Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Walther von Brauchitsch edit

Walther von Brauchitsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having worked on this article for almost a year, getting it to GA-status and starting a peer review, I believe it meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - the first 3 images need a closer look or replacement:

Done Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, GermanJoe. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed - status updated. Just a quick note, please don't use status templates like '''Done''' - apparently they cause problems loading the huge summary listing at WP:FAC (see FAC-instructions). GermanJoe (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thank you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Some perennial problems with the article. Most of the biography is sound but I've identified three things the need re-thinking and re-writing:

  • The assumption the French campaign was based upon Blitzkrieg
  • The statement the 600-strong Polish Air Force was destroyed within hours (its strength was double, it was never destroyed at all, and the Luftwaffe declared the air war won only on the 7th day
  • His resistance and skepticism about Sea Lion and Britain.

I can help modify these things. The first two points are factually incorrect without question. Corrections can be kept very brief if required. Dapi89 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dapi89, thank you for your comments. You are, however, wrong. I can assure you the French campaign was based on the theories of Blitzkrieg, absolutely. Guderian earned his reputation as "the father of German Blitzkrieg" after the extraordinary 75-mile dash from the Meuse river to the English channel, in which he also scored a ton of victories like battles of Peronne, Amiens, Abbeville, and Noyelles, all of which were based on Blitzkrieg. So no, you're wrong here. And regarding your last point, Brauchitsch was not skeptic about Sea Lion or against the invasion of Britain. Unless you find a ton of published, reliable sources which proves me wrong here, the article will stay at it is. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jonas, im not wrong. Not even close to being wrong. I'm aghast that you seem to think that blitzkrieg exists. Overwhelming academic consensus says no. I'm concerned at this level of ignorance in an article that wants to be featured. I can bring a dizzying number of sources to the table. And certainly better than The Times!!! Using that as a source is highly amusing. Prepare for an influx of heavy weight academic material - some of which you NEED to read. Btw, I have made a huge number of additions to the said article. You may not have realised that. So at the risk of sounding like a bond villain. ...It is you who is wrong Jonas! Stand by. Dapi89 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, we havnt had occasion to collaborate before, and I'm not used to being asked for sources because I think most editors know they will follow. Anyway, I will implement them soon with the appropriate brevity. Dapi89 (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to collaborate with you if you think Blitzkrieg wasn't used in France. And I don't think you should edit the article either as your edits will be reverted and not considered fruitful. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, this is a good example of why I had recommended exposing the article at Military History A-class review prior to going to FAC. The term Blitzkrieg has many interpretations depending on context and point of view. I think what Dapi is referring to, please correct me if I am wrong, Blitzkrieg as an official military doctrine or concept is a historical myth. However, Blitzkrieg as an idea of a highly mobile mechanized force supported by close air support did exist. I think what the article needs to point out is how and in what context the term is being used. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, I think this discussion is turning into a strawman argument. What the article means when mentioning Blitzkrieg is, as you said, highly mobile mechanized force supported by close air support. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, don't ever revert someone on the grounds you intimate. You'll end up in trouble. There is a clear lack of knowledge here on your part. Mr Bee had cleared up one point - that blitzkrieg as a historical myth. What is referred to as blitzkrieg did not generate in the minds of the general staff until after June 1940: as Karl hienz Frieser acknowledged, it was a consequence of 1940 not an instigator of it. Like I said, I will bring in academic sources and they will replace the journalistic ones (non specialist ) that are in it's current state.

In future Jonas, have at least some understanding about what you write. I have no idea what you mean by strawman. It's like we're talking at cross purposes or maybe your English isn't up to standard. Anyway, the point is that as a more knowledgeable editor in this field I'm trying to help the article.....and as it happens , you. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and insulting exposition argument. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, you're not making any sense.
It isn't insulting, its factual. What is insulting, is threatening to revert any edit I make and insist on a flawed, ill-throughout statement, sources by Time Magazine.
It is contemptible that you can't and won't understand what's being said. Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dapi89, to put it nicely, why don't you shut your piehole. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Open your mouth like that again and you will be reported.
Don't revert. You're being disruptive and your edits are too ignorant for this article to be considered for Featured.
Stop being puerile and deal with the issues identified. Dapi89 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content issue edit

On an unrelated issue there is nothing pertaining to his fight with Hitler over the Halt Order. This must be included. Dapi89 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree. Will look for a source. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least this is progress. Dapi89 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ÄDA-DÄP edit

I may not be an expert on Brauchitsch, but from the little I know and the sources I have available, I must conclude, that the main source, Hart 1944, is 'over-interpreted' in many cases; the only biography published so far, Jürgen Löffler 2001, was not consulted; and B.'s role in the Battle of Moscow, which is discussed in detail in 'Germany and the Second World War' volumer IV, available in English since 1998, was obviously not used in the writing of this article.

