Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Kesselring/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [1].

Albert Kesselring[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it is an important military history article, about one of the most famous field marshals of World War II. It has passed Good Article and A-class article reviews. An Australian-German-Italian collaborative effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a very interesting and comprehensive article which meets the FA criteria. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 153 (Royal Warrante of ...) needs a publisher
    • Done.
  • What makes Bitner, Teddy Kesselring at Anzio a reliable source? Lulu Press is a self-publishing company.
    • It is not used as a source... Bitner added it to the bibliography himself a couple of days ago. I have removed it.
  • Plochner ref needs a publisher listed.
    • Done.
  • A note for other reviewers, note that Kesselring's memoirs are used as a source (not very extensively, mind you) so that should be watched out for. (From a glance at the number of times referenced, I'm not thinking it's gong to be a problem, but best to point this out now.)
    • They are mainly used for biographical details. There is the occasional reference to personal reactions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasnt' particularly worried, but better to point it out for others ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support–I performed the GAR on this biography and all pertinent issues were addressed. Apart from possibly a handful of serial commas (which I leave for the grammar experts to review), it remains in fine condition. Thus I support this page for FA promotion.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern needs clarification:

  • File:KesselringDetentionReport.jpg: are we certain the detention reports are handled by the US forces? If the Museums' Reports are on courtesy loan from the UK archives, it would then fall under Crown Copyright, which expires in 1996, just nicely complying with the URAA. Of course, the reports could be jointly done by US and British forces. The document is in public domain, US or not, but we must make sure the license is correct.
    • Kesselring was a prisoner of and processed by the Americans. There was no joint processing of prisoners. He was later formally handed over to the British. The form is an American one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or free for use. Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you crop the images used the article to rid of the German archive side panel? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Kesselring was one of the most frequently listed German soldiers in the Wehrmachtbericht, an honour that was not bestowed frequently. I have the Wehrmachtbericht in front of me and he is listed 13 times surpassing even Werner Mölders. I think this needs to be added somewhere to the article. Secondly, I would like to see the footnotes separated from the citations. I gladly address both the topic if you find this valuable to the article. Kesselring also received numerous other awards like the "Order of the Crown of Italy", why doesn't the article mention any of those? Personally I would expect that a GA article lists all of them. my 2 cents MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, all German nouns must be capitalized. There is one instance of Generalmajor in lower case.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This looks to be generally OK, but I have a few comments:
  • The prose is rather staccato in places, with quite a few sentences beginning "He did ... He was ... He qualified ... He helped ..." very close together. Doesn't really make the prose flow as well as it could.
  • "From Early life: "The regiment was based at Metz, and was responsible for maintaining its forts." Err, yes, so what?
    • FWIW, I don't see the prob with this - not fascinating info but at least we know something they did... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Between the wars: "As chief of administration, he had to create his new staff from scratch". He created his staff?
    • Yes he did... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, I'm guessing the point is that some could read this as creating the staff members, Frankenstein-like. No prob for the initiated but might look odd to others... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay. I changed it to "assemble". Thanks for that one Igor Ian Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Between the wars: "Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role". The tactical role?
  • From World War II: ".. considered himself under Bock's orders" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "deferred to Bock in all matters relating to the ground war"?
    • No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! Obviously, the air component commander will have to defer to the ground component commander in ground matters. What it is saying here is that when the ground component commander wanted something done, the air component commander (Kesselring) did what he was told. Not told him that he was not under his command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several instances of the awkward use of "would", such as in "Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force". "Suppress" also seems a little unidiomatic here, might something like "overcome" be better?
    • "Suppress is a technical term. It means to reducing the ability to attack or defend itself. It falls short of neutralisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although earmarked for operations against the Soviet Union, Luftflotte 2 remained in the west until May 1941." "Arriving in the West, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's Army Group B." So which is it to be? "West" or "west"?

