Talk:Friedrich Foertsch

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrich Foertsch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review started

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a good start, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria. It's not ready for prime time, although it does have some good qualities.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   not really. It has typos, poorly constructed sentences, ambiguous verb usage, and is generally unclear. The lead paragraph does not adequate summarize the material. It is unclear, often, if we're reading about the subject or his brother. German words are not translated uniformly. The basic problem with a translation is that it does not read well as a direct translation. Once the material is translated, the editor has to then massage it into an article that makes sense in the receiving language. This is a specific example, but not the only one: "According to the court Foertsch tolerated that the troops under his command destroyed the cities Pskow, Novgorod and Leningrad, and that they destroyed historical art and memorials in Gatschina, Peterhof, Pavlovsk and Puschkin.[1][2]" According to the charges, Foertsch allowed the troops under his command to destroy the cities of Pskow, nvgorod, and Leningrad; furthermore, he allowed them to destroy historical art and memorials in...."

much improved~~

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The sources are not sufficient, nor does the article give credit to the German wiki article from which it came. For reasons of copy right, this MUST be done. Are there any English sources for this? I read German, but many Wikipedia users do not, and it would be helpful to have English sources. For every date or "fact" you need a citation.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   there needs to be some explanation of rearmament, even if it is a details template sending the reader to other articles, if this is relevant to Foertsch's story. The wider context of Foertsch's career is a vital part of the history of the 20th century, the history of Germany, post war, the cold war, etc. You've ignored the importance of context in this entire article. While I don't expect (nor look for) you to write an article about WWII, for example, you do need to at least mention these things and link to other sites. For example, "After the remilitarisation and renaming of the Reichswehr to Wehrmacht, Foertsch served in the military head quarters in Königsberg." Okay, you've linked on Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, but it's almost parenthetical, and it almost sounds like Foertsch did these things. remilitarisation and renaming should have its own sentence (context) (and link to articles). Then, tell us what Foertsch did. If it's related to remilitarisation and renaming, etc. What were his campaigns? How did he end up with the medals? Just generals rewarding one another? Is there a pic of him with Hitler? With Rommel? 25 years was a sizable sentence. Can you go into more detail here? What exactly were the problems? Where was he imprisoned? Why did Adenauer help him out? What was the rationale on that?

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   yes, it seems to, although that will remain to be seen when you make your edits.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   stable. fortunately.

5. 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):

   these seem fine.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm convinced with additional efforts, when you return from your vacation, that you will be able to bring this up to GA quality. I'm not sure when you are returning, but I'll be away at the end of July, and look forward to seeing your edited version, either before or after I leave for vaca.

As near as I can tell, you translated this but didn't ask for peer review or assistance from any of the projects to which it is connected. In looking at your other article that is also up for GA right now, it seems to be the case there as well. There are a lot of knowledgeable people "out there" especially when it's related to WWII issues. You might draw on these resources to improve this article significantly...and I hope you do that.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

much improved!! we could still use some illumination about why Adenauer made an effort to get him out of the USSR, but that can wait.Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

now that I've done some checking on you I see you are one of the experts. Nothing has happened on this article for more than a month. What is the deal here? Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

GA status?

It appears that the review was never completed. Unclear why it was listed as GA. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)