Apart from that, there are numerous omissions and inaccuracies:

Lede
  • Brauchitsch was not commissioned into the 3rd Guards Artillery, he requested a transfer from the 3rd Guards Grenadiers, his original regiment.
Will tweak this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not 'slowly work his way up through the ranks', he was promoted according to seniority. Incidentally, he was commissioned straight away after leaving the cadet institute, which gave him a head start.
I think depends on how you define "slowly worked his way up through the ranks", but will tweak it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. was an officer of the general staff, serving in this capacity on the staff of numerous formations, but not with the German General Staff as such.
Matter of opinion, but will tweak it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Große Generalstab" became part of the OHL in 1914, on the other hand, each army corps had its own general staff and there were general staff officers seconded to divisions, B. one of them. ÄDA-DÄP
  • He never borrowed money from Hitler. Hitler's role in B.'s divorce is a bit more complicated. Cf. Smelser, Syring (1995).
Hart 1944 and Jewish Virtual Library says otherwise. I also recall reading a book in which Keitel talks about this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rumor is rather persistent. "Der Verkauf des Heeres" should be discussed more in depth, I would say. ÄDA-DÄP
  • If B. served 'primarily' as CinC, what other significant roles did he fulfil 'secondarily'?
He primarily served as CinC between 1938-41, after which he was sacked and transferred to the Führer reserve, from where he later consulted on military matters, but will tweak it to avoid confusion. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote on Napoleon is not substantiated by the reference given.
Will re-read Hart and find the exact page. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found the quote on page 112. Reading it in context I am not sure that these were his exact words. Sounds more like a figure of speech to me. ÄDA-DÄP
Actaully the quote is on page 111 (as linked) and its not written as a quote, but as a figure of speech. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Karstedt family hails from Brandenburg not Pomerania.
I guess that's true, but Elizabeth was a heiress of Pomerania. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see were that comes from. After her father's death,her brother had inherited the estate. He was, btw, in the same regiment as B. ÄDA-DÄP
I will re-look into this, but I'm pretty sure. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. had three children with E., two sons, one daughter
True, will add a sentence or two about them. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder were number four has come from. ÄDA-DÄP
Ahh, type errors, will fix. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B.'s second wife's maiden name is Rüffer not Rueffer, she was a widow thus her surname was Schmidt when she married B.
The letters "ü" and "ø" are often written in English as "ue", but will tweak. - JV
Early life
  • B.'s father was also head of the Prussian Military Academy
The article already mentions his family was one of military traditions and Lichterfelde is not mentioned that often so didn't see the need for such an addition, but will add it now per your notice. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Prussian Military Academy" ("Kriegsakademie") is not the same as the "Hauptkadettenanstalt".
OK, will tweak again. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. was page to the Empress, thus his manners.
Will add a sentence or two. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. was promoted to First Lieutenant in 1909, he was not detached to the General Staff until 1912, which he joined in 1914.
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WWI
  • It would be more interesting what positions he served in, rather what battles happened at the time. As a staff officer he was hardly 'in the thick of it'.
I strongly disagree. Battles are (in my opinion) more academically important. It's a matter of opinion, but since I am the overwhelming contributor to the article and responsible for the articles many expansions and improvements I will keep it as it is. And also, you could easily be "in the thick of it" as a staff officer. Maybe not as a soldier in the field, but as a staff officer, definitely. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would help, if the correct battles were linked. Without the knowledge in which formation B. served, it is almost impossible to figure out what he was doing when and where. E.g. "Battle of Armentières" refers to the 1914 battle, when B. was with XVI Corps in Lorraine. During the "Battle of the Argonne Forest" he was serving with the Guards Reserve Corps in Flanders. His corps was not involved in the "2nd Battle of the Marne". The page number in the reference (Hart 1944) should be 105 not 103, btw. ÄDA-DÄP
Will correct Hart page number, but regarding what part he played in the battles, he was a commissioned staff officer, so I think it's pretty obvious he played staff officer-roles throughout the war, regardless of which formation he was serving with at any given time. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also received the House Order of Hohenzollern, a more prestigious award than the Iron Cross.
True, will add a sentence or two. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weimar Republic
