steiner declaring support..." Steiner was introduced earlier in the article, subsequently the sentence should read "...veterans were ready to "do their duty for the Fatherland" and Felix Steiner declaring support..."
  • ranks such as SS-Brigadeführer should be linked on first occurance and put in italics like you did on SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer and SS-Obersturmbannführer.
  • "article 131 of the Basic Law", I suggest linking to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. You also use "Article 131 of the Common Law" which you link to Persilschein. I would use the same words for the same thing in the article to keep it consistent.
  • see MOS:LINEBREAKS, it reads "single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized". You may want to change the paragraph "The conventions, which were in effect used for political purposes, added to the controversy surrounding the organisation.[27] (See also "Controversies" section below.)" There are still a few one sentence paragraphs in the article.
  • link German Ministry of Defence to Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany)
  • suggestion: there are a number of "German veterans' organisations" (Stille Hilfe, ODESSA, etc.) on Wikipedia. You may want to consider creating a template for cross referencing.

I added a relevant template, which I updated to include the key HIAG personalities and Stille Hilfe. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • see WP:MOSDASH, there "Spaced en dash": the sentence "This extensive body of work – 57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals – have been described by historians as revisionist apologia." needs to be changed to "This extensive body of work—57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals—have been described by historians as revisionist apologia."
  • see WP:THUMBSIZE, although currently under discussion, it still reads "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor"

 Done Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • see WP:ALT, not mandated here, moving forward you should consider adding it
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. looks good
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). looks good Your most recent edits added a citation to "Wette 2007, pp. 236–238." for which the article lacks a reference. Please format the ISBN number 9780674025776 correctly.
  • No reference for "Citino 2012, p. 322."
  • Unused reference "Raudvere, Catharina; Stala, Krzysztof; Willert, Trine Stauning (2012). Rethinking the Space for Religion: New Actors in Central and Southeast Europe on Religion, Authenticity and Belonging. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. ISBN 978-9187121852." and bad ISBN format.
  • No reference for "Janson 2006, p. 393."
  • bad ISBN formating on "Carrard, Philippe (2010). The French Who Fought for Hitler: Memories from the Outcasts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521198226.", "Hadley, Michael L. (1995). Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 9780773512825."

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • missing ISBN or OCLC number for "Tauber, Kurt (1967). Beyond Eagle and Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945, Volume I. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press." and "Tauber, Kurt (1967). Beyond Eagle and Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945, Volume II. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press."
  • Section "Ideology": the citation is missing a page number
  • ISBN 3-00-015288-1 needs to be converted to 13 digit format
  • The sentence "Book cover of The Myth of the Eastern Front; image adopted from cover art of electronic game The Last Victory: Manstein's Backhand Blow, February–March 1943. The game depicts the Third Battle of Kharkov, in which several Waffen-SS units took part." requires a citation, otherwise it could be considered WP:OR

 Done for the three above. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I wonder if the section "Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG" could be considered WP:OFFTOPIC. Having said this, I am not questioning the validity nor the relevance of the topic as such, I am wondering if this information should be shortened, focusing on how the HIAG influenced revisionism outside of HIAG. I would think that interested readers in historical revisionism would probably not come to this article but would probably visit the article Historical revisionism (negationism). I would think that the examples listed in this section are probably better place there. I will ask for a second opinion on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. See reasoning by Diannaa below
Consider using File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg
Images have been removed MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I am putting the review on hold for seven days. Currently only MOS and references issues remain. Good job so far. I am passing the article, all my recommendations have been addressed. Well done, good luck with the article moving forward MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image assessment by Diannaa[edit]

