User:Spintendo/GA Reviews

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Navinsingh133 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing this article as a qualified reviewer.

This article is nicely and neatly written, but may need a little more grammatical work(use of articles, spacing, etc.), layout(# See also) and content expanding. Will fix minor errors my self!

British English is acceptable(such as minimise).

I believe that this article passes GA Criteria 4,5,6 clearly, and 1b,2,3 are almost acceptable. However,1a needs slight work and 2b,2c,2d, and 3a are not verified by me yet(references are not easily accessible). Perhaps it will be better if some online reliable references are added(I will try to do it myself!).

Thank you, Navinsingh133 (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Navingsingh133. Thanks very much for reviewing. Unfortunately, I have reverted most of your last edit. It is not a grammatical requirement that air stripline needs to be preceded by an article. It can be used as a generic term without an article. Compare the coaxial cable, twisted pair, light pipe and microstrip articles. That usage can be found in numerous textbooks and papers, e.g. [1].

Also, please do not remove the sentence double spacings. This is the correct way to type and makes the text easier to read in edit mode. Although most browsers use a proportional font and will not render the double spacers, the readability advantage is still there for anyone who wants to render the text in a proportional font.

I don't think you should be concerned about the references being in print. Print sources are explicitly allowed, even welcomed – because they are generally high quality and reliable. Have you read what Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles has to say on this? I don't think it would be helpful to add additional, possibly poorer quality, online sources when these have not been used to construct the article. In any case, most of the sources in this article can be partially viewed in gbooks or Amazon by following the ISBN number link. If there is any passage you have doubts over the accuracy, I can give you the direct quotes from the source. SpinningSpark 17:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Spinningspark, Thanks for your notification. However you do not need to tell me in person that you have reverted my edit due to some reasons, just a brief summary is sufficient. My apologies for removing the double spacing, where I live it is considered incorrect.

Also, I am not saying that prints sources aren't reliable (or allowed), neither I am concerned, what I am saying is I can't verify them under criteria 2b,2c, and 2d because I don't have access to those prints, so I don't know what they are and can't review the article under those criteria. "Perhaps it will be better if some online reliable references are added(I will try to do it myself!)" means that I will try to find those prints online or other reliable online sources such as eBooks, and I see you have provided some links, thanks!--Navinsingh133 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is reassessed and I believe that This article passes GA criteria 1a, 2a, 2b, 3b, 4, 5, 6 clearly, and rest are acceptable for the GA standard. The article also holds promises of detailed expansion in near future. Therefore I believe it should be a pass. However, Just one person cannot give accurate review(and more time should be given), therefore I am inviting other reviewers to take a look at the article. Till then, I see no problem in keeping it in a good article(or at least B) category. --Navinsingh133 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent review

This is still listed as an active review. Given the comparative inexperience of the editor at the time this was opened—about six weeks of Wikipedia editing and fewer than 200 total edits—I have taken the liberty of changing the status from "onreview" to "2ndopinion" in the hopes that a more experienced reviewer can check and see whether the article does indeed meet the GA criteria. As it is a technical article, someone who is good with such prose would be a plus. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have completed my review for this article, and have listed my comments and concerns below. I am willing to work with the editor to bring the article up to standards. (See Analysis and Recommendations and Review table below).  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  19:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The subsequent review having been completed, and all improvements and/or explanations having been made, the status of Good Article is made on Air Stripline. Congratulations to SpinningSpark for their hard work. Also thanks to catslash and the previous reviewer Navinsingh133. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Table of Contents

1. GA Review Table
   1. Bhat source
      1. Nominated article
      2. Source
      3. Analysis
   2. Matthaei source
      1. Nominated article
      2. Source
      3. Analysis
   3. Oliner source
      1. Nominated article
      2. Source
      3. Analysis

GA Review Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	✓ The issues of grammar have been corrected.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	✓ The article complies with WP:MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	✓ The manner with which two of the references are handled in the article are not in accordance with the layout style guidelines for WP:INTEGRITY (See individual Analysis sections I and II below for a description of these.) per WP:BLUE & WP:BUNDLING
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	✓ Source was updated.
	2c. it contains no original research.	✓ The nominated article does not contain original research (the mistakenly cited passages mentioned above not included.)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	✓ In the sources I personally checked, I encountered no evidence of plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	✓The main topic is addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	✓The details of air stripline versus other kinds of stripline were delineated. This was remedied by the grammar changes in section 1a, and the source No. III integrity changes in 2a and 2b.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	✓ The article does not display any bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	✓ There does not seem to be a problem with reverting.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	✓Both images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Attribution: Courtesy Spinningspark at Wikipedia. Neither file meets CSD F8.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	✓Captions appear to be pertinent.
	7. Overall assessment.	✓Improvements have been made and all areas are completed. As the second review opinion, I concur with the previous reviewer's hastily made, yet essentially correct assessment that this article passes GA status.

I. Bhat source

Nominated article findings

• Reference note #5 (citing p. 302) is placed at the end of one sentence: "High end designs may use a crystalline substrate, such as boron nitride or sapphire, as the suspended substrate."
• Reference note #11 (citing pp. 212, 280-287, 302-311) is placed in the last sentence of a paragraph containing 10 sentences. "This also makes mechanical support easier because the lines are more rigid."¹¹

Bhat source findings

• Page 212 is titled "Design Data on Edge Coupled Stripline-like Transmission Lines—Characteristic Impedances and Effective Dielectric Constants." That page delineates coupled line configurations, in particular, the edge-coupled parallel conductor configuration. Bhat discusses how these circuits adopt either the edge-coupled homogeneous stripline or edge-coupled microstrip line and how a few adopt edge-coupled suspended striplines "especially at higher microwave frequencies." Bhat then goes on to describe how Matthaei (the author of the book reviewed below, after this one) has provided complete design curves characterizing the various fringe capacitances and also formulas for determining the structural parameters from "even-and-odd mode impedances."
• On the upper half of page 302 is the passage from which reference note #5 was created for, which reads:"Broadside coupled suspended stripline using uniaxially anisotropic pyrolytic boron nitride or sapphire as the suspended dielectric layer is attractive in the design of filters and high directivity tight couplers demanding highly reproducible characteristics.
• In pages 280-287, Bhat delineates the various ways in which broadside-coupled techniques offer more efficiency in their impedances and dielectric constances, mainly through the illustration of formulas. The first ones described are the unified capacitance formulas for structures with iso/anisotropic substrates (fig 7.1–fig7.3d), followed by the characteristic impedance of broadside-coupled homogeneous stripline-conformal mapping formulas (7.4a–7.7b), followed by explicit expressions for the dimensional parameters of broadside-coupled symmetric homogeneous striplines in terms of coupling (fig 7.8a–7.12). Bhat explains the differences in spacing variations between two broadside-coupled transmission structures with isotropic dielectric substrates (e.g., homogeneous and suspended striplines) by illustrating the design data dimensional parameters expressed in coupling factor degrees (in figures 7.2a, 7.13a, and figures 7.13b and 7.14, respectively).
• The lower half of page 302 through page 311 are figures. One of the figures, on page 303, reads: "Characteristic impedances Z_e and Z_o and phase velocity ratio vo/ve versus w/b and d/b as parameter of broadside coupled homogeneous stripline filled with uniaxially anisotropic dielectric substrate pyrolytic boron nitride."

Analysis and recommendations

1. The "Uses" heading: It's not clear that the paragraph containing the Ref#11 note fits under the "Uses" heading. After looking at the source, it appears what is being described are the variations of transmissive technologies, with the reader being told about the different configurations of different types of couplings, rather than delineating how these variations differ in their "uses". I suspect "Variations in usage" may have been what the editor was thinking with "uses".
   1. The point of the para is that air stripline can get much stronger coupling through the "broadside coupling" technique and indirect coupling can thus be used for a wider range of applications. I've added an opening sentence to clarify this. SpinningSpark 17:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Nomenclature used: While the article describes some striplines as "supported", the book chooses to differentiate this further, using "suspended" or "inverted" — distinctions which will be lost to readers of the article.
   1. Inverted stripline is not a form of air stripline and hence is not covered in this article. It is the same as inverted microstrip with the addition of an upper ground plane. The suspended form of air stripline is clearly explained in the "Structure" section. SpinningSpark 17:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Reference note #11 (citing pp. 212, 280-287, 302-311) WP:INTEGRITY: Wikipedia's content guidelines for a citation's placement state that "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." These guidelines clearly leave the final decision on the distance "between material and its source" in the hands of "editorial judgment", advising that editors "exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained." In the nominated article, reference #11's placement is assumed to be meant as reference for the entire paragraph, when considering that the final sentence in which it appears is too particular a statement, and not broad enough, to warrant a reference covering 18 pages of material. The guidelines state: "If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source, adding new material that is not supported by the existing source to the sentence/paragraph, without a source for the new text, is highly misleading if placed to appear that the cited source supports it. When new text is inserted into a paragraph, make sure it is supported by the existing (source) or a new source." Taking that guideline into consideration it is my opinion that the material in this paragraph, and the reference note #11 meant as the source citation for it, does not meet an acceptable threshold for text–source integrity. This many pages of material pressed into one note is odd (pages 212, 280–287, and 302–311) and the fact that other parts of the nominated article easily possess text–source integrity (see analysis no.4, below) makes the inability of reference note #11 in meeting an acceptable threshold for text–source integrity all the more puzzling. 18 pages worth of material should have easily broken down into several different reference notes across 10 sentences, and yet these pages weren't separated. Looking at WP:INTEGRITY, one sees that the standard for text–source integrity is "editor's judgment." An editor who asks for 10 paragraphs in their article to be allowed with only one citation would doubtless be pressing their luck. My question asks where the line should be drawn. At what point does a Good Article nominee begin to press their luck, at 10 paragraphs or 10 sentences? The guidance that citations be bundled into one reference placed at the end of a paragraph (WP:SCICITE) appear to apply in certain cases:

   The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement ... therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph.

   Which of these two policies WP:INTEGRITY or WP:SCICITE is felt to take precedence here and ought to be implemented should be for the article's nominator to decide.
   1. It's really against my Wikipedia religion to excessively break up citations. It is of no real benefit to either the reader or the reviewer and destroys a lot of the enjoyment for content creators (ask me outside this review to explain why). Wikipedia reviewers have become far too pedantic on this point (probably only because it is an easy point to make). Nowhere else in real life is this a requirement. In this case the paraagraph is cited entirely to only one source (but multiple pages). A gbooks search for the term air stripline strong coupling gets 1,640 hits according to Google's own highly inaccurate count. That shows that the basic claim of this para is well known to those skilled in the art and surely meets the requirement "information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject". SpinningSpark 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)  Works for me Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Reference note #5 (citing p. 302) WP:INTEGRITY: Unlike reference note #11, the text–source integrity for reference note #5 is unassailable. It was placed at the end of one sentence and the information contained in that sentence was easily located and verified in the source.
   1. No actionable request. SpinningSpark 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Sentence change: In addition to the changes above, the sentence For this reason stripline parallel coupled lines are used in directional couplers with a coupling factor no more than −10 dB but power splitters (coupling factor −3 dB) use a direct coupling technique. In air stripline there is another possibility, the lines can be stacked one on top of the other." should be changed to: "For this reason, stripline parallel coupled lines are used in directional couplers with a coupling factor no more than −10 dB. Power splitters, with their coupling factor −3 dB, use a direct coupling technique. Air stripline makes use of an alternative arrangement, with lines stacked one atop of the other."
   1. Has this not already been addressed by Catslash's edit? SpinningSpark 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)  Resolved Disregard the grammar change recommendations in the text. We took care of those, and I changed their status in the review table, this was just redundancy having them written down here. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

II. Matthaei source

Nominated article findings

• Reference note #6 (citing page 173) covers methods of construction and the use of spaced insulators. The sections describes how a certain method is more suitable for high power applications. It remarks upon the conductor cross-section's corners and the fact that they are rounded.
• Reference note #7 (citing pages 422-423) speaks to the disadvantages of insulators, and how the need to avoid insulators has led to the use of grounding points which double as mechanical supports.
• Reference note #10 (citing pages 598-603) talks about filters, power dividers and directional couplers at microwave frequencies, and how air stripline is used to make these components when "air stripline" is the transmission medium.

Matthaei source findings

• Page 173 contains Figure 5.04-5, labeled as "Theoretical Breakdown Power of Air Dielectric Rounded Strip Transmission Line." Matthaei describes (on page 172) the figure (on page 173) as the following: "The average power, P (measured in kw), that can be transmitted along a matched strip line having an inner conductor with rounded corners is plotted in Fig 5.04-5. In this figure, the ground plane spacing b is measured in inches, and the breakdown strength of air is taken as 2.9 x 10⁴ volts/cm."
• Pages 422-423 contain a table summary of "Band Pass and Pseudo High Pass Filters" labeled "Stripline or Coaxial and Semi-Lumped-Element Filters". This table goes on to illustrate typical resonators and filter properties.
• Pages 598-603 feature different tables showing impedances obtained through the use of differing filters. Page 601 for example, shows a diagram of "Details of Transition from Filter to Type-N Connector."