  • What sanctions would B. have had to fear? He was retained by the Reichswehr rather than discharged. Not uncommon for staff officers.
I disagree. I think's its irrelevant whether you use the words "discharged", "relieved", "sacked", "fired" or "sanctioned" as you ultimately being removed from service because of Versailles. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a career officer he was hand-picked to remain with the 200,000 and later the 100,000 men army. "Sanctioned" implies some sort of wrong-doing on behalf of those who got the sack.
No, "sanctioned" refers to the overall restrictions imposed on the German military, which of course included the small, permitted army in which Brauchitsch served. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. was not 'chief of the 2nd Army District in Stettin', he was appointed General Staff Officer of said formation. This also means, he was not serving with the 'Truppenamt', which was located in Berlin.
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'chief of the regiment's battery section' - he was a simple battery commander in the 2nd (Prussian) Artillery Regiment
If you insist I can remove it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1925 B. did not remain in Berlin but was transferred to 6th (Prussian) Artillery Regiment in Münster. (The link is to the Irish province btw)
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'army education' would be the Army Training Department
In English-speaking countries, perhaps, but my understanding is that it was officially known as "Army Education Department" in Germany.
The German term is "Heeresausbildungsabteilung". ÄDA-DÄP
OK, will take your word for it and tweak it accordingly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany
  • B. became commander of 1st Division in 1933, after having served as Inspector of Artillery since 1932.
  • The source given for the Koch-Brauchitsch relationship seems to be 'overinterpreted'
I disagree. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. in Hart 1944, p.110, is no mentioning of a "criminal record" but about "a chequered record".
Will tweak that specific part. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. was not nominated by the OKH as Fritsch's successor but by Blomberg, i.e. the Reichswehr Minister, or by Göring himself, depending on what sources one trusts to give the truth
After Fritsch's removal, Hitler wanted Reichenau to replace him, but the army felt he was too political, and therefore recommend Brauchitsch instead. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Czechoslovakia was not annexed, Slovakia became an 'independent' state, while Bohemia and Moravia became a 'Protectorate'. What exactly was B.'s role in this?
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
  • Starts in November 1939, only referring to the Polish campaign later on.
I don't under this sentence? Could you reformulate? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of chronology. The Polish campaign should be discussed before events in November 1939, I think.
Ahh, well spotted. Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede states 'he played a key role in the Battle of France', whereas the main body of the article claims it was a chance meeting of Manstein and Hitler.
You misunderstand; the choice to accept Manstein's plan was sheer luck, but in the actual battle he played a key role against the British. Can expand this part if that is wished so as to avoid further misunderstandings. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to Lowry does not hold up, too.
Will find another source. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same seems to apply to Browning.
Browning is referenced twice in the article, both of which checks out fine to me? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fn30 gives page 221 as reference for the orders about the treatment of commissars. Browning, hovever, refers to civilian commissars, whereas the term is linked to "political commissars" in the Red Army.
Did the Commissar Order distinguish between political and civilian commissars? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will add links. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this, I ask myself how this article made it to GA status in the first place. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, ÄDA - DÄP, for your time to look at this article. I have addressed most of your points but also dismissed, explained or disagreed on some. Once I have implemented or tweaked all these points, I believe the article meets the FA-criteria. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ÄDA - DÄP VA, I have a book source here which talks about Brauchitsch as a pageboy, but I'm uncertain where to put it. Any ideas?
ÄDA - DÄP VA, thanks for your reply's and further comments. I have replied to them all once again. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
Thank you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use semicolon markup to create pseudoheadings, per MOS:ACCESS
I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Lowry 2004
Have removed it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of sources
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books links can be truncated after page number
OK, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication titles like Time should be italicized
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsOppose by Peacemaker67 edit

