Talk:Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: JBchrch (talk · contribs) 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This one looks interesting. Happy to take up the review. I will be reading the article over the course of the next few days and posting comments below as I go along. JBchrch talk 20:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I'll be looking forward to working with you on this review. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 1. Shouldn't the first paragraph mention Hindenburg? I'm thinking of something like From April 1930 to January 1933, three chancellors, Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, and Kurt von Schleicher, were appointed by president Paul von Hindenburg, and governed without the consent of the Reichstag, Germany's lower house of parliament. although this makes the sentence a bit clunky.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 2. Since Brüning did not command a majority in parliament, he governed exclusively through the president's emergency powers. Whenever the government suffered parliamentary defeats, Hindenburg would dissolve the Reichstag and enable Brüning to stay in office. I feel like this is a kind of contradiction. The first sentence says that Brüning governed through the president's powers. The second sentence implies he nevertheless submitted his proposals to the parliament. Or am I missing something?

• See my comment below, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 3. Unable to overcome parliamentary obstruction, he was succeeded by Kurt von Schleicher, who, in turn, gave way to Adolf Hitler on 30 January 1933. The "gave way" here lacks precision. It can be understood as meaning that von Schleicher gave the power to Hitler himself.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 4. The presidential cabinets have been interpreted as a result of scepticism towards parliamentary government in German society. I think you are missing a "the" somewhere, as in "interpreted as a result of the scepticism".

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead § 1. Per MOS:FIRST: Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term to indicate the use–mention distinction. Draft suggestion: "The presidential cabinets (German: Präsidialkabinette) were a succession of governments of the Weimar Republic whose legitimacy derived exclusively from presidential emergency decrees."

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead, general. I am wondering whether it should be underlined more heavily (and/or earlier) that the presidential cabinets directly preceded Hitler. What do you think?

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @JBchrch: I'm going to address these points once you've gone through the entire article. Regarding No. 2 from above: these governments still submitted legislation to parliament, where they inevitably lost and then resorted to resolving parliament and passing their bills through emergency powers. I hope the "Article 48" section explains this in more detail. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• No worries, I will slowly go through the article and you can address my comment whenever you want to. JBchrch talk 13:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Background § Article 48. It would be useful to define what "federal cabinet" means.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Background § Article 48. Presidents could, in theory, govern solely on the basis of Article 48. It think it be more correct to say "effectively" instead of in theory. It would be also closer to what Dyzenhaus says.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Background § Government of Hermann Müller. I may be an idiot, but when I read SPD politician Hermann Müller became Reichskanzler (chancellor) at the helm of an informal grand coalition including his own party, the Catholic Centre Party, I couldn't understand whether Hermann Muller belonged to the SPD of the Catholic Centre party (as in "his own party" = "the Catholic Centre Party"). Feel free to disregard if you don't think that's relevant.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Background § Government of Hermann Müller. After the Young Plan was passed by parliament in early March 1930 I think the original wording "accepted", instead of passed, would be clearer (per GACR #1).

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Brüning. had long sought to replace the grand coalition with a conservative government that did not answer to parliament but to the president himself. More background information about Hindenburg's motivations/ideas and/or how he came to choose Brüning could be useful here. Some material could be lifted from Paul von Hindenburg § Presidential governments.

• Good idea, I found a suitable section in Winkler. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Brüning. The section the fascist National Socialist German Workers' Party... enabled the chancellor to govern solely via article 48. Takes summary-style a bit too far to my taste, and would be more readable if things were explained a bit more "slowly".

• I've tried to add more context. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Brüning. This impression was reinforced through series of state elections in the spring of 1932. Here the readers asks the "by what"?

• I wasn't entirely sure what you meant here but I have reworded for clarity. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Brüning. chief among whom former general Kurt von Schleicher, developed plans to install a more authoritarian cabinet supported by the NSDAP. More details about von Schleicher's motivations would be useful. Material could be lifted from Kurt von Schleicher § Social function of the Army.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Papen. the government repealed the ban on paramilitary groups. Isn't this a big deal in the rise of Hitler? Shouldn't more info be provided about this decision? I may be wrong.

• I see why you might say that and I believe it is true. There are two reasons why I'm hesitant to put it in the article: 1) My source for this topic doesn't explicits say so and 2) Hitler's paramilitary groups (SS and SA) didn't quite go away when the ban was introduced; if I remember correctly, they didn't suffer much and their structures remained intact. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Papen I am reading a lot of additional details at Franz von Papen § Chancellorship about Papen's tenure, and while I am not a fan of huge wikipedia articles, I am wondering whether the current level of detail is sufficient to meet WP:GACR #3. What are your views on this?