Analysis and recommendations

1. Reference note #6 (citing p. 173): Fixed The article mentions rounded strip transmission lines, which the figure shown on page 173 indeed shows. However, the statement in the article makes claims as to the protections offered by these "rounded" corners, whereas Matthaei speaks only of the "average power P (measured in k/w)" and stops short of labeling this a "protection". What makes this power differential a "protection" ought to be included either in the text or from an additional reference. (Note: If the "protection" offered is that it prevents a transmission line from being damaged or destroyed, then this reference as it's worded is acceptable; in which case the citation should be changed to read "p. 172" or at least "pp. 172-173".)
   1. I've changed the page range as requested. I am puzzled by your putting "protection" in quotes as this word does not appear in the article. It is true that Matthaei does not explicitly give the reason for using rounded corners at high power. However, it is certainly well known that sharp points and edges lead to high field strengths (not just in this application, but throughout electrical engineering - it is a big consideration, for instance, in transformer design on power grids). It's not hard to find sources saying the stripline conductor should be rounded in power applications, but in most of them the author assumes the reader already knows the reason for this. I put the information in here because that is not necessarily true for Wikipedia readers. The only source I can find on a quick search that says this explicitly is this book: "This version of triplate has been devised in order to extend the use of stripline to higher-power operation: the absence of sharp corners on the centre conductor is obviously an essential requirement for such usage, in order to avoid high field-strength areas which could lead to "flash- over" and voltage breakdown." I can put this source in if you like, but there are two problems with it. Firstly, it is not explicitly discussing the air stripline form of stripline. Secondly, I only have this gbooks snippet and am a little uncomfortable using a source I can't read properly. SpinningSpark 18:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Reference note #7 (citing pp. 422-423):  ResolvedThe same as with 173 above — while discussing insulators and grounding points shown in the diagrams from the source, the article makes claims which do not appear to be present on the pages indicated (e.g., "...insulators are electrically undesirable..."). (Note: If by "undesirability" it means that the transmission line becomes damaged or destroyed, then this reference as it's worded is acceptable.)
   1. I'm going to go with WP:BLUE on that one. It is patently obvious that a component whose benefits reside in it being composed of air is going to be compromised by anything in it that is not air. It is a waste of everyones time to trawl the internet trying to find a source saying that explicitly. SpinningSpark 18:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Reference note #10 (citing pp. 598-603) / The usage of figures and formulas from a source as a reference: Fixed As much of the Matthaei (and Bhat) sources describe pages wherein technical figures or formulas reside, the question becomes this: does Wikipedia policy permit the use of figures and formulas as references themselves? The answer to this is not so clear. The inactive but historically kept WP:MOSDIAG describes guidelines for their usage. These figures should:

• Give an explicit presentation that is directly relevant to the subject of the article(s) in which they appear
• Are fully consistent with, and support, the surrounding text

The second guideline requiring "the surrounding text" to be "consistent" with the figures, and the first guideline that they "give an explicit presentation that is directly relevant to" the article in question, are the main questions here. As far as using the diagrams directly as references, MOS:MATHS gives some guidance, most notably saying that figures should "Provide further reading enabling other editors to verify and to extend the given information, as well as to discuss the quality of a particular source." It should be the case that when the use of figures from a source are required to cite a reference for text in an article, those very same figures ought to be reproduced and included in the article. However, MOS:MATHS warns that "Wikipedia articles cannot be a substitute for a textbook. Also, often one might want to find out more details (like the proof of a theorem stated in the article)." There is also direction from WP:SCICITE which states that formulas or calculations are allowed when they involve:

Converting units, rounding to appropriate levels of precision for the article, describing quantitative relationships in words, and other simple methods that both accurately describe the information from the source(s) and do not tend to advance a novel argument. If a calculation, although routine, takes more than one or two steps, it may be helpful to present the details of the calculation in a note to the text.

In the Matthaei source many of these formulas are used as a reference, although their details are not expounded upon as WP:SCICITE suggests.

I have no idea what I was thinking of when I put the Matthaei source in there. I suspect that it is the right page numbers for a different source, but I no longer can remember. I'll look for something better. SpinningSpark 19:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed Matthaei from that para and put in a new source. Also reworded more in line with the new source. SpinningSpark 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

III. Oliner source

Nominated article findings

• Reference note #2 (citing page 558) covers one simple sentence, describing one of two basic ways in which an "air stripline" is constructed. The way described is the "dielectric supported stripline (also called a suspended stripline or suspended substrip), where the strip conductor is deposited on a thin dielectric substrate, sometimes on both sides and connected together to form a single conductor."
• Reference note #12 (citing pages 557-558) is more complex, covering five sentences. The passage first describes who invented stripline and who first manufactured it. It then goes on to describe how stripline has become a generic term, and what that generic "anadorned" term now signifies. It concludes by suggesting that stripline was an early "planar technology of choice" while claiming that it "has now been superseded bymicrostrip [sic] for most general purpose applications."

Oliner source findings

• Page 557 describes how striplines came about, in that "they removed the side walls altogether and extended the top and bottom walls sideways. The result was called a strip transmission line or stripline. Different methods were used by different companies to support the center strip, but in all cases the region between the two outer plates was filled with only a single medium, either dielectric material or air." Oliner then goes on to describe how a modification that emerged at roughly the same time involved removing the top plate and leaving only the strip and the bottom plate, called a microstrip. Page 557 then goes on to list Robert M. Barret as the inventor of the stripline concept, and how his work went on to inform the work carried out by three organizations, namely, the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Tufts College, and Airborne Instruments Laboratories (AIL). The bottom of page 557 shows sketches of two commercial microwave printed circuits.
• Page 558 features sketches of three main manufactured circuits: Microstrip® made by Federal Telecommunications Laboratories (ITT); Tri-Plate® manufactured by Sanders Associates; and Hi-Q Stripline® manufactured by AIL. Below the sketches, Oliner describes the essential differences between the three, a description which carries over to page 559.

Analysis and recommendations

1. Reference note #2 (citing pp. 558):  Fixed The nominated article suggests that there are two different ways of constructing an air stripline, and that one of these ways involves a stripline where the strip conductor is deposited on a thin dielectric substrate. However, on p. 557 of the source (and not p. 558, as stated in the nominated article) Oliner states that "in all cases, the region between the two outer plates was filled with only a SINGLE medium, EITHER dielectric material OR air." If this is the case that an air stripline is a stripline where the region between the two outer plates is filled with air and a dielectric substrate stripline is one which is filled with dielectric substrate, then the nominated article's claim that the two basic ways of constructing an air stripline involving one way which does not utilize air (the dielectric substrate) is a spurious claim.
2. Reference note #12 (citing p. 557-558):  Fixed Similar to what was seen with the Bhat source, the nominated article makes several claims in a paragraph and then bundles them under one reference note. Just as with the Bhat reference, this raises problems. Two of the claims made within the bundled reference are not substantiated on the pages indicated by the reference. Firstly, that stripline was the planar technology of choice which has been superseded by microstrip for mass produced items; Secondly, that Stripline® was the first stripline manufactured by AIL. In the first instance, when the nominated article mentions microstrips, it fails to explain the difference between the dielectric filled microstrip and the microstrip that superseded the stripline for mass produced items. The Oliner source explains that the two are different. In the second instance, the nominated article claims that the Airborne Instruments Laboratories "Stripline" (which was in fact called Hi-Q Stripline®) was the first manufactured; the source indicates that the 3 striplines were manufactured roughly at the same time, and that the microstrip was just one of these modifications — and not the superseding one.
3. Sentence change:  Fixed In addition to the other changes listed in this section, the sentence "The unadorned term stripline would now likely be assumed to be stripline with a solid dielectric." should be changed to: "The unadorned term stripline is now likely assumed to be a stripline with a solid dielectric."

References

Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oliner actually says "Different methods were used by different companies to support the center strip, but in all cases the region between the two outer outer plate was filled (or effectively filled) with only a single medium, either dielectric material or air" and later "...(b) is clearly dielectric filled, whereas that in (c) is essentially air-filled because very little field is present in the thin center sheet that supports the center strip." (my emphasis) --catslash (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The article does sometimes use dielectric to mean any dielectric (including air), and sometimes to mean specifically solid dielectric - could this cause confusion? [fixed] --catslash (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to user:Catslash for addressing some of these issues. Am I right in thinking that the all the remaining issues are to be found under "analysis and recommendations" for the Bhat and Matthaei sources? SpinningSpark 16:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor comment

"make the dielectric essentially air"

So it is air, or not? What is this "essentially"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It means near enough as makes no difference. Perhaps almost entirely would be clearer, though it's not the relative volumes of the materials that matter so much as the relative magnitudes of their effects. Maybe somebody has a better suggestion? Predominantly? --catslash (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The strip requires some kind of mechanical support, it cannot simply be levitated in air. This may consist of a very thin substrate or periodic pillars. These are made of solid insulating material which has some dielectric effect but they are made as small and insignificant as possible. This is to be compared to a line with a solid dielectric. Here the dielectric itself provides the mechanical support, hence the dielectric is entirely homogenous. SpinningSpark 16:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hitler's Generals on Trial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

(Please note: I noticed you have another article undergoing GA review. I can wait until that process has completed before we begin here. Please advise.)

I am delighted to begin this review. Although your nomination has only been active for 5 days, in the end it's the content of the article and not the timeframe of the nomination that matters. While the system indicates that this is my first review, it will, in fact, be my second review — as I took over for Navinsingh133 five days into their review of Air stripline after that article's nominator asked for a second opinion.

The structure of my review will be the following. As I examine the article, my comments for improvement will be listed under the Q&A heading, allowing for space for your responses posted immediately following mine. Each entry I make in the Q&A section will be prefaced with one of two codes:

1. GAR (Good article related) will be for concerns which directly impact the article's passing of GA status as demanded by the criteria. Carrying out these changes are necessary for passing.
2. IR (for Improvement related) will be for comments of a generalized manner which aim at the overall improvement of the article, and are not necessary for you to either implement or answer.

After the Q&A section is completed, I will then fill out the chart below and finish the process, which should take no more than 7 days on my end. The Q&A section will begin immediately following this introduction. Until the end of the process, let's push the Review table to the bottom with whatever text we enter, so that our Q&A stays near the top. That way, we'll minimize the time spent having to scroll down past the review box every time to fill in information. When Q&A is completed, I will move the review table back up here to the beginning. Please feel free to enter any introductory comments you may have just below here, before the Q&A section. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Q&A

 Task complete.

• GAR #1 dealing with the High Command Trial of 1947-1948. The first sentence the dates should contain the {{ndash}} parameter as 1947{{ndash}}1948

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• IR The author, Valerie Hébert, is an associate professor of history and interdisciplinary studies... should omit "The author," so that it reads as "Valerie Hébert is an associate..."

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• IR the quest for justice by the American prosecutors and their attempt to use comma after prosecutors

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #2 Under the Reception section, in the first sentence "finds the book a "welcome addition to this literature" as it focuses on a trial that has so far been neglected". remove the quotation marks after the word literature.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Reference note after the word "neglected" is missing.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #3 WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 are given "not applicable" status on the image page. These two categories are very applicable when it comes to copyright.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• IR The first Pendas reference under "Contents" placed at the end of where it says in the criminality of the Nazi regime.[2] should list the actual page as 734 for the source, this being where that information is coming from. I suggest using {{rp|734}}.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #4 The book devotes considerable time to the prosecution's case, presented by Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution Telford Taylor, the defence's case, and the court's ruling. should be two sentences. Replace the comma after Taylor with a period. The plural of defence is defence (which is spelled defense in American English) so change the second sentence to say "The defence case and the Court's subsequent ruling, are also covered." (As there is already the British English usage of "behaviour" lower in the next paragraphs, sticking with "defence" is appropriate)

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

• IR The book devotes considerable time to the prosecution's case, presented by Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution Telford Taylor. chief of counsel should be lowercase, and delete "for the Prosecution" after it, as the word prosecution is already used in the same sentence.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

• IR While the evidence of the specific war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the accused was damning delete "the" after "While".

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

• GAR #5 the book finds that it was the defence, not the prosecution, that set the tone of how the trial and the judgement were perceived in Germany. This text is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material (see WP:CLOP) and is a serious violation of WP:C. I strongly suggest that it be rephrased in your own words. For reference, the text originated at the very top of page 736 of the Pendas source.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done (See GAR #15 below)

Y Moved to GAR #15 Now IR 15

_______________________________________________________________________

• GAR #6 Also in that passage, when Pendas mentions that the defense set the tone for how the trials were perceived in Germany, they mean how the Nuremberg trials were perceived in Germany, not the subsequent Nuremberg trials. By linking the two the way this problematic sentence does, the perception is applied to one rather than the other.

Here's the relevant passage from Pendas. The reviewer writes:

"In two particularly interesting and important chapters (two and six), Hébert analyzes German reactions to the Nuremberg trials in general and to the High Command Case in particular. What is striking in her account is the ways in which, contrary to American hopes and expectations, it was the defense, rather than the prosecution, that set the tone for public perceptions of the Nuremberg trials."

I believe he refers to all of the Nuremberg trials, the initial one and the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials", of which the High Command Case was one. Do you see it differently? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the perception was on all the trials. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

_______________________________________________________________________

• GAR #7 Book cover needs a caption.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________

• GAR #8 She points out the failure of the American authorities to publish the trial materials in German This claim is not mentioned in any of the sources given. This becomes problematic when you consider GAR# 9 below. As it originates with the book, the book should be given as reference for this claim, along with the page number from the book for this claim.

This is covered in Searle, p. 277:

"...although it concludes with a fascinating discussion of the American failure to publish the trial proceedings in German. This is a subject which possibly deserved more attention, since, as Hébert mentions earlier in this chapter, the withholding of the trial documents worked against the US occupation officials in Germany. Many of the Germans protesting against the verdicts changed their tune when they discovered what the proceedings had involved."

I added the page number; sorry about the confusion. Does this address the concern? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________

• IR As I mentioned above, She points out the failure of the American authorities to publish the trial materials in German, which may have led in part to the Americans' failure in their didactic goals. is problematic because it states 2 things: (A) the publishing of records not in German, (B) this publishing not in German leading to failure of "didactic goals". While the Pendas source does mention "Didactic" goals, Pendas does not link a failure of language translation as the cause of this missed goal.