  • Bit concerned about how this nomination is going, so I'm going to have a look.
Thank you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used different sources, but have included yours. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO. the German Dictionary of Biography should be the start point for any German biography article. It is a highly respected academic source. Not including it would be considered a significant deficit.
Have included it now. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • describing him as having been "in the thick of the Great War " is a major stretch. He served as fairly low ranking (albeit general staff) staff officer on divisional and corps headquarters, which also applies to the term "more action". The lead makes a big deal of this, adding inappropriate weight to his WWI service.
Writing "he was in the thick of the Great War" is supposed to mean he served in a lot of battles and formations from start to finish, not that he necessarily played a big role. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then say that, instead of using a misleading euphemism. Perhaps, "He served on the staff of several formations that fought over a dozen major battles of World War I"
Good suggestion, have implemented it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do the same in the body of the article, which stills sounds as though he actually fought in those battles. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krausnick mentions that he also served on the divisional staff of the 34th Infantry Division and the Guards Reserve Corps, not just XVI Corps
Will look at Krausnick and make some additions. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "avoid sanction" is strange wording. Not being made surplus to requirements after a war does not amount to avoiding sanction. Sanctions are things imposed for not doing the right thing.
Have already been discussed and I have explained it above. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the usage is not appropriate for the subject of the sentence, and it remains a problem.
OK, will change it to something unmistakable. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Western Germany" is either inaccurately capitalised (as it is not a proper noun), and/or should be rendered as "in the west of Germany", which would be the literal translation, I believe.
Have tweaked it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention of his post-war service as a staff officer in Wehrkreis II (per Krausnick)
What war are we talking about here, the first or the second? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
given he didn't serve post-WWII? The inter-war period.
The article has an entire section called "Weimar Republic" which dicusses the inter-war period. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no mention of the Yugoslav or Greek campaigns
Good point, will add some information. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the prose needs work, and the article would benefit from a GOCE copy edit
I have already declined this several times. Check peer review for more detail. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that a significant error of judgement in respect of this article, as it has quite a few prose errors.
I will be honest and say I don't think that's true. What wording is best for certain sentences has a lot to do with individual point of view. Whether the article reads "Walther von Brauchitsch was born in 1881 in Berlin" or "Born in 1881, as Walther von Brauchitsch, in Berlin" depends on which wording the editor favors. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it isn't quite that simple, the standard of prose at FAC is very high. The second version would not be ok.
  • no mention of his visit to the Red Army in 1931
Seems rather unimportant? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The secret engagement of the Wehrmacht with the Soviets is unimportant?
The Treaty of Berlin was signed in 1926 and if he was just visiting the Soviet Union to inspect tanks and such things, like Paulus and many other officers did in the same time period, I don't think it's that important. If you insist, though, I could add some. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be comprehensive to pass FAC, and it is mentioned in the NDB/ADB, it would need to include it.
  • I agree with the above comment about him "working his way up through the ranks". It just isn't relevant to German officers of the period, he was promoted on seniority as a general staff officer
OK, will remove it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead mentions things like his kindness to civilians (which really isn't lead material), yet doesn't include a full list of campaigns for which he was responsible
I disagree, the article covers his military career just fine (in my opinion). Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in accordance with WP:LEAD, and the point here is for reviewing editors to be convinced of that fact, not for you to state we are wrong.
OK, will re-look the lead over. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krausnick describes him as "an outstanding professional who lived up to the traditions of his profession, but especially lacked the strength of personality to deal with Hitler" - this warrants inclusion
Will add it under the "Legacy" section. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • his father was the director of the Kriegsakademie
Already discussed above. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • who did he give evidence against at Nuremberg?
He did not give evidence at Nuremberg, I confused his trail with his son. My bad. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is mixing of unit naming conventions, in one sentence it is in the original German, in the next it has been anglicised.
Don't understand this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His postings immediately after being commissioned, one is "Konigen....Nr.3", the other is "3rd Guards..."
Ahh, I see - will fix that. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are citations to sequential pages that should be combined (ie p. 59 and p. 60 of the same source, used to cite the same text)
Will fix this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he succeeded Werner von Blomberg as commander of the 1st Division
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention that he was commander of Gruppenkommando 4 (the motorised units)
  • no mention of his role in the Sudeten crisis
Article mentions he decided to leave his wife for a new woman during the Sudeten crisis? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see Krausnick re: his discussions with Halder´
OK, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was Lutheran
Added. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • his promotions should be inserted into the text chronologically
OK, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed all and edited accordingly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonas, I don't believe you have addressed them all. We all have views on articles we have developed ourselves, and we are naturally defensive of our work. The purpose of GAN, ACR and FAC is for experienced editors and reviewers to suggest improvements or identify where the article has deficiencies, and we all need to be open to re-examining our decisions. There are a number of issues raised above which have been raised by other editors as well. They have been offered constructively, yet you have chosen to reject them. This article would have benefited significantly from going through a GOCE c/e and the Milhist ACR process before being nominated at FAC. I'll wait until you have had a chance to respond further before giving my view on whether it meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Peacemaker67, I have made several more edits and changes, and is now ready for your final judgment call on this article. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, I haven't gone through the article in a comprehensive way, as I didn't believe it was close to FA when it was nominated. I've just mentioned things that jumped out at me from a first look. I suggest you have a look at other German WWII FA bios, that will give you an idea of the standard an article needs to be at, and standards of prose and sources. Hart is highly problematic, there is a recent bio of the man (in German, I know, but that is something you will have to deal with again and again if you want to write articles on non-Anglo subjects). I agree with auntieruth and others that have suggested you withdraw it. Thankfully, Dank (who is an acknowledged FA-standard c/e guru) has done some copyediting, so that aspect is better (although you still have quite a few points to address). As there are still significant issues raised by other editors with which I agree (including the Blitzkrieg one), and the points raised aren't being embraced to the extent that they will be addressed in a timely way, I cannot support this nomination. I strongly recommend you get a copy of the recent bio and use it, make sure there is greater detail in the article about his role in the campaigns he oversaw (from quality sources), fix up the MOS-type issues of trans_titles, what should be in the lead etc, and embrace a "compare and contrast" approach to issues where the weight of reliable sources is split. I look forward to seeing it at Milhist ACR once all the issues raised on this page by all reviewers have been properly and fully addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MisterBee1966 edit

