Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Inner German border

Inner German border[edit]

Over the last few months I've been carrying out a sort of one-man Wikiproject on the end of the Cold War - next month is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border between the two Germanies. As well as carrying out a great deal of research, I went to Germany and cycled nearly the full length of the former border, taking a large number of photographs and doing a lot of on-the-ground research over the course of several weeks. I've rewritten and greatly expanded the inner German border article and will be creating and expanding various other related articles in the coming weeks. I'm aiming to get the article up to Featured Article standard, but as a first step I'd appreciate it if it could be peer reviewed and reassessed. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466[edit]

Comment As I said on the talk page, it looks outstanding. I've fixed what disambig links there were, and inserted non-breaking spaces after numbers in dates etc. throughout (except in citation templates). I'll do some work on the alt texts as well.
As far as I am concerned, this looks pretty much like FA quality right now – you've done an amazing amount of research – and it would be cool to have this on the main page on November 9, marking 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell.
Queries:
1. We say that the "death strip" was informally known as "Pieck Strasse". It's sourced to Rottman p. 17, but I am perturbed by the fact that I can't find a single reference to that being the control strip's nickname elsewhere. Could you double-check? --JN 466 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  It's referred to as "Pieck-Allee" by some other sources. Shears calls it by that name in his book (p. 71) and it's also mentioned on p. 178 of Wilfred Ahrens, Hilferufe von drüben: die DDR vertreibt ihre Kinder: authentische Berichte. "Straße" might be an equivalent alternative name or a mistake by Rottman; it's hard to say. But it's clear that it was nicknamed "Pieck-something", whether "Straße" or "Allee". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It seems to have been "Allee":
  http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&id=Kz9aAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Pieck-Allee%22+ddr&q=pieck-allee#search_anchor (Ahrens, as you say ...)
  