Same response as in GAR #8. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. The sentence appears to be a synthesis then, of the two reviewers perhaps? or all three, the book author and the two reviewers. This sentence should at least have ref notes from both Searle and Pendas, as both of their works impacted how the sentence was formed, in particular, Pendas' use of the word "didactic", which was carried over. I see that Segasser also uses this word didactic so it must be coming from Hébert's book. In that case i'd at least put didactic in quotations. I can get a copy of the book and find out the page that word is used on. OR else it's their use of that word in describing the goals of "teaching" the Germans their history. In which case I would change nothing and no quotes are needed. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Deferred

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #18 extensive record of Wehrmacht's criminal behaviour insert "the" before Wehrmacht.

The current version reads "an extensive record" which seems more appropriate then "the extensive record", no? I.e. the trial created a record. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Change "an extensive record of Wehrmacht's criminal behaviour during the war". to read "an extensive record of Wehrmacht criminal behaviour during the war."

Rephrased in own voice. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #9 Segasser's quote should read "welcome addition to this literature, [as it] focuses on a trial that has so far been neglected". The next sentence change "notes" to "noted" in past tense.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #10 The statement "The reviewer note(d) that by providing more background on the German military organization, the author "could have supplied a clearer portrait of the involvement of the Wehrmacht leadership in Nazi macro-criminality". should be changed to "The reviewer note(d) that by NOT providing more background on the German..." The full Sagasser quote is:

  Although the material here is well-researched, it is a pity that Hébert does not discuss the military organization of Nazi Germany ... Hébert could have supplied a clearer portrait of the involvement of the Wehrmacht leadership in Nazi macro-criminality.

The passage needs this context to make sense of what it was that Hébert could have done and whether they eventually did (or in this case, did not.) The simple way to change this is to change it to read something like "According to Segasser, if Hébert had provided more info on the Germans..... they could have supplied a clearer...." and so on.

 Done. I like the 2nd version which I've implemented.K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #11 The reference note for the Segasser quote ending in "was not completely lost" needs to have the note remaining with the text inside the block.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #12 The Searle-quoted passage below is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material:

Comparison of texts

Text as it appears in the Wikipedia article	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"Unlike other academic books on war crimes trials, that could be 'longwinded affairs, written by lawyers, this book has achieved a distinction rare in this field' in that it can be recommended for teaching purposes."	"Since many of the academic studies dealing with war crimes trials are long-winded affairs, written by lawyers, this book has achieved a distinction rare in this field: it can be recommended unhesitatingly for seminar reading lists and teaching purposes."

References

 Done. How does the new version look? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ Looks great! 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• GAR #13 In the last paragraph where it says the reviewer notes that Hébert's book analyses a single trial change "Hébert's book analyses a single trial" to "Hébert's book analysed a single trial"

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• IR Wikilink the first instance of the word didactic, to either this → didactic or this → didactic.

 Done; I used Wiktionary option. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

• IR The use of "Bibliography" in reference sections prodominantly denotes the use of books that are used as references for something. In this case, our bibliography section contains no books, as all the items listed there are book review articles featured in academic journals. Also, a citation is any type of reference, but the way its done now these are actually footnoted citations, or notes for short. Since our Citations are really Notes, and our Bibliography is really a collection of non-book journal References, perhaps the Citations and Bibliography sections could be renamed Notes and References, respectively.

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

• GAR #14 The additional Searle-quoted passage below is also insufficiently paraphrased from the source material:

Comparison of texts

Text as it appears in the Wikipedia article	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"Nonetheless, the trial provided an extensive record of Wehrmacht's criminal behaviour during the war."	"...the positive effects of the trial in providing an extensive record of Wehrmacht criminal behaviour during the war."

References

•  Done. I added quote marks for the statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________

• IR 15 I'm having trouble finding the source for this new claim statement which replaced the previous statement from GAR #5. Was this in Hébert's book or Pendas' review of it? "the book finds that it was the defence that won the case in the court of Germany's public opinion." There is a big difference between the failure of affect upon a trial's perception in people's minds (i.e., "the American's trials, because of translation difficulties, stopped short of convincing us of their absolute necessity") versus a definite move to the win column (i.e., "the American's trials were a waste of time and the completely wrong thing to do.") Those are two different states of mind, and the statement that they "won the case" seems to swing the perception all the way to the other side, one that the reviewer's words don't seem to imply.

Yes, it's in Pendas. This was a paraphrase of "the book finds that it was the defence, not the prosecution, that set the tone of how the trial and the judgement were perceived in Germany". What appears to be unclear? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess the confusion is over what the ultimate reason was for the Germans not supporting the trial. The quote says that the "defense set the tone", but anothere reviewer states that the audience may have been primed to be unsympathetic: "The public perception of the trials was shaped by responses to previous proceedings. While protest at Nuremberg had been relatively mild in 1945, resistance increased as the trial program expanded. German clergy, veterans’ organizations, and officials from the political administration of what would become West Germany all objected to apparent inconsistencies in the trials." So I'm wondering, when it comes to stating why the trials were not a success, perhaps a more nuanced view might be taken in the article, by either relying less on quotations from certain reviewers or else adding more quotes from other reviewers to illustrate that there is at least a difference of opinion on why the trials were not a success.

References

 Deferred
____________________________________________________________________________

• IR Reference note #3 needs a page number.

•  Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ I know we're dealing with only 2 pages per source here, but placing the page number next to the note like this is very helpful when different page numbers are used with the same source. That benefit is lost when grouped notes (as this article uses) are placed in the notes section with the page numbers spread across all of the note instances. But I won't belabor the point. 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

____________________________________________________________________________

The following is a paragraph from the article with multiple issues, so I copied the text and placed marks where the issues are.

A review in the Journal of Genocide Research finds the book a "welcome addition to this literature, [as it] focuses on a trial that has so far been neglected". According to Segasser, if Hébert had provided more info on the German military organization, she "could have supplied a clearer portrait of the involvement of the Wehrmacht leadership in Nazi macro-criminality".Nref note needed The review agrees with Hébert in that Americans did not achieve their goals:

...but it must be remembered that the trials of German military figures between 1945 and 1949 brought to light many documents of inestimable value to historians (as in the Wehrmacht exhibition of the 1990s). Thus, although most of the crimes of the Wehrmacht were forgotten in the immediate wake of the proceedings, the didactic value of the High Command Trial was not completely lost.

Reviewing the work, historian Alaric Searle notes the book's "success, with only 208 pages of text, [in] providing a readable, accessible, and tightly structured overview of an extremely complex case".Nref note needed He contrasts it with other literature on war crimes trials which he describes as "longwinded affairs, written by lawyers" and recommends Hitler's Generals on Trial for teaching purposes.

A review in H-Net (author's name) finds that the book "breaks new ground" and is "strongly recommended".Nref note needed Comparing it to the 2008 collection of essays, Atrocities on Trial: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Prosecuting War Crimes, edited by Patricia Heberer and Jürgen Matthäus, the reviewer notes that Hébert's book analysed a single trial, putting it into historical perspective. The reviewer goes on to describe the work as an "outstanding contribution" that "forces the reader to consider difficult questions on what humans owe to each other, how that is assessed, and how and when such a bill is paid".
The underlined passage above is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material.

References

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________

• GAR #16 Alaric Searle redlink.

•  Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________

• IR Note to wikilinked didactic should contain a message about it being placed there by Wikipedia editors per: MOS:LWQ, but as its an "internal link" (i.e., wiktionary) i'm not sure that this is absolutely necessary. I'll leave it to the discretion of the nominating editor.

____________________________________________________________________________

• GAR #17 & #19 through #24 The paragraphs shown just above contain several items.

 Done I believe I have addressed these. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Article revision

In this section I point out some of the issues with the newly revised first section of the current article, which is shown in the expandable section below. In the second expandable section, I offer suggestions for how passages from the article may be rewritten.

The article as it now stands

Extended content

Hitler's Generals on Trial: The Last War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg is a 2010 book by Canadian historian Valerie Hébert dealing with the High Command Trial of 1947–1948. The book covers the criminal case against the defendants, all high-ranking officers of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as the wider societal and historical implications of the trial. The book received generally positive reviews for its mastery of the subject and thorough assessment of the legacy of the trial. Background Valerie Hébert is an associate professor of history and interdisciplinary studies at Lakehead University, Canada. Her research and teaching include modern European history, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and genocide. Published by the University Press of Kansas in 2010, Hitler's Generals on Trial is Hébert's first major publication. Contents The book details the High Command Trial, officially known as "War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals", which was part of the Subsequent Nuremberg trials. Hitler's Generals on Trial focuses on two aspects of the trial: the quest for justice by the American prosecutors, and their attempt to use the proceedings to educate the German public about the depth of complicity of the Wehrmacht, the German armed forces, in the criminality of the Nazi regime. Using primary and secondary material, Hébert discusses the proceedings themselves, the evolution of the American judicial policy towards war crimes, the preceding trials, and the post-conviction developments. The book devotes considerable time to the prosecution's case, presented by Chief of Counsel Telford Taylor. Hébert focuses in particular on the cases against senior field commanders Hermann Hoth, Georg von Küchler and Hans Reinhardt, along with Walter Warlimont and Hermann Reinecke who served in the OKW, German military's supreme command. Comment: Did all of these generals serve in the OKW? The tactics employed by defence are covered in detail. Hébert begins by reviewing the memorandum put forth by the defence at the Nuremberg Trial. Comment: Describing this document from another trial is perfectly fine if thats what Hébert does. But mentioning a document from a different trial will launch a series of "Which trial" questions which come up again and again for any reader of this paragraph. 1st question asks, why does Hébert look at a document from another trial that wasn't the High Command trial? Co-authored by former head of the OKH (German Army High Command) Franz Halder and former field marshals Walter von Brauchitsch and Erich von Manstein and other senior military figures, the document aimed to describe the German armed forces as apolitical and largely innocent of the crimes committed by the Nazi regime. Hébert shows that a remarkably similar strategy was deployed by the lead counsel for the defence, Hans Laternser. Comment: Which defence? the Nuremburg trial or the High command trial? Hébert finds the Court's subsequent ruling to be nuanced and measured, taking into account each defendant's individual culpability. Comment: Which court ruling was this from, the Nuremberg trials or the High command trials? While evidence of the specific war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the accused was damning, the book finds that it was the defence that won the case in the court of Germany's public opinion. Hébert substantiates her analysis by discussing the reactions by the German public and institutions, and the campaigns that the German clergy and the government of the new Federal Republic conducted on behalf of the convicted. Faced with the concerted lobbying efforts, the American sentence review and clemency program reduced or commuted many of the sentences. Former military officers were the first to be released, including those convicted in the High Command Case; nonetheless, Hébert points out that none of those found guilty had been publicly exonerated. Hébert then discusses the failure of the American authorities to publish the trial materials in German, which may have led in part to the Americans' failure to educate and convince the German public. In the conclusion, which reviewers have described as "thoughtful", the author points out the value of the trial in creating a comprehensive record of the Wehrmacht's crimes. On the other hand, Hébert does not see that the American prosecutors have achieved their goals and concludes that the justice was not served in the end. Reception A review in the Journal of Genocide Research finds the book a "welcome addition to this literature, [as it] focuses on a trial that has so far been neglected". According to Segasser, if Hébert had provided more information on the German military organization and function, she could have presented a clearer picture the Wehrmacht's inexorable ties to the Nazi regime's goals of conquest and annihilation. The review agrees with Hébert in that Americans did not fully achieve the objectives they had set out before the start of the case: ...but it must be remembered that the trials of German military figures between 1945 and 1949 brought to light many documents of inestimable value to historians (as in the Wehrmacht exhibition of the 1990s). Thus, although most of the crimes of the Wehrmacht were forgotten in the immediate wake of the proceedings, the didactic value of the High Command Trial was not completely lost. Reviewing Hitler's Generals on Trial in Military Review, Mark Montesclaros of the Army Command and General Staff College describes the book's treatment of the political context of the trial and subsequent developments as one of its "greatest insights". He points out that American authorities in Germany were not only seeking justice but, at the same time, trying to rebuild the German society, conduct a de-Nazification program, and recruit West Germany into a military coalition in the face of the looming Cold war with the Soviet Union. Faced with these conflicting priorities, the Americans opted for the reconciliation with the former enemy, which included clemency programs for those convicted in war crimes trials. Mark Montesclaros "highly recommends" the book to those interested in international military justice and post-war developments in Germany. Reviewing the work, historian Alaric Searle notes the book's "success, with only 208 pages of text, [in] providing a readable, accessible, and tightly structured overview of an extremely complex case". He contrasts it with other literature on war crimes trials which he describes as "longwinded affairs, written by lawyers" and recommends Hitler's Generals on Trial for teaching purposes. American scholar Jonathan Lurie, reviewing the book in H-Net, finds that it "breaks new ground" and is "strongly recommended". Comparing it to the 2008 collection of essays, Atrocities on Trial: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Prosecuting War Crimes, edited by Patricia Heberer and Jürgen Matthäus, which covered a number of war crimes trials, Lurie notes the strength of Hébert's book in thoroughly analysing a single case and its outcomes and lessons. He goes on to describe the work as an "outstanding contribution" that asks "difficult questions" about justice, retribution, and atonement. References