  • "In the last years of the Weimar Republic, he took over the Army Training Department" this is wrong. Following his tour as chief of staff with the 6th Division he served in four different positions, not all related to training. He headed the training department T4 of the Reichswehrministerium from 16 January 1930 until 9 February 1932. He was then appointed Inspekteur der Artillerie (Inspector of the Artillery).
Will tweak sentence. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his role as Commander in Chief of the Army, he belonged to the Reichskabinett (Germany's Cabinet). In this function he attended a number of meetings (25 February – 11 August 1938). What role did he play
What do you mean by saying "what role did he play"? You basically just asked what role did Brauchitsch play for almost an entire year! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, for one year his position as Commander in Chief was equivalent to a Reichsminister, per Führer decree. For one year prior to World War II he had a very senior position in German government. This needs explaining.
  • ISBN numbers have inconsistent format
Could you please be mor specific? I can't see any ISBN problems. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources are in German, their original German titles have been removed and only the English translation is presented. This includes the sources Scherzer, Fellgiebel, Thomas, Wegmann, maybe others? I re-added the correct titles. I can't tell if other sources are actually none English sources
It was not I who removed the original German titles, but I also feel they are unnecessary if the translated title is there, but whatever. And Krausnick is the only non-English source left after those too books. Will tweak Krausnick. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you and would oppose the nominationon this issue alone. Put yourself in the shoes of an English reader who has no foreign language know-how. It is for those readers that the {{Cite book}} templates has these fields. This is good practise
  • "Brauchitsch was arrested at his estate" he was arrested at his Hof Rachut (farm/estate) near Malente in Holstein in August 1945. He returned from England on 15 October 1947 and was taken to the Camp Eselsheide de:Internierungslager Eselheide former Stalag VI-K, in July 1948 he was moved to the hospital at Munsterlager (Lazarett "General-Knochenhauer-Kaserne"). There is also a Spiegel article online
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He died in 94. Militärlazarett Hamburg Barmbek of Thrombosis
Yes - which was the British-controlled part of Germany, so the current statement is correct: he died in a British military hospital.
Correct, I assume it was somewhere in Burma then? I bit more precision would help
Alright, I have tweaked it to something unmistakable. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eventually, in 1920, he was permitted to transfer to the staff of the 2nd Artillery Regiment" He was leader of the 2nd battery of the 2nd Artillery Regiment as of 1 October 1921. The regiment was renamed on 30 September 1922 to 2nd Prussian Artillery Regiment
Will tweak. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3rd Guards Grenadier Regiment". The correct regimental name is 3rd Guards Field Artillery Regiment
This is like the third time an editor has correct the rigments name. I'm going to change it per your request for the last time. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(3. Garde-Feld-Artillerie-Regiment) in Berlin and Beeskow. He was first commanded to this regiment on 20 November 1900 and officialled transferred to this regiment on 18 May 1901.