• See our conversation below. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Schleicher Details are missing about how Schleicher came to be chosen by Hindenburg.

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Schleicher Although Schleicher's government survived a session of parliament from 6 to 9 December unscathed, it could not stave off a motion of no confidence indefinitely. Takes summary-style a bit too far to my taste, and would be more readable if things were explained a bit more "slowly".

• Done, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Schleicher His efforts were undermined by the opposition of the agricultural and industrial lobbies who resented his economic stance Unless, I have missed it, his economic stance has not been explained beforehand.

• I've gone and made it clearer that his 'economic stance' was perceived to be pro-labour. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets § Schleicher § 3 I feel like things are moving too fast here. What caused Pappen to support for Hitler is not clear. The reason why Hindenburg chose him is not entirely clear either. Over at Adolf Hitler § Brüning administration (a GA) there is for instance a detailed (yet succinct) explanation of Hitler's rise and growing influence, which paves the way for his Adolf Hitler § Appointment as chancellor. I am not seeing the same level of analysis here.

• I guess my mistake was to think that too much was already obvious from the text. I've added Papen's motivation for collaborating with Hitler and a bit more on Hindenburg's motivation for giving the Papen-Hitler administration a chance. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Assessment I am pretty OK with this section, except for the fact that I would be interested to know why "scepticism towards parliamentary government ... had taken hold in German society around 1930". I don't feel like this has been explained.

• I have added half a sentence to explain that this feeling was to due the inability of the recent parliaments to get anything done. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, I am done reading of the article. My opinion as of right now is that this article is insufficiently detailed in certain respects to pass WP:GACR #3: I do not feel like it sufficiently "broad in its coverage". I have left comments above pointing out where I felt like that was the case. If you think that I am applying the GACR wrongly, please note that I am absolutely open to having my assessment challenged by a second opinion. This is especially the case since I am less experienced than you are in writing and reviewing GAs. JBchrch talk 20:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: First of all, thank you for a detailed review. I'm not at all surprised that you find the article lacking in some regards (you've applied the completeness criterion in exactly the right way). I was guessing that you would put the review on hold for, say, a week and give me some time to address the completeness issues. (My apologies if that was the plan all along.)

Now, regarding what needs to be added: I broadly agree that some places need more detail. My general approach was to focus on the cabinets in their function as presidential cabinets. I have, therefore, not included a detailed overview of what happened in each government's spell in office. In keeping with this philosophy (about which I'm happy to be challenged), I will add more detail to Hitler's rise to power than to the intricacies of Papen's tenure simply because their not as relevant to the phenomenon of the presidential cabinets. Anyway, this was a very eventful and chaotic time in German politics; so, every summary is going to omit lots of stuff. With that said, I'll do my best to flesh out some of the places you mentioned. Let me know if you are happy to proceed in this way. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: My general approach was to focus on the cabinets in their function as presidential cabinets: Got it. I was sensing that you had chosen a certain angle, and this one—as you spelled it out—makes perfect sense me. As I am sure you have already understood, my main concern was that a lot of readers will come to this article in order to understand the political turmoil that immediately preceded the appointment of Hitler, and how that can explain how he came to power. So by all means, if you are ready to expand a little bit on that, that would be great. Regarding Papen's tenure (or other details you may consider to be irrelevant or secondary), that is fine by me: as you say, some things are inevitably going to be left out. My only concern—and this is a sort of pet peeve of mine (on wiki and at my day job!)—is that what is mentioned is understandable and does not feel rushed, if you know what I mean. I hope all of this makes sense to you, but not hesitate to get back to me if that's not the case. I will now put the article on hold and, frankly, you can take however long you want to work on this. JBchrch talk 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: I have gone and tried to address or otherwise answer all your above comments. Feel free to change formulations, typos and formatting errors yourself if you spot them. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Modussiccandi, I am taking a look. JBchrch talk 15:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Impressive work, Modussiccandi. I can now confirm that this article is well written, verifiable, with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated by media that is properly tagged and captioned. It's a GA 👍 Congrats and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! JBchrch talk 21:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: thank you very much indeed! It was a pleasure working with you. I've seen that you've got Lohn Estate on the GAN waitlist. If you'd like, I can start a review on the article sometime this week. Since some of the sources will surely be in German, I feel that this is a topic I'd be well suited to reviewing. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi: Ah this old thing! Frankly, I'm not even sure it meets the GA criterias, but I just felt like there was nothing to add (there's not that much to say about things that are related to the Swiss government I guess?) Anyway, I would be really grateful if you took the time to take a look, even if you determine that it does not qualify! Cheers. JBchrch talk 20:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.