Draft

Extended content

Hitler's Generals on Trial: The Last War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg is a 2010 book by Canadian historian Valerie Hébert dealing with the High Command Trial of 1947–1948. The book covers the criminal case against the defendants, all high-ranking officers of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as the wider societal and historical implications of the trial. The book received generally positive reviews for its mastery of the subject and thorough assessment of the legacy of the trial. Contents The book details the High Command Trial, officially known as "War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals", which was part of the Subsequent Nuremberg trials. Hitler's Generals on Trial focuses on two aspects of the trial: the quest for justice by the American prosecutors, and their attempts to use the proceedings to educate the German public about the depth of complicity of the Wehrmacht, the German armed forces, in the criminality of the Nazi regime. Prosecution and defence cases Using primary and secondary materials, Hébert discusses the proceedings themselves, the evolution of the American judicial policy towards war crimes, the preceding trials, and the post-conviction developments. The book devotes considerable time to the prosecution's case, presented by Chief of Counsel Telford Taylor. Hébert focuses in particular on the cases against senior field commanders Hermann Hoth, Georg von Küchler, Hans Reinhardt, Walter Warlimont and Hermann Reinecke, who served in the OKW, German military's supreme command. In covering one tactic shared by defence counsels from different trials, Hébert reviewed a memorandum put forth at the Nuremberg Trial. Co-authored by former head of the OKH (German Army High Command) Franz Halder and former field marshals Walter von Brauchitsch and Erich von Manstein and other senior military figures, the document aimed to describe the German armed forces as apolitical and largely innocent of the crimes committed by the Nazi regime. Hébert shows how that strategy was also adopted by the lead counsel for the defence in the High Command trial, Hans Laternser. Hébert finds that Court's subsequent ruling to be nuanced and measured, taking into account each defendant's individual culpability. Hébert's conclusions While evidence of the specific war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the accused was damning, the book finds that it was the defence that won the case in the court of Germany's public opinion. Hébert substantiates her analysis by discussing the reactions by the German public and institutions, and the campaigns that the German clergy and the government of the new Federal Republic conducted on behalf of the convicted. Faced with the concerted lobbying efforts, the American sentence review and clemency program reduced or commuted many of the sentences. Former military officers were the first to be released, including those convicted in the High Command Case; nonetheless, Hébert points out that none of those found guilty had been publicly exonerated. Hébert then discusses the failure of the American authorities to publish the trial materials in German, which may have led in part to the Americans' failure to educate and convince the German public. In the conclusion, which reviewers have described as "thoughtful", the author points out the value of the trial in creating a comprehensive record of the Wehrmacht's crimes. On the other hand, Hébert does not see that the American prosecutors have achieved their goals and concludes that the justice was not served in the end. Reception A review in the Journal of Genocide Research finds the book a "welcome addition to this literature, [as it] focuses on a trial that has so far been neglected". According to Segasser, if Hébert had provided more information on the German military organization and function, she could have presented a clearer picture the Wehrmacht's inexorable ties to the Nazi regime's goals of conquest and annihilation. The review agrees with Hébert in that Americans did not fully achieve the objectives they had set out before the start of the case: ...but it must be remembered that the trials of German military figures between 1945 and 1949 brought to light many documents of inestimable value to historians (as in the Wehrmacht exhibition of the 1990s). Thus, although most of the crimes of the Wehrmacht were forgotten in the immediate wake of the proceedings, the didactic value of the High Command Trial was not completely lost. Reviewing Hitler's Generals on Trial in Military Review, Mark Montesclaros of the Army Command and General Staff College describes the book's treatment of the political context of the trial and subsequent developments as one of its "greatest insights". He points out that American authorities in Germany were not only seeking justice but, at the same time, trying to rebuild the German society, conduct a de-Nazification program, and recruit West Germany into a military coalition in the face of the looming Cold war with the Soviet Union. Faced with these conflicting priorities, the Americans opted for the reconciliation with the former enemy, which included clemency programs for those convicted in war crimes trials. Mark Montesclaros "highly recommends" the book to those interested in international military justice and post-war developments in Germany. Reviewing the work, historian Alaric Searle notes the book's "success, with only 208 pages of text, [in] providing a readable, accessible, and tightly structured overview of an extremely complex case". He contrasts it with other literature on war crimes trials which he describes as "longwinded affairs, written by lawyers" and recommends Hitler's Generals on Trial for teaching purposes. American scholar Jonathan Lurie, reviewing the book in H-Net, finds that it "breaks new ground" and is "strongly recommended". Comparing it to the 2008 collection of essays, Atrocities on Trial: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Prosecuting War Crimes, edited by Patricia Heberer and Jürgen Matthäus, which covered a number of war crimes trials, Lurie notes the strength of Hébert's book in thoroughly analysing a single case and its outcomes and lessons. He goes on to describe the work as an "outstanding contribution" that asks "difficult questions" about justice, retribution, and atonement. The author Valerie Hébert is an associate professor of history and interdisciplinary studies at Lakehead University, Canada. Her research and teaching include modern European history, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and genocide. Published by the University Press of Kansas in 2010, Hitler's Generals on Trial was Hébert's first major publication. References

I've implemented the suggestions and added another review to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This sentence is still unclear: " Hébert finds the Court's subsequent ruling to be nuanced and measured, taking into account each defendant's individual culpability." 1st question asks which court are we referring to, and secondly what is meant by subsequent? Does this mean the earlier court's ruling, or does it mean the secondary (subsequent) court's ruling? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed "subsequent" for clarity. The sentence refers to the ruling from the trial. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Review table

= Exceeded the requirements | = Met the requirements | = Failed to meet the requirements

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There were several areas where issues needed to be addressed. The nominating editor was extremely conscientious in implementing all of the requested changes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout of areas are according to MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The reference system that the page used was aligned with Harvard style to include a Notes and References section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All of the article's sources are open access available through EBSCO and other catalogs, from the public library system. This is something the article should be commended for.
	2c. it contains no original research.	While the book itself is the product of research done by the author, their topic is not an original one, and has been covered by others in the past. Therefore this research would not qualify as original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	In covering these reviews, quotations were used to help illustrate the book and its impact. Quotes were kept where the reviewers were providing a value judgement. The nom and myself as reviewer both believe this to be acceptable.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	As a research book, guidance suggests that the article contain an analysis of the book by secondary sources, which are included here. All of these sources are academic in nature.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As a research book, guidance suggests that the article contain a summary of the major points covered in the book. To allow for this, the article's covering of the book was split into the three usual sections of beginning/middle/end, in this case it was premise/trial+example/conclusions. There may have been areas of relevance that were missed, but the main basics were covered. The intro to the contents section is excellent, a very nice touch. Areas where confusion arose regarding this trial as opposed to the other, more well-known trial were delineated. The premise of the book, that the trials were to hopefully meet two goals, was listed in the premise section. In covering the conclusion of the book, that same premise was again addressed, showing continuity within the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article stays neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is fairly new, and though perhaps a controversial topic, there is no evidence of any edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image, and its documentation is in order.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Both the nom and myself felt that the article was slightly "barebones", in that larger sections of the book were not discussed in detail. This, along with having the quotes replaced by a more rigorous use of paraphrasing, would have made the article longer, but this length would not have necessarily made it better. The article we now have is a Good Article.

Review table comments which were addressed have been moved here

Row 7

The article requires a more standard level summary of the book's contents. As it now stands, this is what is described in the 'Contents' section of the article:

1. The difference between this trial and the other, better known Nuremburg trials.
2. The two main aspects of the trial: (a.)"The quest for justice by the American prosecutors" and (b.)"their attempt to use the proceedings to educate the German public."
3. That the "evidence of the specific war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the accused was damning"
4. That, despite this, the Americans failed to convince Germans of the utility of the trials.

Elements of the summary 'Contents' section, shown above, were largely informed through readings of the sourced review materials. This reliance on those reviews to do the talking, and not the book itself, raises problems. For example, where it's mentioned "Hébert discusses proceedings" and "the Defense case and the subsequent ruling are also covered." — these descriptions in and of themsleves do not constitute acceptable levels of summary, according to the precepts of WP:SS Additionally, the passage "The reviewer notes that Hébert's book analysed a single trial, putting it into historical perspective." (addressed by GAR #19) is troubling for being, first and foremost, insufficiently paraphrased; secondly, that it describes such little information overall.
It is my opinion that these issues ought to be addressed before the article can attain GA status. Spintendo ᔦᔭ

• Nom's comment -- I expanded as per above and rephrased problematic & non-informative areas. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Row 3b

According to WP:PLOT and WP:SS, Wikipedia treats creative works (including research books) in an encyclopedic manner, requiring entries in the article on the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. The article does not presently contain a concise summary of what is contained in the book. Spintendo ᔦᔭ

• Nom's comments -- I expanded the summary of the book, providing more details of what it contains. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Row 2d

Too many quotes. MOS:QUOTE states while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace the free text written by an editor. Spintendo ᔦᔭ

• Nom's comment -- I paraphrased and reworked some materials to reduce the number of quotations. I did keep the quotations where the reviewers were providing a value judgement; I believe that these are acceptable. Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It will be my pleasure to begin this review. If I may say so, this topic was found to have a dearth of English language sources available (beyond the good ones provided so far), so the fact that this article exists and with the good level of information appended to it, owes a debt of gratitude to the efforts of the nominator and editors at the German Wikipedia who edited the article there. The nominator, who is fluent in German and English, was able to incorporate these important German language sources into English so well, that the article in no way appears as if it has been translated into English from another language, as many articles with poorer translation-related efforts show.

Let's take this section by section, with the end results being tabulated in the table I've placed below.  Spintendo  14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this. I'll address stuff asap but it might take a day or two because I have to catch up on work after my vacation. Regards SoWhy 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no hurry. Please take as much time as you need to reply.  Spintendo  16:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I think I addressed everything and left some comments below. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

• "She ran the bank out of her house and never married. She maintained the persona of a pious Christian woman who helped the poor, although she was documented as carrying on more than one lesbian relationship." This phrasing, with the word "although", has the effect of implying in Wikipedia's voice that the subject's lesbianism runs counter to a Christian lifestyle. Philosophical arguments aside, I think it would be better to place the information in the first sentence, which mentions her never marrying. On its own, that sentence does not mesh well "She ran the bank out of her house and never married", as not marrying does not seem to be related to running a bank out of her house. My suggestion would be "In her personal life she never married, but was documented to have been in more than one lesbian relationship. Outwardly, she projected the persona of a pious Christian woman who helped the poor, running her bank out of her own house."
  •  Major rephrasing. SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Her competitors were real banks, and authorities eventually brought her to trial" suggested to become "Her competitors were more established banks, and authorities eventually brought her to trial with their help", as I believe that these established banks were instrumental in bringing her to trial as the article states.
  •  Rephrased. SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• "Bavaria's King Ludwig I was a fan of the Spitzeders and agreed to pay them 6.000 Gulden yearly" - can we expand on this point? As worded, it leaves open the reasoning for why the king supported the Spitzeders. The source states "Der sonst so sparsame bayerische König Ludwig I. hatte offensichtlich einen Narren an der Familie Spitzeder gefressen, denn erst stimmte er dem jährlichen Spitzengehalt des Sängerpaares von 6.000 Gulden zu, und nach dem plötzlichen Tod des Vaters half er der jungen Witwe, indem er die Ausbildung der Kinder finanzierte." In this case I will need the assistance of SoWhy for the translation, the Google software translation does not do it justice, particularly the word "gefressen" which translates as 'eaten' but I suspect has a different meaning (the Google translation comically suggests that the King ate the Spitzeders).
  • @Spintendo: The expression is "einen Narren gefressen", which can roughly be translated as "to be crazy about someone" (see LEO). I don't think "Ludwig I was crazy about them" sounds right though... Regards SoWhy 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes more sense. If this describes the King being a fan of their music, maybe that works better? Or was this a case of infatuation?  Spintendo  16:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the music but themselves. I think infatuation is a good word here. How does it look now? SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• "and then a convent school" - convent schools are not common in the English language - these are usually referred to simply as convents unless this was a school run by the convent, in which case the phrasing is perfectly fine.
  • As I understand it, a convent is a place where nuns live and work. In this case, the German phrase "klösterliches Internat" can probably best be translated as "boarding school run by a convent". I'll change it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If it was a convent-run school, then it's fine as is.  Spintendo  16:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• " The money, however, was not sufficient to pay for her lifestyle; she lived in hotels and inns with her girlfriend and six dogs." should be "The money, however, was not sufficient to pay for a lifestyle of living in hotels and inns with her girlfriend and six dogs."