More to come MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • His actions in World War I included
Combat in the Othain sector (22 – 27 August 1914), combat at the Maas crossing (28 August – 1 September 1914), combat at Varennes-Montfaucon (2 – 3 September 1914), attack and pursuit west of Verdun through the Argonne (4 – 5 September 1914), combat at Vaubecourt-Fleury (6 – 12 September 1914), combat at Varennes (17 – 24 September 1914), attrition combat in the Argonne forest (25 September 1914 – 20 August 1916), battle of Verdun and in particular combat over Thiaumont (21 August – 9 September 1916), attrition combat at Verdun (10 September – 28 October 1916), combat at Donaumont (24 October 1916), attrition combat in the Vosges (3 November – 7 December 1916), attrition combat in Argonne forest (7 February – 9 March 1917), combat at the Aisne (10 March – 5 April 1917), combat at Aisne-Champagne (6 April – 27 May 1917), attrition combat at Chemin des Dames (28 May – 22 August 1917), attrition combat between Maas and Mosel (24 August – 12 September 1917), attrition combat in the Champagne (28 September – 30 October 1917), combat in Flanders (2–11 November 1917), attrition combat in the Champagne (12 December 1917 – 16 January 1918), attrition combat in Artois (22 February – 20 March 1918), Kaiserschlacht/Spring Offensive (21 March – 6 April 1918), combat at Armentieres (17–18 April 1918), attrition combat in French Flanders (19 April – 21 May 1918, 5–16 July 1918, 5–14 August 1918), attrition combat in Flanders (5 September – 27 September 1918), combat at Jepren-La Bassee (28 August – 4 September 1918), attrition combat in Flanders (28 September – 17 October 1918), retreat at Yser and Lys (18–24 October 1918), combat at Lys (25 October – 1 November 1918), fighting retreat at Antwerp-Maas (5–11 November 1918), retreat from the occupied area beginning on 13 November 1918
  • Check disambiguations on "34th Infantry Division"
  • I am concerned about an edit summary like this: "OMG you asshole! Don't add it unless its favored on the talk page". Note that getting an article to FAC status requires working with other editors to achieve consensus. Comments like that are NOT helpful when trying to get consensus, a more diplomatic approach should be taken.
You're absolutely right, MisterBee1966. The thing is, the editor which I wrote the message to does not want to participate in talk page discussions and keeps editing like he wants. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more to come MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "because of his kindness to the civilian Prussian population in times of local fires": I don't know what that means, and can't find it in the text below the lead.
Good point, I must have forgotten to include in the body text of the article. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's added. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brauchitsch was interested in liberal and moderately conservative politics": I don't know what that means.
I suppose I can tweak it, although I understand it fine. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also added emphasis on the combination and co-operation between artillery and infantry.": I don't know what that means. Did he change a guideline in some way?
Like above, I can tweak it, but think you're overthinking this specific part - he added more emphasis on combination and co-operation between artillery and infantry - exactly how and what he did I don't know, but I honestly don't think this is an issue. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Koch was known as somewhat of a dubious crook who greatly enjoyed the power he possessed,": Can you be more specific? WP:WORDS recommends against vague language like that. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which words are vague? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[There has been] certain symptoms": Is all that in the original, or did you mean "[There have been] certain symptoms"?
I switched between "has" and "have" a bit in the GA-expansion, but ultimately decided to go with what the original initially said. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reorganize", "scepticism": AmEng, BritEng or something else?
I'm afraid I learnt the Queen's language by playing World of Warcraft so I can't differentiate between Australian-English, American-English, South African-English, Canadian-English or British-English. I did, however, add a "this article is written in British-English" template on the talk page, so it should be written in British-English. If you can differentiate between them all I would appreciate if you could correct it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your codyedits Dank, I very much appreciate it. I will look through your comments, respond, and edit accordingly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time, mostly per auntieruth. I think the most likely result is that the article will pass, either this time or next time around; the nominator is diligent. I'd rather not copyedit multiple times, so it's best to save the copyediting for last; I'll come back to this when it looks like it's nearing the finish line. - Dank (push to talk) 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, in the Citations section there is "Kershaw 2014", but in the Sources there is only Kershaw 2008. Is 2014 a typo? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AustralianRupert, that is a typo. Well spotted and thank you. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Auntieruth55 edit