These are of course just a few examples of the kind of tidying up I think still remains to be done to this article.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to "Officer cadet": it goes through the anglophone countries in detail, but not a mention of Germany, let alone Nazi Germany. Is it misleading? And it's linked again to the same place 20 seconds later (and I'd rather have the German word first time—is it done to link to the German WP article on fahnenjunker instead?) Is a piped section-link possible instead to the article on "Germany Army" or "History of the G A"? In any case, why the A for "army", especially when in isolation ("remained in the Army")?
    • A good rule of thumb is the capital letter is required when "the" is used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better idea would be to upgrade the officer cadet article to include details about Germany; or write a new article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wasteful link to "World War I": this is surely linked from the "Western" and "Eastern" fronts articles: WWI is just too vague to be useful, especially when specific related links are within half a second's read. I see "Western front" linked again in the lead. The text is on the high side of link-density, so opportunities for focussing the readers on the high-value links should be taken, if there are any. In fact, rationalising would pay for a slight expansion of blue for "Poland" (and by implication the succeeding link to "France"): pipe "invasion of Poland", and the reader will be more likely to click. (You've done this already for North Africa—good.) Linking is almost as skill-bound as writing prose!
  • I'm trying to think how to make this sentence less clunky: "Albert Kesselring was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria, on 30 November 1885,[Notes 2] the son of Carl Adolf Kesselring, a schoolmaster and town councillor, and his wife Rosina,[3] who was born a Kesselring, being Carl's second cousin.[1] "
    • It could be split in two... I use this form for every biography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "honeymooned" linked? "Apocathery" I can just cope with as a link.
    • Apocathery was linked because I had to look it up! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italy"—I'd remove that link. There are so many high-value ones already, and the article on Italy is rather vague in relation to this topic.
  • "He was also involved in secret military manoeuvres"—Better without "also"?
  • Unhappy about linking "Colonel", an article that deals with the term in so many countries, but not Germany (although oddly there's an icon in the gallery there). Does it, did it, mean the same thing as in an anglophone army? Again, is it acceptable to link to the German WP, or to remove the link from the main text and insert in "See also"?
    • Yes. Oberst means "Colonel" in both the sense of the rank and the position (ie "honorary colonel" in the British Army). So the translation is a very good one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't link to a foreign-language WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was 6000 RM a lot of money?
    • Yes. The linked article on Rieichmarks says (without source) that there were 4.2 RM to the US dollar = USD $1,400. This online calculator says that was worth between USD $18,000 and $22,000 today. However, many other generals got much, much more: Milch, von Rundstedt and von Kluge each got RM 250,000; von Kleist received RM 480,000; and Keitel asked for and received a tract of confiscated land worth RM 730,000. Added a note to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the rest, but this suggests that a link audit and prose polish are desirable. It's still much better than the German WP equivalent: just out of interest, was it useful in the preparation of this nomination? Tony (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Originally the article contained a section translated from the German wiki which was based on a review of von Lingen's book. From there I found the German edition of her book. I contacted von Lingen and she told me that an English translation was in the works, so I waited until it was available, then replaced the footnotes with ones referring to the English edition. In the editing process, the original section was subsumed into the text.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Gave it the tick at MILHIST ACR, believe it deserves the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that this article is well written, well cited and illustrated and meets the FA criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - On the whole, this is a very well-written article. I just saw a one minor thing as I was scanning through the article and realized it was currently at FAC.
    • "Kesselring's evacuation of Sicily, which began a week earlier on 10 August, was perhaps the most brilliant action of the campaign. In spite of the Allies' superiority on land, at sea, and in the air, Kesselring was able to evacuate not only 40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles, 94 guns, 47 tanks, 1,100 tons of ammunition, 970 tons of fuel, and 15,000 tons of stores. He was successful because he was able to achieve near-perfect coordination between the three services under his command while his opponent, Eisenhower, could not." – The phrase "he was successful because" seems a bit unnecessary; is there any way that you could eliminate that?
  • Comment. I can't support this yet. The intro is not clear enough. It is perfectly clear to anyone who understands the history of the Wars, but it is not, to someone that doesn't.
It states that he was in WWII, in the first paragraph. Then talks about enlisting and WWI in the second parag. Then it talks about his role in 1936, but says he resigned.
Then suddenly he is invading Poland etc. There needs to be a clear statement that this invasion took place in WWII, and it needs a date. It needs to be clear that the events of this paragraph are events in the war that is discussed in paragraph one. This may seem obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to high school kids.
Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about now? It says: "During World War II he commanded air forces in the invasions of Poland and France..." This should make it clear enough. Some dates have also been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Ha! I do like those changes, Hawkeye7! I made them myself. Thanks for tidying-up. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Has Malleus been asked to revisit and see if his concerns have been addressed? Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall ask. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Comment. I think this has improved sufficiently for me to withdraw my oppose, but I still see problems with the prose, although not serious enough to persuade me to maintain my opposition. For instance:
  • "He attempted to cut the Polish communications through air attacks against Warsaw ...". So the Polish were communicating through air attacks against Warsaw?
    • This interpretation had never occurred to me. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other generals of Nazi Germany, he received personal payments from Adolf Hitler; in Kesselring's case, RM 6,000, a considerable sub at the time." Should that really be sub?
  • "The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on hampered air operations even more." Awkward repetion of "hampered".
  • "... taking personal command of the mobile units which he led around the southern flank ...". Should be "that he led around".
    • No, I wanted to say that he took all the mobile units, not just ones that he led around the southern flank. Re-phased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Albert_Kesselring/archive1&oldid=1077607418"