• •  Done SoWhy 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Spitzedersche Privatbank

• "Spitzeder also inserted an advertisement into the city's major newspaper, the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, requesting to borrow 150 Gulden with the promise of 10 percent interest after two months" was this request made of the public? It seems unusual to post requests for money in a newspaper. Was it that she was soliciting investments? that would make more sense.
  • You can check the Harper's Weekly source which has the full wording (translated). It literally says "A respectable lady desires to borrow ...". Regards SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth of business

• "Spitzeder's banking services quickly became the talk of the town in Munich's poor communities" should be "in Munich's poorer communities" unless there was only one fixed geographical poor community.
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "She continued to pay interest in cash, which was not common, and thus led to some word-of-mouth advertising" should be "She continued to pay interest in cash, which was not common, leading to favorable word-of-mouth advertising".
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Because her customer base consisting mostly of workers from the northern outskirts of Munich, her bank was also called "Dachauer Bank". should be "Because her customer base consisted mostly of workers from the northern outskirts of Munich, her bank was also called 'Dachauer Bank'". (This may have resulted from the use of the German auch, which in certain translations results in the placement of the word also, when in the English phrasing that word may not be necessary. With regards to the name of the bank, I'm curious what "Dachauer" translates to — is that a term for the suburbs of Munich?)
  •  rephrased. It's the name of the town were most came from. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Soon after, she began employing more than 40 people and rented additional rooms in the hotel in which she was staying." should be "Soon after, she began employing more than 40 people, requiring her to rent additional rooms in the hotel in which she was staying."
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "In early 1871, Spitzeder survived the first public attempts to discredit her because the government failed to find a legal reason to stop Spitzeder, who was fulfilling her obligations to her customers as promised." should be "In early 1871, Spitzeder survived the first public attempts to discredit her, as the government failed to find a legal reason to stop Spitzeder, who was fulfilling her obligations to her customers as promised."
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "While the city of Munich now taxed her as a "Bankier 2. Klasse" ("second class banker"), she successfully avoided calls to be entered into the companies' register, which would have led to closer scrutiny." should be "While the city of Munich began taxing her as a "Bankier 2. Klasse" ("second class banker"), she successfully avoided calls to be entered into the companies' register, which would have led to closer scrutiny."
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Her employees, all without training in accounting, regularly took money and the accounting was restricted to recording the names of depositors and the amounts they paid in, often only signed with "XXX" by her illiterate customers." should be "Her employees, all without training in accounting, regularly took money, with the accounting being restricted to recording the names of depositors and the amounts they paid in, often only signed with "XXX" by her non-literate customers." This final point, about literacy, should be delineated. If the customers had access to becoming literate but chose not to because their stations in life did not require literacy, they would be considered non-literate. If they grew up with a requirement for literacy but somehow fell through the cracks (so to speak) then they would be considered "illiterate". (But if this is the specific term that the source uses, we can leave it as is.)
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "In October 1871, the proprietor of the hotel in which she was living and working was no longer willing to tolerate the customer traffic." should be "By October 1871, the proprietor of the hotel in which she was living and working was no longer willing to tolerate the customer traffic.
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Spitzeder moved into a house on Schönfeld Street No. 9 in one of Munich's best areas." should be "Spitzeder moved into the house at No. 9 Schönfeld Street in one of Munich's most affluent areas.
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "In 1871, she received 50,000 to 60,000 Gulden each day, although she had lowered the return paid to 8% per month." should be "By 1871 she was receiving 50,000 to 60,000 Gulden each day, although she lowered her returns paid to 8% per month."
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Despite the size of her business, the bank had no premises of its own and all business was done in Spitzeder's hotel and later her house." should be "Despite the size of her business, the bank had no premises of its own and all business was done first out of Spitzeder's hotel rooms and later her house." Also this should clarify, was it Spitzeder's hotel room or out of the hotel as a whole. (This is already clarified in an earlier sentence, that it was multiple rooms.)
  •  Done SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Public image, bankruptcy and prison sections

No issues.

Personal life

• "Despite her demonstrative Christian demeanor, she tended to have an entourage composed mostly of young, attractive women." Again with this phrasing, it seems to imply in Wikipedia's voice that a person of Christian demeanor should not have female friends. I'm thinking perhaps that the first half could be omitted, and just mention her entourage of women. I undertand that at the time, the differences between expressed Christian values and Ms. Spitzeder's sexuality would have provided for more of a contrast, according to local observers. But perhaps it could be worded to explain this better as a view that existed at that time, as surely this same view has been moderated in more modern times. What are your ideas on this?
  •  Rephrased. How is it now? SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "After her release from prison, Spitzeder went abroad because no one in Germany wanted to hire her as an actor" can be "After her release from prison, Spitzeder went abroad, as no one in Germany wanted to hire her as an actor." This could be a good place to mention the use of actor versus actress — there have been multiple discussions about the use of one term over another, including Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_118#Actor_vs_Actress_terminology. Unfortunately none of the discussions I could find were resolved with any conclusion. As my preferences would be irrelevant here, I'm happy with leaving it the way it is, with actor being used.
  •  Done. The change from actress to actor was made by the editor doing a GOCE copyedit. I don't have a preference either way. SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Her family posthumously changed her name to Adele Schmid" - I'm wondering if this might go in the infobox under aliases? Although if that parameter is meant primarily for names used while living, it wouldn't need to be placed there, since this name was posthumous.
  • That was my thinking too. Alias implies use by the person. SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Works about Spitzeder

No issues.

Literature

Since they didnt have ISBN's, I found OCLC's for a few of these items:

PLAYS AND NOVELS

• Adele Spitzeder Marionettenspiel um einen Münchner Finanzskandal im Jahre 1873 ; wortgetreue Wiedergabe einer alten Handschrift (in German). Puppentheatermuseum. 1981. OCLC 75843921.
• Albrecht-Weinberger, Karl (1956). Adele Spitzeder; Roman einer seltsamen Frau (in German). Maindruck. OCLC 36066656.
• Rehn, Heidi (2009). Tod im Englischen Garten: historischer Kriminalroman (in German). Köln: Emons Verlag. ISBN 9783897055070. OCLC 682116597.
  •  used, thanks for finding them! Regards SoWhy 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio check

No issues.

Checklinks

No issues.

Closing comments

Thank you to the nominator for all their assistance!  Spintendo  15:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is well written, due mostly to the excellent translation of the nominating editor with the assistance of local editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All WP:MOS guidelines have been followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article uses Citation Style 1 in accordance with that style's rules.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Proper use of the {{rp}} template where it was necessary. All links in the references found to be in working order. A search of English-based databases (ProQuest, EBSCO, Gale & Weslaw) showed a distinct lack of English language sources available on the subject. Many more sources were available from German language references (and used here) which all appear to meet the requirements for reliable sources both on German Wikipedia () and its English counterpart (WP:RS).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article contains research, but that research has been done by writers and banking industry historians, and thus, does not meet the definition of original research
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The prose stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Although the subject would be considered a criminal, the subject matter is approached fairly and with a neutral point of view.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear to be in the public domain or have been added through the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All media used are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	For the reasons listed above, it is this reviewer's opinion that the article meets all GA status requirements.

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 04:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The article will be reviewed according to the criteria specified below. As the nominating editor at this time is unable to meaningfully participate in this review due to a ban, the issues affecting the article will be mentioned in the GA table below and the review will be concluded. For local editors monitoring, a list of the most pressing items is shown below in the GA Table. Regards,  Spintendo  04:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review 22-APR-2019

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Because the nominating editor was unavailable for assistance, the needed copyediting and cleanup of the prose could not be carried out.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article contains numerous dead links. The amount of links which are not working make checking of the references difficult.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unable to ascertain due to sources being inaccessible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article contains a large amount of text which is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. The problematic text may be viewed here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Because links could not be accessed, the entire breadth of WP:WEIGHT (the potential for WP:NPOV in the sources used) could not be assessed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article does not meet GA status. Areas for improvement are noted above.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is round 2 for the article, let's hope this one works out well. Let's start with a run-though of the article followed by the usual checks, including any from round 1.

In lieu of adding my signature after each entry below, I'm just going to place a date stamp. That way, when a response is given from the nominator, the date stamp (along with threading the responses) will act as natural barriers between what I say and the nom's reply. (My sig contains a red circle, which very quickly becomes distracting after dozens of them start to appear on a page.)  Spintendo  15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Prose — sectional issues

LEAD

• The screenplay was also based on the books Inside Hitler's Bunker by historian Joachim Fest and Until the Final Hour by Hitler's former private secretary Traudl Junge, among other accounts of the period. "The screenplay was also" implies that something about the screenplay was mentioned just before — yet this is the first time the screenplay is being mentioned. Suggest removing also. 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was, in part, controversial with audiences for showing the human side of Hitler and its portrayal of members of the Third Reich. "In part" implies that the other "parts" are also to be mentioned at that point in the text. The only reason to mention something as being a "part" is when either mentioning many parts or contrasting the part with the whole. But no contrasting is taking place here in the text. Suggest omitting "in part". 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PLOT

No issues.

I know you said no issues, but I noticed that there are eight separate paragraphs that I don't remember spacing apart, so I will end up combining them after writing this. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PRODUCTION

Development

• Producer-screenwriter Bernd Eichinger wanted to make a film about Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party for 20 years but was, at first, discouraged after its enormity prevented him from doing so. This is not referenced. 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• After reading a publication about the book by historian Joachim Fest called Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich (2002), he became inspired by Fest's work for inclusion in the film. This should read as "Eichinger was inspired to begin after reading Inside Hitlers Bunker by Joachim Fest." 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• After completing the script for the film, Eichinger presented it to director Oliver Hirschbiegel who hesitated at first because he "reacted to the idea of Nazism as a taboo", as he was German. He eventually agreed to helm the project. This sentence is too choppy. It's not clear who did the hesitation, what happened after the hesitation (because it says "at first", which implies that whatever his reaction was second, should be listed), and isn't clear why being German makes the subject taboo (was this something Hirschbiegel mentioned as being part of the reason for it being taboo, "being German", or was that added on?) Please clarify. 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to fix it for clarification on how being German made it feel taboo to him, but I need to see if you like the way it came out, or if it still needs to be changed. Here's what I wrote: Though he was interested in exploring how the people of Germany "could have plumbed such depths", as a German, Hirschbiegel hesitated to take it as he "reacted to the idea of Nazism as a taboo". Please tell me if this fits or is still unclear. I fear I might be misunderstanding you haha. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Casting

• I had some doubts when I was first offered the part of Hitler in Downfall. I asked myself whether I really wanted to get involved in this ugly, terrible stuff. But it was also a temptation—the subject has a fascinating side—so I agreed. The style of quote used here is distracting from the other text. Since it's only two sentences, it doesnt really need to be offset like this. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, removed quote and simply made it a sentence in the prose. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• In order to prepare for the role, Ganz conducted four months of research and studied a recording of Hitler in private conversation with Finnish Field Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in order to properly mimic Hitler's conversational voice and Austrian dialect. The first part is redundant. It can simply be worded as "Ganz conducted four months of research studying the Hitler-Mannerheim recording in order to closely mimic Hitler's conversational voice and Austrian dialect." 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ganz also became convinced that Hitler had Parkinson's disease after seeing him in the newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau presenting medals to Hitler Youth, and had visited a hospital to observe patients with the disorder. This is almost a word for word copy of the text from the Guardian interview with Ganz. It should be paraphrased or placed in quotes. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Tried my best to paraphrase Ganz's words. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Numerous actors were cast in the roles for members of the Nazi Party and the other people in the bunker; Juliane Köhler, Ulrich Noethen, Ulrich Matthes, Corinna Harfouch, Heino Ferch, and Michael Mendl were cast as Eva Braun, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Magda Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Helmuth Weidling respectively. This passage is unnecessary, as there is a cast list already in the article. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Filming and design

• Principal photography lasted 12 weeks, in the period from September to November 2003, under the working title Sunset. Extra comma; keep just the one between 2003 and under and delete the one between weeks and in. 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the The film is set mostly in and around the Führerbunker; Hirschbiegel said he made an effort to accurately reconstruct the look and atmosphere.... 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...of World War II through eyewitness accounts, survivors' memoirs, and other historical sources→.← (period) by filming Hirschbiegel filmed in the cities of Berlin, Munich, and Saint Petersburg, Russia, where with an industrial district slum along the Obvodny Canal was also used to portray the historical setting in Berlin. 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Her Lara's other colleagues briefly stopped during production to do other activities suggest: "To lighten the mood, Lara's colleagues engaged in other non-production related activities such as football." 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ganz kept a happy mood in between takes for his scenes. This is not clear how and in what way Ganz kept that happy mood, nor has any particular way in which he kept it been mentioned. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hirschbiegel also noted the shoot to be deeply depressing and said he had to find relief at home after filming by listening to Johann Sebastian Bach's music. Since there is much use of the term also in a lot of these passages, I'm assuming that these were written by a native German speaker, as that language often uses the word. In English however, the word is omitted or placed elsewhere depending on the context of how its being used - which is almost always when mentioned along with something else which is similar or relevant. In this passage, the also is meant to indicate that the director also used coping techniques during production to lighten the director's own moods. But since this paragraph is mentioning multiple incidents of coping mechanisms, the use of also is not needed, as they can be described individually with a prepatory statement that mentions no one in particular. Example: "Several members of the cast and crew indicated that due to the tone of the film and its subject, other activities were needed to encourage levity. Hirshbeigel found relief through the music of Bach, while Ganz used ____ (needs to be specified for Ganz, as mentioned earlier), while other members of the production team played football" -- or something to that effect. Describing it that way enable the word also to be omitted. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I'll attempt to explain the frequent use of "also": I can't be sure, because I included most of the article's information months and or a year ago, but I think the numerous misplaced instances might have either been bad English on my part or an attempt to paraphrase the original German-written article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• There was also tremendous interest for the film during filming which lead the Russian press to visit the set, making the producers uneasy and occasionally defensive. Yana Bezhanskay, director of Globus Film, Constantin's Russian partner, raised her voice to Russian journalists and said: "This is an antifascist film and nowhere in it do you see Hitler praised." I understand that this comment was made during filming, but I think that it would be best placed in the section describing the reaction to Hitler's portrayal. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• The director quote is styled the same as another quote which I suggested being changed, but this particular quote is placed at the end of a passage, which I believe makes it alright to remain where it is, as it doesn't confuse itself with following text.  Spintendo  20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

THEMES

• The film explores Hitler's decisions and motives during his final days through the perspective of the people in the Führerbunker. The overlying idea, according to Eichinger, was to make a film about Hitler and war-time Germany that was very close to historical truth, as part of a theme that would allow the German nation to save their own history and "experience their own trauma". This reads better having the two parts flipped, so it says "According to Eichinger, the overall idea was to make a film about Hitler and war-time Germany that was very close to historical truth, as part of a theme that would allow the German nation to save their own history and "experience their own trauma". In service of that idea, the film explores Hitler's decisions and motives during his final days through the perspective of those individuals who occupied the Führerbunker at those times." 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hitler and the Nazi party