Jonas, so far, you've clearly dedicated a lot of time and interest in this. I'd like to see you take this article to featured status, but it is far from ready, and although others have pointed you toward some immediate issues, these do not solve the broader article issues of reliable sources, bias, comprehensiveness, and writing. I've listed a few below:

  • Under the issue of reliable sources, what is the story of the William Hart source? What makes this particularly reliable? It looks quite dubious to me. Hitler's Generals: Stories Based On Inside Information Of The Unscrupulous, Calculating, But Able German Commanders is actually the full title, and William E. Hart is a pseudonym, but who is he really? Second regards Brauchitsch as "a spineless individual, who was frightened by Hitler. He was no person to lead any type of front or revolt --this quotes Ian Kershaw, and he is in the bib, but the citation is from Eurozine. Did you read the Ian Kershaw book? Some other possible sources in addition to the ones mentioned by other reviewers:
  • James Joseph Carstairs wrote a dissertation on the man in 1966.
  • Felice Levy wrote a substantiated "facts on file" that is available. Not comprehensive but reliable.
  • the diary of Gerhard Engel is published and translated. WVB is listed in the subject headings, suggesting that there is a lot on him in it.
  • Harold C Deutsch, Hitler and his Generals, the hidden crisis....
Editors have previously questioned the reliability of Hart and asked why I choose him instead of more modern sources. Before editing this article I knew a lot about Brauchitsch and had red a lot about him online. I therefore new there was many good sources to choose from, but decided to choose Hart because it was one of the first I fell upon and because It contained lots of the same information I already knew. Also, there has and still is discussions on the role Brauchitsch played in war crimes and the holocaust - and by choosing a biography that was written before the knowledge of the Holocaust was public I thought the article would be more neutral. Furthermore, Hart has some interesting details on feuds between Koch and Himmler which is not covered so much in other sources I have used in this article (Wheeler-Bennett etc.) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, your reasons won't hold up in scholarship. I suggest you go to your best sources, not just Hart. Since he writes under a pseudonym, we cannot verify his qualifications, and I'm suspicious that most of the information is hearsay. If he has info on something that is not covered elsewhere, or anywhere, I'd think that it was not covered because it was not verifiable.
  • Bias: There are a lot of sources on him that could be consulted to give this article greater depth and place him in context. Right now, this reads like an apologia, and WVB is worthy of greater consideration.
If you have some specific ideas for improvements or changes feel free to list to them, I'd be happy to discuss such things. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehsiveness: I'd like to know more about WVB and the Wehrmacht crisis in 1938. What was his role in it? How did he help to instigate it (yes) and how was it resolved? The section on Nazi German goes from 1934 to 1939 in about 30 sentences and includes the WVB divorce as well as everything else that happened in those years. The relationship between the Wehrmacht and the NS government as far more complex that you've conveyed in 30 sentences. In another section, you include this statement Even though Brauchitsch was in charge of operational affairs during the Polish and French campaigns, he had very little say in how the war as a whole was going. During the invasion of Poland, he oversaw most plans. Isn't this contradictory? He was in charge, but not in charge? Why didn't he have a say in how the war was going?
Excellent question. The thing is the once powerful post of Commander-in-Chief was, as Halder described it, "severely downgraded, becoming merely an instrument for carrying out Hitler's orders" during the years Brauchitsch was in charge. He was officially in charge of everything regarding army matters, but lacked the sort of character to stand up to Hitler, and as Hitler personally made all the big military decisions on his own, Braucthisch had a little say in how the war was going. Even so, he was still Commander-in-Chief and played a compelling role in military matters Hitler was not interfering with. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is the type of thing that helps to put it in context.
  • Writing, etc. Brauchitsch is known for being the only German general who was able to tell Hitler, in the presence of others, that the days were over when a lance corporal could assume the role of Napoleon,[43] whom Hitler often compared himself to, much to the irritation of many of his generals. This is quite a statement. He is "known" as the only German general able to do this? Known by whom? What was the context of this statement? It's one thing if he made it in 1933 and another if he made it in 1943.
An editor removed it from the lead because it properly wasn't too important, but ... if it's important enough to mentioned in published, reliable sources, I believe it's important enough to mentioned here. Can remove the "known" bit or tweak to a better wording, but all in all I believe it should remain. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't need to be in the lead perhaps, but it is a fair statement and if you think it's important, I suggest you put it in context.