  http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_1384-544-1-30.pdf
  
  http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_5916-544-1-30.pdf
  
  GDR humour had a certain something ... --JN 466 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  just GDR humor? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Adversity gave it a particular edge (although Berlin humour in particular always had that edge). An "Allee" in German is a tree-lined avenue, so it really fits well. --JN 466 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, I'll change it to match those sources. (If you're after GDR jokes try the following: two Stasi agents are talking one day. One of them asks the other, "What are you thinking?" The other replies, "Oh, same as you." The first retorts: "Then you are under arrest!") -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  :) I note we have an article on this: East German jokes. Many of them lose something in translation though ... --JN 466 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I also read somewhere that EG was called the "Banana-less Republic" a spoof on the Banana Republic idea. I'll try to find that source, but you might keep your eyes open for it too. Perhaps in Harsch, I might find it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  in his introduction to Banana cultures: agriculture, consumption, and environmental change in Honduras and the United States (2005). By John Soluri. He refers to it in the intro, linking places of production and consumption. Basically, his point is that Bananas are a "staple" only in a consumer-oriented society; furthermore, the consumption of bananas (the ability to transport, buy, etc.) weighs heavily on the backs of laborers in the third world economies, the quintessential exploited proletariat. Probably you'd need to cite pp 1-18. University of Texas Press. ISBN: 978-0-292-71256-0 Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've seen that too. It's referred to on page 5 of John Rodden, Repainting the little red schoolhouse: a history of Eastern German education: "Jubilant East Germans sported bumper stickers featuring two bananas forming the letter "D" (for Deutschland) or hung Dollar Bananas on the windshields of their little two-cylinder Trabant cars, under the words: "German Banana Republic, R.I.P."" Apparently even now east(ern) Germans eat 20% more bananas than their western counterparts. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've done all (or at least most) of the n-dashes, but we still have some non-compliance with the WP:HYPHEN section of WP:MOS. For example, "a 500 metres (1,600 ft) wide strip" should be "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" or "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -wide strip" according to WP:HYPHEN. Where the convert template is used, the hyphen can be added by using the adj=on parameter. Personally, I find "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -long strip" well-nigh intolerable; suggest we use "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" instead (i.e. convert template with adj=on, and dropping the word "wide"). What should we do in cases where we give both height and width and "high" and "wide" can't simply be dropped? --JN 466 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  J, slow down! You'll soon have as many edits as Chris. Let him do the hyphens and such. He's an experienced editor. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Just to let you guys know, I just knocked off nearly a hundred n-dashes in compliance with WP:HYPHEN and with the advice of Cameltrader's Advisor (which greatly speeds up the repetitive task of combing over the article's dashes to see that they comply with WP:HYPHEN). Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Ruth is right, Chris. You've produced 25,000 words of prose with (apparently) just a few dozen edits in the page history, and I've produced a few dozen dashes and non-breaking spaces with almost as many edits. It won't look right if I end up having more edits than you, without having contributed any substance to the article, so I'll slow down a bit. --JN 466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Appearances are deceptive! I wrote most of it offline and much of it on the ground in the course of visiting the places described in the article. I don't mind in the least if you continue fixing technical issues. In fact, I'd be very grateful if you could continue (as fast as you like!) as it frees me up to resolve the more substantive content issues that have been raised. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Sounds like a fun holiday!! (Okay then, but I'll avoid making lots of small edits.) --JN 466 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. There are two works by Childs cited. References such as "Childs, p. 30" are therefore ambiguous. It would probably make sense to include both works in the References section. --JN 466 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved, hopefully. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The slogan Wir steht hier! said to have been used by protesters can't be right. Please check the source. --JN 466 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  An IP has changed this now to Wir bleiben hier, and that seems to be how it was phrased at the time: [1]. Looks okay. --JN 466 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. A few references are hyperlinked, e.g. <ref>[[#Jarausch|Jarausch]] ... or <ref>[[#Cramer|Cramer]] ... but most are not. Reviewers at FAC are likely to ask for one consistent style. --JN 466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is the Herleshausen image dated correctly? It looks as though one could just drive through; that would not have been possible in 1985. JN 466 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  There were two sets of border facilities at each crossing point, one on the east side and one on the west side. What you're looking at in that image is the West German border facility. The view is looking west into West Germany - the vantage point is just to the western side of the border. The East German border facility point is further east, behind the vantage point (note that the border line isn't visible). You can see here where the West German border facility (now demolished, of course) once stood. I'll tweak the caption to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Sounds good. --JN 466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Inner_German_border#Watchtowers_and_bunkers section has a few unsourced paragraphs (the first two, and also some of the detailed measurements and other info on the various types of tower). When you go to FAC, people may want you to add sources; it's probably best to add them now.
  Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Inner_German_border#The_fall_of_the_border section is also very thin on references, especially the first half. Much of it is arguably common knowledge, but reviewers might want a ref for things like East Germans not being allowed to travel to Poland.
  Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to take the article to FAC now; you seem to have done all the remaining alt texts, and the last tweaks if any were needed can still be worked out while it's sitting at FAC. Good luck. JN 466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll fix as many of those remaining issues as I can and take it to FAC in a couple of hours' time, hopefully. Thanks very much for all your help - it's been invaluable. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) the FA folks will quibble over the use of "the" and similar types of words in the headings. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auntieruth[edit]

This is a fantastic article. I've was impressed when I read it for assessment at the WP Germany, and am still favorably impressed with it now. It's undergone some tweaking, and its in better wiki-shape. I will be very pleased to support it for featured article as well. As far as the prose goes, it's in great shape. Your sources are sufficient, maybe a bit heavy on the East German perspective in some areas, but balanced with the Wessie/Weissie perspective in others. Good Job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shimgray[edit]

I'm impressed by this article, I have to say! Long and comprehensive and interesting.

One issue that leaps out at me - there's a lot of East German government-produced images here. One or two (eg/ the film screenshot showing the DDR's view of the border) are tagged as non-free, but almost all of them are tagged as PD-GermanGov on Commons. This template says:

"This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG)."

As far as I can tell, though, this seems to be a fairly restricted provision applying to certain specified sets of official documents - laws, rulings, etc - rather than a general government-works-are-free. Do these images really qualify? Even if they do, that law may still be problematic - s.5 refers to the "Änderungsverbot" of s.62, which seems to prohibit making derivatives (but this may be a translation error). Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images were produced by the Stasi and are from the BtSU, the German government agency responsible for managing the Stasi's files. They were published in a series of museum exhibits and handouts as well as being available directly from the BtSU. If they don't fall under PD-GermanGov, perhaps they can be used as fair use? If someone with more experience of German government copyrights could comment, that would be very helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurinavicius[edit]

To put it simply, this article is suberb! There are no glaring problems and the biggest issue I've seen was the minor detail of n-dashes, which has been fixed. I have no qualms about this article and would be glad to support it for featured article status. Great job! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]