• During production, Hirschbiegel came to the conclusion that Hitler often charmed people with his personality, saying that he was "like a shell", attracting people with his self-pity, but inside the shell was only "an enormous will for destruction". Many of the people in the film, including Traudl Junge, are shown to be enthusiastic in interacting with Hitler instead of feeling threatened or anxious by his presence and authority. Hirschbiegel said that the production team sought to give Hitler a three-dimensional personality, telling NBC: "We know from all accounts that he was a very charming man – a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism. This needs to better explain which theme is being discussed here, which I beleive is that of trauma (also mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section) which in a sense, also means betrayal (a more standardized theme) - in that Hitler's charm was a betrayal of those individuals whom were charmed. All that would be needed is a revised sentence at the begining of this passage which mentions betrayal. (I'm open to other suggestions on what themes are being explored by showing Hitler's effect on people who worked with him. Those themes should ideally be taken from the standard ones described under Theme (narrative) or some other equivalent Wikipedia article discussing themes specific to film - I haven't searched for any of these, but finding them and Wikilinking them would be helpful.) "Hitler and the Nazi party" used as the subheading now is actually the subject and not really the theme. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Betrayal is also now the theme heading instead of "Hitler and the Nazi Party". -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Also the phrase "came to the conclusion" I think would be best worded as "believed that". There are two instances where this can be changed, the first use is in the Casting section. 18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

RELEASE

• The film, at first, failed to find a distributor, but was released by Constantin Film in Germany on September 16 "After first failing to find a distributor, the film was eventually released in Germany by Constantin Film." 18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

• I think that this section should be placed under the Reception section after Critical response, and that the Release section should just have information about the release of the film.  Spintendo  18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also did some more re-arranging, moving the Box office section with release, and I also ended up adding a legacy section which includes the parody and home video sections. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if DVD section should go here? I'll have to check other film articles to see where that is usually placed, I see its in the legacy section here. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Box office and awards

• I'm curious why being popular at the Norweigian box office is significant? It just seems strange singling that one out. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done (removed). Don't even know why that's there; I doubt I was the one that added it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• According to IMdB the film won many award outside of the US, I think the prominent ones which have their own Wikipedia pages ought to be included here (a Table will probably be necessary here, I'll work on finding the right formatting and the reference citations):

European Film Awards Bruno Ganz nominee

National Board of Review - NBR winner for foreign film

London Film Critics Circle Awards 2005 - Best Foreign Film

Deutscher Filmpreis - Nominee in 3 categories

Bayerischer Filmpreis - Winner in 3 categories

Chicago Film Critics Association Awards 2005 - Nominee

Et cetera....

• (A table might be a bit too much (it's a lot of work) so I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide if they want to add one.

Suggestion for awards table

Award Date of ceremony Category Recipient(s) Result Ref(s) European Film Awards date needed European actor Bruno Ganz Nominated National Board of Review Date needed NBR Award Best Foreign Film Downfall Won German Film Awards Date needed Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role Bruno Ganz Nominated Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Corinna Harfouch Nominated Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Juliane Köhler Nominated

 Spintendo  21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RECEPTION

Critical response

• Reviews for the film were often very positive, despite debate surrounding the film from critics and audiences upon its release. I think a {{See below|#Controversy}} would work here right after the end of this passage. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 00:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think the Kershaw statement about the film should be placed before the Graml quote. Both are independently notable, but I feel that Kershaw is arguably more prominent as a biographer of Hitler, and I would want to know his opinion first. Sadly, I've not heard of Graml before today, which is perhaps my failing. (I'm thinking just to move the Kershaw quote and not the Wenders review, which is less prominent than either Kershaw or Graml.) 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• There is only one criticism in this section, but I suppose that is offset by the criticisms that are mentioned in the next section.  Spintendo  21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

---

Checklinks

No issues.

Copyvio check

No issues.

 Spintendo  18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Issues from round 1

• I agree with the first reviewer that the Theme section needs to be added to with more scholarly works. Here are a few which should be used:  Spintendo  21:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Gilbert, Christopher J. (1 December 2013). "Playing With Hitler: Downfall and Its Ludic Uptake". Critical Studies in Media Communication. 30 (5): 407–424. doi:10.1080/15295036.2012.755052. ISSN 1529-5036.
2. Hake, Sabine (2012). "Entombing the Nazi Past: On Downfall and Historicism". Films from Germany: History, Cinema and Politics since 1945. Palgrave Macmillan UK: 99–131. doi:10.1057/9781137032386_5.
3. Pelzer, Jurgen (1 March 2007). "The Facts Behind the Guilt? Background and Implicit Intentions in Downfall". German Politics and Society. 25 (1): 90–101. doi:10.3167/gps.2007.250105. ISSN 1045-0300.
4. Evans, Owen (2013). "Memory, Melodrama and History: The Return of the Past in Contemporary Popular Film in Germany". European Studies. pp. 241–269.
5. Haase, Christine (15 March 2007). "Ready for His Close-up? Representing Hitler in Der Untergang (Downfall, 2004)". Studies in European Cinema. 3 (3): 189–199. doi:10.1386/seci.3.3.189_1. ISSN 1741-1548.
6. Rosenberg, Joel (2013). "The Good, the Bad, and the Fatal: Ben Urwand on the Hollywood Moguls and Hitler". Jewish Film & New Media. 1 (2): 190–214. doi:10.13110/jewifilmnewmedi.1.2.0190. ISSN 2169-0324.
7. Sell, Richard (2012). "Downfall and the Male Fantasies of Mastering the Past". Male Subjectivity and Twenty-first Century German Cinema: Gender, National Identity, and the Problem of Normalization (Ph.D. thesis). University of South Carolina. pp. 57–88. Document No.3507146 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

The following scholarly work is already used in the article. The |DOI= parameter can be added to its citation template in addition to the |JSTOR= parameter already used, since DOIs are theoretically more stable:

1. Bendix, John (1 March 2007). "Facing Hitler: German Responses to Downfall". German Politics and Society. 25 (1): 70–89. doi:10.3167/gps.2007.250104. ISSN 1045-0300. JSTOR 23742889.

 Spintendo  18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your formatting these for me! W̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶d̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶e̶r̶i̶a̶l̶.̶ I'll end up putting the books into a separated bibliography as well so readers can keep better track of them. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So I am not able to read all of these books right now, as I don't have the money for all of them and I, just recently, don't have as much time as I'd like to buy, read, and include all of their information right before the review can be completed. I also want to try my best to include the information without making frequent mistakes that could be made while rushing through each page, if that makes sense to you. I'll have to rescind my nomination, which I admit should have been placed once enough scholarly works had been added, and just continue to work on the article for the time (and money) available to me right now. @Spintendo: I am really sorry about this, as you have put a lot of time into reviewing the article for me, I am sure. By all means, feel free to complete your review, and I'll do my best to tend to the issues you've placed. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are slight grammar issues, predominantly innocent ones — such as those particular to German/English transliteration — but these would have been easily corrected had the review continued.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are scholarly aspects of the film and its reception and impact on wider culture that could not be covered due to access issues with the source documents. The nominator is urged to consider submitting an application to WP:LIB in order to obtain free access to materials.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The nominator has clearly worked very hard on improving this article and that is to be commended. I see only two hurdles in passing GA review: the completion of the grammar check and the incorporation of the suggested scholarly works, which would give readers a better appreciation of the film through the analysis offered by those sources.

 Spintendo  00:22, 7 November 2019 (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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Just Another Day (Jon Secada song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I'm Spintendo, and I'll be conducting this review. The Discussion section below is where we'll have most of our interactions. I've divided that section into subsections based on the headers from the article. Please feel free to place "done"-type comments, objections, or counter-proposals in each section for the issues I'll be bringing up there. I see that there's a co-nominator for this GA, so let me take a moment to welcome them as well to this review—please feel free to jump in anywhere you like, it's much appreciated. Without further ado, let's begin!  Spintendo  23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 On hold I've completed my review of the article and I've submitted suggestions that I feel will garner the article GA status. I've placed the review on hold for 7 days to allow the nominating editors to follow through with the changes or make any objections / suggestions before the article is either promoted or declined. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Regards,  Spintendo  04:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC) and 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Lede section

• is a song recorded by Cuban singer-songwriter Jon Secada for his eponymous debut studio album Jon Secada (1992). Written by Secada and Miguel Morejon, SBK Records released it as the album's lead single in March 1992. I think the information on who wrote the song should be placed in its own sentence. Combining it with the information re: SBK Records does not read well.
• The Wikilink for Hook should be changed to Hook (music).
• Critics gave a mixed response to "Just Another Day", this should end with a period.
• while some critics lauded the song for being catchy and praised Secada's vocal delivery, others compared Secada to other artists and found the singer's vocal performances too dramatic. It's not clear how comparing Secada to other artists would be a negative.
• The song's impact on radio, its emotional intensity, and its success in reaching diverse markets was acknowledged and celebrated by various critics. This appears to be a lot of information being ascribed to these critics. It's not clear which critics are to be pegged for these assertions. It would be helpful to see who these critics are, if possible (not to include their names--which can be left out of the lede--but simply to verify that's what they said).
• Kevin Layne directed the accompanying music video, which shows Secada utilizing triumphant gestures and containing visual elements that mirror the musical progressions of music videos at that time. I think this information in the lede is too early; it should be just in the body of the article (the part about Secada utilizing triumphant gestures). For now, I think that it should just state that the music video was directed by so and so.
• Layne won Best Director at the 1993 Billboard Music Awards. This is ostensibly for Just another day, but it reads a bit obscure. Is this best director of the video? also, I dont see that the Billboard awards has/had a best video director award.
• It became the first song to simultaneously reach the top five of the Hot 100 and Adult Contemporary charts and the Hot Latin Songs chart, under the title "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte", since Gloria Estefan's "Don't Wanna Lose You" in 1989. If Gloria's song was the first in 1989, then the claim should be that "It became the second song to simultaneously...."
• "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte" propelled Secada to become an acclaimed singer-songwriter in the 1990s, gaining recognition in Latin America, Europe, and Mexico. It helped opened the doors for him, granting the singer international success, including extensive radio exposure in Mexico. "propelled" should be changed to "marked", i.e., "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte marked the beginning of Secada's acclaim as a singer/songwriter...." The claim about the song opening doors should be deleted.  Spintendo  23:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Background and production