I'm sure you don't want to hear this. In all fairness to you, Jonas, and to the FAReviewers, I suggest that you take it through peer review in WP:Bio , and A class in WP:MIL. It needs a lot more work before it's ready for Featured status. Consequently, I suggest you withdraw it from this round of reviews, and take some more time with this. auntieruth (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely nothing against constructive criticism or feedback, so don't I mind hearing all these very useful comments at all. Regarding your peer review suggestion, that has actually been done and is now archived. I suppose a second peer review can be opened, but since very many comments and suggestions was left at the peer review, I thought it was ready for FA-status. It's true there has been more suggestions than actual oppose, support voting, but even so I don't think I need to withdraw the article - as all suggestions have been implemented or discussed. Lastly, thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions, auntieruth. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second this suggestion, well said. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, I will not support the article. I haven't surveyed the other WP:MIL coordinators, but I suspect most of them feel the same as I do. This will require a lot of work that FAReviewers should not have to do for an FA review. It should be done already. This is, quite simply, not ready. I'm surprised it passed GA. If I had reviewed it, it would not have passed. auntieruth (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a couple of drive-by comments:
    • I agree with Auntieruth on the issue of Hart's book - the article is far too reliant on it (I'd actually prefer all of the citations to it be replaced with better sources altogether) and it's pretty problematic. In addition to the reasons Ruth highlighted, it was published in an enemy country during hostilities (which calls into question its neutrality) and is over 70 years old (which calls into question its accuracy) - there are plenty of more recent sources that others have mentioned that really ought to be consulted. At very least Löffler's biography mentioned by ÄDA is a must for the article to meet the well-researched criteria (1.c.), but I'd prefer to see other sources integrated as well.
Jesus Christ, I would have to replace all Hart references with other sources! That is going to take an eternity. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second, as abrasive as Dapi can be, he is certainly correct on the issue of blitzkrieg - there's a strong consensus amongst academic military historians on that point. The article on blitzkrieg is pretty well developed on this issue. A more accurate term for what the Germans did would be bewegungskrieg (see for instance any of Rob Citino's books), but either way the tactics were fundamentally an evolutionary progression of the infiltration tactics employed in the German 1918 offensives - the primary difference being that tanks were now integrated (though of course the poor logistics remained!). And bewegungskrieg as a German doctrine dates to at least Frederick the Great, so it's nothing new (again, see Citino's The German Way of War and I think he makes the same point in Quest for Decisive Victory or Death of the Wehrmacht, though I can't recall for certain at the moment).
As I wrote in the discussion I believed Dapi's addition to be way to long, misleading, off-topic and you can also see misspelled words. Also, as MisterBee1966 pointed out, there is a difference between Blitzkrieg as an official military doctrine or historical myth and highly mobile mechanized force supported by close air support. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could provide a more in depth review of the article, but in light of my first comment, there's far too much work to be done in the relatively short period of time a FAC can run. I'd strongly recommend listening to Ruth on withdrawing the request for the time being, and going to MILHIST for an A-class review as well. Parsecboy (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since so many people have suggested both redrawing my FA-nomination and asking for an A-class review I will do both things. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Walther_von_Brauchitsch/archive1&oldid=632363079"