So what we've got is 8 non-free images. Each needs to have a solid reason for inclusion. Where pics like this usually fail the WP:NFCC is on criterion #1 and #8. #1 says that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In many cases non-free images can be readily replaced by prose describing the event. #8 says that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So a pic of two guys at a conference does not meet that criterion. I think the photo in the info box can be justified, and two or three of the best examples of book/magazine covers, the ones that illustrate points raised in the article or cover material in their captions. I think the Der Freiwillige cover should stay, and The Myth of the Eastern Front. So, keep three non-free images: File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, and the infobox image, File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg. That's my opinion. Cross-posted from my user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the most. However, I feel that images *File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg and File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg should stay, as I believe that they meet points #1 and #8, by significantly adding to the understanding of the organisation.
  • The image "grave of Bernhard Siebken" shows the atmosphere in West Germany in the 1950s when HIAG emerged and was at its most influential. It also illustrates the point of 1950s being the "decade of the suppression of the Nazi past" where war criminals were almost exclusively referred to as "so-called war criminals" and could be openly celebrated. It's one thing to read about it in the bullets, and another to see the group of HIAG members solemnly laying a wreath on the grave of a war criminal (and publishing it in the organisation's magazine).
  • The image File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg is also important to understanding of the activities of the organisation. Hausser's book is described by historians as one of the foundational works in the Waffen-SS mythology as strictly a military formation. The image shows HIAG's connection to the Nazi past via the design (with SS runes on the cover) and helps the readers understand why the book was deemed "detrimental to youth".
Potential replacements:
  • On the image File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg: I've seen it before but it seemed a bit unfair to include an image of old and frail people. Besides, the article is mostly about the leadership and the organisation as a whole, rather than about individual members. Please let me know if the image is appropriate; it can then be included in the section HIAG#Dissolution.
  • Question: If I wished to replace the recruitment poster, would this one be free and properly licensed: File:Skanderbeg.JPG? I may or may not reinstate the idea of including war-time propaganda, but the sources do draw parallels between HIAG's materials and what was produced during WWII.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of copyright material on this website is very strict, stricter than copyright law itself in some ways and stricter than most other websites. Eight non-free images in one article is too many, as it violates NFCC #3a: minimal usage: a minimal number of non-free items must be used. I will go over the contested images again and try to explain again why they fail our NFCC:
  • File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg In my opinion this image fails NFCC#1: There's nothing here that cannot be described using words alone, and it fails NFCC #8, because it does not greatly increase our understanding of the subject of the article (HIAG).
  • File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg: This is a book cover. Normally we only include these in the article about the book itself. Other usages would have to have very compelling rationales for inclusion, and I'm just not seeing that here. You've already covered the main point in the prose, which is that the SS runes are prominently featured on the cover (fails NFCC #1).
  • File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg is properly licensed and is okay for inclusion.
  • File:Skanderbeg.JPG: This image is a derivative work: it is a photograph of a poster, and while there's a licence tag in place for the copyright status of the photograph, we don't have any information about the copyright status of the poster. I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very sad to see File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg go, as it made a big impression on me and really clarified the nature of the organisation for me. As I mentioned, it showed pride in the action, with commemorative photographs being taken and then printed in the magazine for the entire membership to see. Paul Hausser's book I'd be okay with removing, and I've already removed the rest. That leaves four non-free images -- would that be fine? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here that can't be described in words alone. In fact you just did so. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the wreath laying ceremony and relocated the The Myth image, which leaves the article with three non-free images, as per Diannaa's original suggestion. Is that acceptable? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg still does not meet the non-free content requirements and could be nominated for deletion as F7 at any time. Good articles should exemplify some of our best work, so I don't feel I can endorse this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was removed, I think the criteria is now met. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1b + other[edit]

I addressed the points raised in the section, I believe. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. I kept full names of the authors in the bullets about the books (Hausser, Steiner and Meyer) as full names seemed to go well together with the book titles. Besides, there are two Meyers mentioned in the article (Kurt and Hubert), but I don't feel strongly on this point. I also kept the links to names in the captions in case someone is just scanning the article. Hope this works! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS, not sure what was meant by the suggestion to create a template for "German veterans' organisations". Is there an example I could reference? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something similar to {{Falsification of history}} or {{Nazis South America}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with this if you like. I recently made the wee template {{Normandy landings bombardment groups}} as a navigation aid for my articles about D-Day bombardment groups. If you could provide me with a list of the articles that would be included, I can make something up for you. User:Diannaa 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, yes that would be nice although I'm not sure if enough articles on English wiki exist. This is an interesting org referenced in the HIAG article, but more details are only available on De.wiki Association of Returnees and Families of POWs and MIAs [de]. Another relevant org is Verband deutscher Soldaten, but there's no article for it, even on De.wiki. I suggest not including ODESSA, as it may or may not have existed, but Stille Hilfe would probably be suitable, although it is not a high-quality article at this time. If you guys are aware of other articles on the topic, please let me know. Perhaps, similar to {{Nazis South America}}, include the list of key figures, including both leadership and HIAG's authors? Then there would be value and I can provide a list pulled from HIAG.
Separately, I addressed more American spelling issues and added Wette. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see overlinking to Historical revisionism (?). Seperately, I reworked the lead per suggestion above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added an applicable template. Separately, I don't see "pretenses". Will work on others. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion[edit]

Request for second opinion has been made. The issue for second opinion has been requested as to the article staying on point apparently with a concern for digression from the intentions of the article. WWII revisionism is an extensive topic and there appears to be a camel in the tent here which can be looked at more directly than the article currently does. It is difficult to call this article complete without a more direct assessment of the complex issues involved in matters dealing with the Wikipedia articles for the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and Holocaust victims to start this list. Its not clear why these do not appear in high emphasis, or whether they should or should not appear, more prominently in the outline. As a very general statement (and this is a very short second opinion) any time the issue of historical revisionism is visited there become a set of operative issues which need to be put to rest directly including: Propaganda, secondary agendas, biased agendas, lobbying, political motives, etc. Have all of these issues been addressed in the article and are they sufficiently prominent in the outline. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address MisterBee's inquiry above, I'd see no problem splitting the "Revisionist tradition..." content out into a separate article, and leaving a summary. This section has grown to a size where it can stand on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with the article splitting. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I largely finished the trimming/moving. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it is better, more focused and tighter organization/presentation. Kierzek (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIAG/GA1&oldid=967076672"