• These should probably be split into two different sections: Background and Production.
• Jon Secada auditioned for his school's musical adaption of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, discovering his passion for music. He enjoyed the status it brought him, as it began attracting friends, which was what he desired. Secada went on to attend the University of Miami, where he earned a master's degree in Jazz Vocal Performance. While providing backing vocals for various artists, he composed songs for Japanese instrumentalists, Takanaka and Seiko, Venezuelan singer Jose Luis "El Puma" Rodriguez, Mexican vocalist Luis Miguel, and Spanish singer Julio Iglesias. It's not clear how this information relates to the song. This might work in the article on Secada himself, but the song article should focus on the genesis of the song.
• In 1987, music producer Emilio Estefan, was given a demo tape of Secada, by Jorge Casas and Ray Ostwald, former classmates of Secada. The paragraph should begin with this statement.
• The tape evoked a range of emotions in Emilio, as he believed that Secada has a chance at success. This is not grammatical. What Emilio believed, whether that belief came immediately from hearing the tape, and what the tape had in relation to the song Just Another Day is not known.
• In 1988, Secada released a Spanish-language album, while it highlighted his baritone and emotive delivery, it was overlooked The Wikilink for Secada's 1988 Spanish language album would work, if there is one available. Also, overlooked by whom?
• Two of the singles Secada wrote, "Coming Out of the Dark" (1991) and "Can't Forget You" (1991), peaked at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Secada provided backing vocals for Gloria during her world tour for the album. Secada aspired to become a soloist, despite Emilio cautioning him that it would require time. Emilio guided Secada in developing his songwriting trajectory,[2] and advised him on refining his abilities. Emilio encouraged him to compose his own music and cultivate a unique sound. He emphasized the importance of working on his appearance and striving to enhance it to the best of his abilities I'm not sure what this has to do with the song. Again, this seems like it might be best placed in the article on Secada himself.
• Emilio provided a demo tape of Secada to SBK Records vice president of A&R Nancy Brennan and EMI Records chairman Charles Koppelman, who both enjoyed it This is referenced to Secada (likely "New Day" publication) but there are no page numbers for that source.
• Brennan and Koppelman flew from New York City to London to see Secada perform at Wembley Stadium where Gloria introduced him Introduced him to who?
• Koppelman expressed an interest in Secada flourishing as a singer capable of being a non-format artist. This is not grammatical.
• Emilio found Secada's timing as a soloist auspicious, finding limited musical alternatives to rap and metal at the time Does timing in this instance refer to Secada's musical timing or his timing with regards to signing his contract?
• He described Secada as a pop and R&B artist and believed that Secada represented a unique genre that people were yearning for This is worded strangely, as pop and R&B is a type of music and not inherently unique (that would make all categories of music unique, which is not the best way to describe their variety.)
• Faced with concerns about a scarcity of original material, Secada sensed the urgency to swiftly demonstrate to record executives his artistic essence. He then contacted Miguel Morejon and the two of them secluded themselves in a period of intense emotional exhilaration and penned several songs Per: MOS:PEACOCK this should be re-written or deleted. The information about Morejon and Secada collaborating to write the song is very important, it just needs to be stripped of puffery (e.g., Secada sensed the urgency to swiftly demonstrate to record executives his artistic essence.)
• There was one in particular that ignited the greatest excitement within them, "Just Another Day", which was completed in 30 minutes and was envisioned by both of them as being the album's titular track I would keep everything except "ignited the greatest excitement within them", which is puffery.
• Secada felt that Morejon played a pivotal role in his artistic growth and development as a musician. It's not clear how, at this point, Secada reaches this conclusion.
• Phil Ramone produce "Just Another Day" and "Angel", and Secada expressed his gratitude for having him produce both tracks This is not grammatical. Ideally, it should just state that Ramone produced these tracks, and leave "gratitude" out of it.
• Secada believed that "Just Another Day" serves as a testament to the emotional state he was in during that period of his life, representing a vibrant mixture of various heartfelt sentiments. This needs a page number. I'm not entirely sure this is what he actually said, it seems very vague. Creative outputs are always influenced by emotional states (I don't see how they could not be) So Secada saying this seems like either filler or a poor paraphrase of what was actually said.
• The song was recorded at Crescent Moon Is this a recording studio? Where is it located? Is there a Wikilink for it?
• Gloria provided backing vocals on "Just Another Day", her first recording of providing backing harmonies for another artist, as well as co-writing the Spanish version of the track, "Otro Día Más Sin Verte". This could be re-worded better ("provided backing vocals on "Just Another Day" ... her first recording of providing backing harmonies") So did she provide vocals or harmonies (is there a difference?)  Spintendo  00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• There is a great deal of text in this section that is taken from this Sun-Sentinal source. This needs to be rewritten to comply with WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE.
• Secada felt that Gloria was instrumental for translating the track. Is that because there was no paid translator on staff? In any event, anyone who translates text is, pro rata, "instrumental" in its translation. Saying she was instrumental as translator when she was the translator is just redundant.
• There is another instance of the incorrect "Hook" Wikilink in this section.
• the track is laced with a seductive Soul II Soul rhythmic cadence I don't dispute the fact that the song does have a rhythmic cadence, but I'm not sure the credit for it (a song written, produced and sung by Latin talent) should go to Soul II Soul (a British musical collective). W/o access to the source used here (listed as Morse 1992, but which is actually a Boston Globe article), its difficult to see what the author's intent was. Update: Listening to the first 5 seconds of the Secada song, I can hear a sample of the beat used by Soul II Soul in their release Keep On Movin.  Spintendo  09:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Palm Beach Post called the track, along with "If You Go" and "Angel", as an integration of Secada's Latin rhythms with American pop and R&B tones. This is echoed by Deborah Davis of El Norte, who found the track to be a mixture of R&B with the sound and passion of Latin music. While Raquel Riaño of El Confidencial, called the track a catchy and romantic pop song, María Ivette Vega Calles of El Nuevo Dia called it an "alternative ballad". Stephen Holden of The New York Times lauded Secada's ability to transform a "lovelorn ballad" into an impactful song by infusing it with a driving beat, while his intense vocal performance lent it authenticity and credibility. While Ricard Riccio of St. Petersburg Times lauded the track as an exceptional rejuvenating pop song and commended Emilio's sound production, he criticized Gloria's backing vocals for failing to prevent the overall blandness of the songs on the album. Waterloo Region Record deemed the Spanish version to be an improvement over the English version, applauding Secada's emotive vocals set against an assortment of minor keys and unpredictable melodies. This combination, according to the review, resulted in an almost anthemic [sic] expression of poignant longing. Billboard's Larry Flick praised Gloria's harmonies on "Just Another Day", while finding Secada demonstrating a charismatic presence as a contender for both top 40 and AC radio on the song. Flick called lauded the production as being well-executed that blends a rhythmic slow groove, containing captivating piano melodies, and suitably dramatic vocal performance. Flick finds "Just Another Day" as a great introduction to Secada, noticing his potential for a successful career. Charlie Martin of The Messenger, finds the song's message lacking as it depicts a person who is constantly depressed due to the unpredictable presence of their love interest. Joseph Atilano of Inquirer.net, found the song to boast a lively beat that resembles a dance floor anthem. He found the lyrics to have delivered a poignant impact, particularly resonating with the broken-hearted and lonely. Atilano finds Secada pouring his heart out, expressing his deep emotions for the woman he loves, despite the woman's unrestraint [sic] indifference, leaving him feeling lost and adrift without her love. These reviews, 12 of them by my count, all appear in the Music and lyrics section when they ought to be in the Critical reception section.  Spintendo  01:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Critical reception section

• The Spokesman-Review called it "easy yet catchy".[26] Jim Abbott of Orlando Sentinel found it to feature "lilting Latin-flavored flare I think the reception section should begin with its strongest, most well known positive reviews first, followed by lesser known. Negative reception would then follow, in proportion to how thge song is generall viewed today. For example, if there is a 70% favorable view of the song, then 70% of the reviews should be positive while 30% are negative. Please advise on your thoughts about this.
• Chuck Campbell of The Knoxville News-Sentinel lauded Secada's vocal delivery on the track as being powerful and restrained, suggesting that Michael Bolton should take note, while also noting that the song's structure is relatively simple. This review appears to fall under the category of a mixed review, in that it has something positive to say but yet ends in a strange negative assertion "the song's structure was relatively simple". I believe that mixed reviews generally have no place in the article, unless something extraordinary was said which can be quoted (as long as its not a mixed message).
• While praising "Just Another Day" as a "dynamic radio hit", Ernie Long of The Morning Call urged Secada to reduce the dramatic intensity of his vocal delivery on the tracks. Long expressed concern that the singer's tendency to "belt out every song like it's his last" could be detrimental to him, a tactic that has plagued Rick Astley and Bolton. Again, these are mixed reviews which, because they are "mixed", end up saying and adding nothing to the article. If a person says that they like something but that they would not want to try it ever again, then what is the reader of such a review to surmise from that conclusion? That the item is good, or bad? Because the reviewer who publishes a mixed review has essentially taken a place on the fence, the reader is left there as well, with no better understanding of what the review was meant to accomplish. These types of mixed reviews should be steered away from at the beginning of the critical reception section, and should only be placed towards the end of that section along with other mixed and/or negative reviews.
• Suffice it to say, the rest of this section (which contains positive, negative, and mixed reviews scattered amongst the last two paragraphs) ought to be delineated as I've suggested with one or two paragraphs containing positive and one containing negative.  Spintendo  01:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotion section

• given its (Baywatch) combination of action and drama in a cohesive and compact format.  it's not known what is meant by compact and cohesive format.
• In 2014, Secada appeared in a bilingual promotional advertisement for Wendy's that parodied "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte", which People en Espanol humorously dubbed. Humorously dubbed what? There seems to be a word or a couple of words missing here.
• Secada performed "Otro Dia Mas Sin Verte" at the 1992 Acapulco Festival in Mexico. The audience enthusiastically encouraged him to return for an encore, during which Secada performed "Just Another Day". The performance garnered positive acclaim as it inspired the audience to stand up and dance.  I think it would be best to just mention the performance. Everything else about the "performance garnering positive acclaim as it inspired the audience to stand and dance" is poorly worded.  Spintendo  11:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• with Holden noting the singer's falsetto range displaying an "unusual strength and staying power". Holden who? I think this is referring to Stephen Holden but I'm not sure, It just has the last name. Also, and it may be a rhetorical question for Holden, but why is Secada's strength "unusual"?  Spintendo  01:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Chart performance section

• There are multiple instances throughout this section where the song and other song's names are placed in quotation marks, instead of in italics.
• Latin music chart analysis, John Lannert, called it an "ultrarare chart triple" This should read "Latin music chart analyst John Lannert"
• visited Latin radio stations as well as contemporary hit radios and adult contemporary stations This should read "visited Spanish and English language contemporary radio stations"
• "Angel" gained Secada recognition as a smooth and versatile pop singer who delivers songs in both English and Spanish. Recognition from whom?
• "Just Another Day" ranked at number 15 on Billboard's top Latin and Brazilian songs to have appeared on the Hot 100 in its first 50 years. Not grammatical.
• expressing his delight over the positive reception it has received This should be changed to "expressing his delight over the positive reception it received".
• He expressed how he wasn't prepared for the song's popularity, saying that he never thought he would reach such heights. This should be changed to "Secada expressed how unprepared he was for the songs popularity, saying he never thought it would reach such heights."
• The label aimed to replicate Secada's chart success across different markets by capitalizing on the rising popularity of the Barrio Boyzz. This claim comes out of nowhere. It should be explained with better context or deleted.
• Influence by Secada's achievements The word should be influenced, not influence.
• Having caught a glimpse of success, he became driven and ambitious, no longer willing to settle for anything less than striving for further achievements. This should be deleted.
• Secada expressed his aspiration for every song he writes to transcend into the realm of being a definitive and universally well-received song. He yearns for his compositions to retain a timeless allure, resonating with audiences for decades beyond their initial release. This text should also be deleted in its entirety.  Spintendo  15:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Music videos section

• Gloria Estefan makes a cameo appearance in the music video. While a music video for "Just Another Day" was produced, a European tour began. In the video, critic Carol Vernallis, describes Secada's arms rising overhead in a triumphant gesture, with the camera tilts upward, synchronizing with a modulation up a whole step, mirrors the musical progression found in "Just Another Day". This entire paragraph has areas where it's not grammatical, where quotation marks are used instead of italics, where strange asides are made in the middle of the paragraph where it's trying to make one point (i.e., describing who's in the video, then stating that a European tour began, then going back to talking about the video) then moving to another point. This section needs a lot of work.  Spintendo  15:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References section

• There are three entries for Secada as an author in the Works cited section: His New Day book; an article in the Palm Beach Post; and a listing of him as the author for his liner/media notes. These need to be delineated (in the Works cited section), so that we have three Secada's: Secada (2007), Secada (2014), and Secada (1992) just as we have three Secada's in the references section. For references linked to Secada's New Day publication, these must have page numbers. I don't see any thus far for that source, and there are 12 ref tags attached to it. I've obtained a copy of this publication, so I can help to identify page numbers.  Spintendo  00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Works cited section

• This section should be alphabetized by author for easier perusal. (I've already begun this process; I'm about 1/2 the way completed.)
  •  Fixed  Spintendo  03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    •  Confirmed  Spintendo 
• There are a lot of anonymous sources within the Works cited section. These need to be given an author; if no author is evident, then the institution/organization that published the information becomes the author.
• There are also a lot of single ref-noted sources placed in this section. The Works cited section is very helpful in circumstances where you have one or several authors with multiple titles whose ref notes are placed often within the article, in multiple locations. If a reference only appears once in the entirety of the article, it probably does not need to be placed in the Works cited section. I'd like to hear your ideas on this. What do you think? Please advise.  Spintendo  02:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Final review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Numerous areas of the text are not grammatical, and several spelling errors exist
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article contains several instances of MOS:AWW
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article uses Notes and Bibliography (or Works cited)-style references. In that system, all references are included in the notes section. Sources that have page numbers are shown in the notes section as author-name links to another separate entry in the Works cited section. In this article, all the sources are located in the work cited section, with every referenced source being given an author-name link to an entry in the Works cited section, instead of only being shown in the Notes section, which creates unnecessary redundancy for the reader
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Secada's own publication (which is used as a reference many times within the article) has no page numbers listed with any of the ref tags. That makes the information sourced from it unverifiable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	—
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Sections of close paraphrasing identified from the Sun-Sentinel source
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	—
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Certain sections questionably delve into off-topic areas, such as Secada's audition for his school's musical production of A Christmas Carol
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	—
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is uniquely stable, having had only 183 edits over a 15 year time period.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	—
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	—
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has failed GA review.

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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 Union Square riot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you're doing well. I'm Spintendo, and I'll be conducting this review. The Discussion section below is where we'll have most of our interactions. (I'm using the {{Fake heading}} template to preserve the integrity of the review and to minimize disruption to the transcluded table of contents which appears on the article's talk page.) I've divided the discussion section into subsections based on the headers from the article. Please feel free to place "done" or "fixed" -type comments, objections, or counter-proposals in each section for the issues I'll be bringing up there. Without further ado, let's begin!  Spintendo  23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Discussion

Lead section

• The lead section contains references. While these are not banned, the ideal follows MOS:CITELEAD in that claims made in the lead section ought to be cited elsewhere in the article, as the lead section summarizes information found later in the main body.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• His collective of creators This should be described as "his business partners" because (a) it is a collective that he is a part of, and not his own collective (i.e., describing it as "his collective") and (b) the term "collective of creators" does not specify that these were content creators (i.e., what did he create?) and (c) the phrase sounds promotional by using industry jargon rather than long established phrases (e.g., just calling them "business partners").  Spintendo  23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Background section

• This section would benefit from a {{Hatnote}} to both Kai Cenat and Union Square.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The background section should then contain a modicum of information on the location where the riot occurred. Union Square takes its name from the intersection of Broadway, originally a colonial and Indian path drifting across New York from the lower right to upper left, and the city's 19th-century street grid. Specifically, how Union Square is at the intersection of subway lines 4, 5, 6, L, N, Q, R, and W, an intersection which greatly facilitated the transportation of large amounts of people to the square.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• This should be followed by more information on Cenat's background--not just the basics--but specifically those elements from his background which set the stage for the riot. The New York Times has good information on this:

  When Cenat, who was born in December 2001, became a teenager, the social internet was dominated by fleeting video clips on the platform Vine, which sprouted a generation of mini-celebrities who could express themselves in the six seconds available. When Cenat was attending high school at Frederick Douglass Academy in Harlem, a YouTuber named Jake Paul began to attract attention, staging media-baiting pranks that made him the bane of his West Hollywood neighborhood. And by the time Cenat was in college at the State University of New York at Morrisville, a charismatic gamer who went by the name Ninja had become a superstar on Twitch, with tens of thousands tuning in to watch him play the video game Fortnite. By then, Cenat had begun to travel to Atlanta to work with a collective of fellow entertainers that called itself A.M.P., for Any Means Possible.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• It should then cover how this event was not his first indulgence in giveaways. In July of that year, he surprised a Massachusetts woman he used to visit in the summers with $20,000, saying she had been a second mother to him, and she deserved it. (He has iffy luck with giveaways; the woman, Cathy Parker, was reluctant to accept the money.)  Spintendo  23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• • Spintendo, is this summary ok?
    

