Talk:Reinhold von Werner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some bits of prose that need some polishing

   I'll see what I can do. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   a couple of points that need to be made clear - marriage? early life? Schooling?

   There's very little on him apart from his military career and afterward. I searched through what contemporary records are available through Google Books and couldn't find much of anything. I also talked with an editor from Germany who has access to a great number of works on the German navies, and he wasn't able to add anything on the personal information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General:
  • I'm assuming no images? Has a thorough search been made for public domain images in various google books?
    • I looked through Google Books for information and came up with no images.
• Early life:
  • Do we know the names of his parents? What schooling? What did his father do?
    • See above. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Naval career:
  • link for "officer cadet"?
    • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wars:
  • "On 15 June, Werner and his squadron assisted a force of 13,500 men commanded by General Edwin von Manteuffel cross the Elbe river to assault the city of Hanover." something seems off here, probably because there are so many dependent clauses - suggest "On 15 June, Werner and his squadron assisted 13,500 men commanded by General Edwin von Manteuffel in their crossing of the Elbe river and assault of the city of Hanover."?
    • Substituted. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "While on the cruise, Werner received orders to return most of the squadron to Europe." Why was he ordered to do so? Did he himself return? Which ships did he send back, which went on?
    • It was to intervene in Spain - I'm not sure why I didn't make that clearer when I wrote it. Fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Intervention:
  • "The rebel vessels had attempted to extort the port of Almería." ... extort what? Generally I don't think of naval vessels as extortion agents...
    • The threat was essentially "pay us a ransom, or we'll bombard the town." Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "A captured rebel leader was briefly held on board Friedrich Carl." I think this sentence would fit better before the "The rebels considered declaring war on Germany over the affair, but eventually decided against it." sentence.
    • Did you miss this one? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Apparently so. I switched the order as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Admiral Werner's blockade eventually forced the rebels to surrender, after which Friedrich Carl returned to Germany.[15] Upon being informed of Werner's actions, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck relieved him of command. Bismarck ordered a court-martial for Werner on the charge of exceeding his orders." this is confusing... surely Bismark heard about the engagement before the boat actually tied up at the dock in Germany, so did the ship return because Werner had been relieved of command, which would be what I would expect? What might help would be more chronological dating in this section which would make things clearer.
    • It's somewhat hazy - I'd assume he was recalled from Spain because Bismarck found out what he was doing, but it's not entirely clear. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Werner partly blamed Stosch for his disgrace, which marked the beginning of a long and public feud between the two officers." Why did Werner blame Stosch, when it was Bismark who rapped his knuckles?
    • Stosch sided with Bismarck - now added. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Forced retirement:
  • I'm totally mystified by this sentence "The investigation heavily criticized Batsch as well as Stosch's policies, many naval officers—including Batsch—felt more appropriate for the Army." Were the policies felt more appropriate for the Army or was it the investigation?
    • They felt his policies were more appropriate for the Army - hopefully clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, if he retired, how the heck did he get nominated for Vice Admiral? And was he actually promoted to Vice Admiral?
    • It's relatively common for senior officers to be promoted after retirement as an honor (like an honorary degree a university or college might confer) - for example, Ludwig von Reuter was promoted to full Admiral in 1939, despite the fact that he retired after the end of World War I. Heck, George Washington was promoted to General of the Armies in 1976, 180-some odd years after he died. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Later life:
  • Did he never marry? And if he was elevated to the nobility, did he get a title? Most folks are going to expect that being elevated to the nobility includes a title, so if he did get a title - it needs stating, and if he didn't, it needs explaining why he didn't but was still made a nobleman.
    • See the above on personal details. The elevation to nobility granted him the "von" in his name, which I have linked to. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have been busy and on the road and just missed that you dealt with the last bit. Will be able to review this later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I know how things can fall through the cracks when you're traveling. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All the changes look good, and am passing the article now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)