    Union Square, the location of the riot, was named after the intersection of Broadway and the city's 19th-century street grid. It is located at the intersections of the 4, 5, 6, L, N, Q, R, and W subway lines, which provided the ease of the transportion of large amounts of people to the square. Cenat attended Frederick Douglass Academy and the State University of New York at Morrisville. Around the time of him attending university, he traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to work with a group of Internet personalities called Any Means Possible (AMP). This is not Cenat's first giveaway, as he surprised a Massachusetts woman he used to visit with $20,000, saying she was a second mother to him, and that she deserved it. The woman, Cathy Parker, was unwilling to accept the money.

    — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 02:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This is good information but let's hold off on adding it. The information about the subway and the square needs some slight paraphrasing (I can take care of that) and a source (I got that too) then we can add it.  Spintendo  08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Spintendo, I can't find any reliable sources about the ease of the transportation of a large amount of people to the square. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

In a live stream on August 2, he claimed that he would give away gift cards, headphones, gaming chairs, computers, webcams, keyboards, and microphones to attendees who could correctly answer questions about YouTube and live streaming.

Would it be suitable to reword "YouTube and live streaming" to "Internet culture" as YouTube and livestreaming usually fall under that umbrella? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The source for the ease of transport is here. There is also Cenat himself: "Mr. Cenat, who is from the Bronx, told his Twitch followers on Wednesday that he would be in Union Square on Friday. He asked how many fans would show up. A flurry of answers came in: 1,000, 5,000, 10,000. A friend sitting next to him said so many would come that Mr. Cenat would need security and barricades. “All trains go here so there’s no excuse,” Mr. Cenat told those watching."  Spintendo  20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 This portion is completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The following year, he gained popularity after a series of livestreams featuring artists such as Drake, 21 Savage, Toosii and Lil Baby. This should be reworded to "The following year he gained popularity after producing a series of livestreams with Drake, 21 Savage, Toosii and Lil Baby".

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• In February 2023, during a subathon—an event in which a livestreamer continuously streams in an attempt to gain paid subscribers, Cenat joined United Talent Agency. It's unclear, did Cenat join the talent agency during the livestream? if so, it should be reworded to state that clearly, such as "in February 2023, Cenat filmed his joining of the United Talent Agency during a livestreamed subathon." We can also delete the definition of subathon, since we'll have the Wiktionary page Wikilinked as shown in my example.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I also removed the strikeout font that was added above. We don't need to use that here. That's mostly used in WP:REDACT, when an editor wants to alter their own previously entered text after another editor has replied following their post.  Spintendo  08:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• In the days preceding the gathering, Cenat announced that he would give away PlayStation 5 consoles at 4 p.m. in Union Square along 14th Street,[4] joined by Fanum, Duke Dennis and Agent00, three Twitch streamers. should be "In the days preceding the gathering, Cenat announced that he would give away PlayStation 5 consoles at 4 p.m. in Union Square along 14th Street, where he would be joined by Fanum, Duke Dennis and Agent00, three Twitch streamers.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• In a live stream on August 2, he claimed that he would give away gift cards... This should state "In a livestream on August 2, Cenat claimed...."

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Cenat did not have a permit for the gathering. On the day of the giveaway, he posted on Twitter that he would be live streaming the event at 3:30 p.m. should be "Despite not having secured a permit for a gathering at Union Square, Cenat posted on Twitter that he would be live streaming the event at 3:30 p.m."

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Giveaway and subsequent riot section

• By 1:30 p.m. the area was filled with fans. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) became aware of the gathering at the same time, as dozens of people began converging. By 3 p.m., a large crowd had gathered in Union Square The timeline is unclear here. It says that the area was filled with fans at 1:30, but then again at 3pm it states a large croud had gathered. But didn't the crowd get there at 1:30, when it was "filled with fans?" I would think an area "filled with fans" could be considered "a crowd", although I understand that at 1:30 it was only fans while by 3:30 it was more of a mixture of fans and not fans (see next entry)
• partially drawn to the event by further word of the giveaway outside Cenat's fans. "many of whom were drawn to the event by word of mouth from sources outside of Cenat's fans" or something to that effect.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• By 3:30 p.m., the NYPD had mobilized dozens of officers to the area and established a perimeter; the group took down barriers and conflict broke out between police and members of the crowd. which group took down barriers?

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Members of the crowd climbed up a gazebo, street signs, vehicles including a bus, and a George Washington statue I don't think it's possible to "climb up" a bus or vehicle. Street signs and statues you can climb up, but vehicles including buses are climbed upon.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Social media posts of the riot surfaced around the same time. what time would that be?

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• According to the NYPD, individuals walked around with shovels and axes from a nearby construction site and lit off fireworks " According to the NYPD, individuals walked around with shovels and axes taken from a nearby construction site, while others lit fireworks."

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The NYPD called on an estimated one thousand officers to respond as part of a level four mobilization at what time did this occur?

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• At least two thousand people came to the event, though police estimate that three to five thousand people were present. who's estimate is the two thousand number?

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I guess I'll answer my own question here: It was the NYPD, and their initial estimate was 3-5K ppl  Completed  Spintendo  04:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The NYPD does not use tear gas. But the source given for this claim confirms that they do use pepper spray. It's unlikely that Cenat, if he made this claim, really knows what the difference between tear gas and pepper spray is. He may have seen one used while assuming it was the other. In any event, the claim that NYPD does not use tear gas should be accompanied with the statement that they do use pepper spray.  Spintendo  20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The archive link for the following reference did not take:
  • Sung, Morgan (4 August 2023). "Twitch streamer's PS5 giveaway sparks Union Square 'riot'". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
• Since there was no "giveaway", I'm wondering if using that term is the best for this section's title. What are your thoughts on this?  Spintendo  04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo, seems reasonable. No one got anything valuable at the end, apart from some cuts, bruises, and arrests.
    

 Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• • • As for the TechCrunch archives, I think they might be broken. Older archives do not work. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 01:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Cenat was either taken into police custody or let go on his accord and charged with inciting a riot and unlawful assembly. I'm not sure this timeline works, but if it's what media has reported, then were stuck with it. It should at least state he was released "on his own accord after being charged with..." if the charges came that day, if they were the next day it should say"Cenat was initially allowed to leave the area on his own accord but was charged ____" with it stating whenever the time and day he was charged.  Spintendo  06:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath section

• The information in this section mostly concerns events referring to the same day, rather than afterwards, so I'm not sure this heading works. Thoughts?
• At approximately 5:00 p.m., Cenat was taken into police custody and charged with inciting a riot and unlawful assembly This contradicts NYTimes reporting, which stated Kai left the scene of his own volition (or was at least given a friendly escort): "Rather than arrest Mr. Cenat immediately, for example, the police could have used him to address the crowd, he said. “The minute that the N.Y.P.D. moved Kai Cenat from the scene, they lost their chance to leverage him,” Mr. Raymond said."  Spintendo  04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo, maybe I could add a note that says that how Cenat was arrested is disputed? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
    •  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say it was disputed, it's more of an "unknown".

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• To gain a better grasp of events, here is my own personal timeline constructed by combining elements from the Washington Post, WABC-7-NY, NYTimes, and CNN sources. It provides a decent timeline/narrative for Cenat's entrance and departure, as well as some of the other events. Let's not place it in the article though — I have it here just for our use, as we comb through the GA:

• Wednesday, August 2nd, Kai Cenat's Instagram story announces a giveaway to start at Union Square Park on Friday, August 4 at 4 p.m.
• Friday, August 4th 12:00 p.m. Cenat repeats messages on instagram and twitch.
• 1:30 p.m., NYPD starts to became aware of a large crowd (around 300 or so) of teens assembling in Union Square
• By 3 p.m., that number has grown exponentially, as the giveaway goes viral and thousands began arriving in Union Square. The park was soon filled with people obstructing traffic
• Around 3:30, the crowd begins taking down barriers and throwing objects at police. People also jumped on cars as unrest grew.
• At 3:48 p.m. the New York Police Department says on X,"Due to police activity, avoid the area surrounding Union Square Park & use alternate routes. Expect a police presence in the area and residual traffic delays."
• 3:50 p.m., a large police bus moves into position at the square, which will later begin filling up with arrests.
• 4:00 p.m., Cenat arrives. During a short stream inside his vehicle, Cenat flashes a fistful of what he says are $100 gift cards stored in a brown CVS paper bag to give away. When he notices the chaos, his descriptions immediately take an ominous tone: "They're throwing tear gas out there, we're not going to do nothing until it's safe . . . everybody for themselves, because it's a war out there man."
• Seconds later, Cenat's vehicle comes to a stop and he exits, but is immediately swarmed by fans. The stream cuts out shortly after Cenat's bodyguards begin pushing people away from him. Law enforcement eventually remove Cenat from the park for safety reasons. He is not officially placed "in custody" at that time, and is free to leave.
• With Cenat now gone (along with, presumably, all the gift cards as well as any hoped for PS5's) the crowd's frustration peaks from roughly 4:15 - 4:55 p.m., and the riot is in full swing, encompassing food vendor carts being upset and bottles thrown. The misuse of the aforementioned construction equipment occurs during the next 40 minutes. Arrested individuals are placed on the bus while the bus itself becomes the target of projectiles.
• By 5 p.m., police, some on horseback, have finally organized enough that they begin making coordinated inroads into segregating and dispersing the crowd. This largely takes place over the course of the next hour.
• As it grows closer to 6 p.m., police have pushed much of the crowd well out of the park.

Response section

• At a press conference, Maddrey stated, "When I go back later on this evening, I will have an after-action determine [sic] exactly what our steps were. We can't allow this to happen again in the future". If these are the mayor's actual words, then we need a {{sic}} template.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The only responses here are the mayor and AMP. There could be more from the Civilian Complaint Review Board (which reviews accusations of police brutality, and who issued a statement about the riot) as well as more specific examples of the most severe accusations which were made against the police and which were reported on in the NYTimes.  Spintendo  04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Titling this as "Response" makes it seem like it should be the police response that day. Lets change the "subsequent riot" heading to just read as Union Square riot and let's move everything in this section to the Aftermath section.  Spintendo  06:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Cenat's response, it should be noted, came August 10, roughly 6 days afterwards.

  Cenat said, "I don't condone any of the things that went on that day. None of that is cool." He reiterated that he is "beyond disappointed in anybody who became destructive that day. Anything we do like this has to be safe and fun. We can't just be running around and destroying this and destroying that. I want y'all to know that none of that is how I wanted any of this to go. I'm trying to get through this and stuff like that (the charges) and handle it the correct way. If I ever wanna do something like this in the future, I gotta make the right calls, do the right things. I can't stress enough it was not my intention, bro, I don't condone any of the things that went on Friday." Cenat told his followers on Twitch that for the time being, he is going to take a break from streaming to handle the upcoming court dates, adding his first one is August 16. He also urged the media to leave his family alone.

• It should also be noted that exactly 3 weeks after the riot, on August 25, the Austin-based talent management company "Night" announced the acquisition of LFM Management, the New York-based content creator managing firm. That move placed Night as the talent management for Kai Cenat and the other members of AMP.  Spintendo  05:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo, where is the source mentioning the LFM Management acquisition? All the sources cited here were published before August 25th. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right, I forgot about that one. My apologies. here it is:
      • Spangler, Todd (25 August 2023). "Talent Firm That Reps MrBeast Adds Twitch Streamer Kai Cenat to Roster". Variety.  Spintendo  22:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
        • Spintendo, thanks. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
          • Also, is Night based in Austin, Texas? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
            • Nevermind, they are. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
              • Anyways,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The following two reference titles are worded with a slight difference, but these are actually the exact same article. The two authors's last names have been swapped for each other — Zoe Sottile and Mark Morales, listed in the first reference, have by the second reference become Mark Sottile and Zoe Morales. Needless to say, Mark and Zoe should be resorted back into their correct surnames and combined into a single entry.
  • • Sottile, Zoe; Morales, Mark (August 4, 2023). "Twitch streamer in custody after giveaway draws huge crowds to Union Square in New York City". CNN. Archived from the original on August 4, 2023. Retrieved August 4, 2023.
    • Morales, Zoe; Sottile, Mark (2023-08-04). "Twitch streamer charged with inciting a riot after giveaway draws huge crowds to Union Square in New York City". CNN. Archived from the original on August 4, 2023. Retrieved 2023-08-05.  Spintendo  05:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Spintendo,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 11:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Analysis section

• I like what I see in the analysis section. In a way, this is the most important section, because it is here that any "meaning" is brought to the riot as far as society is concerned. Obviously because it's so recent, there is not much scholarly research into this event, but rest assured, there should be more trickling in as time passes, because this was an important event from a sociological viewpoint. I'll do a bit more searching on some other databases (EBSCOHost, etc.) and see what I can find. Then I'll go back through our discussion and reply to any comments/suggestions of yours that I may have missed so far, and to check that suggestions were addressed, then we can wrap this up!  Spintendo  23:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Nothing additional found after a broad search, but this section will likely grow in the future.  Spintendo  17:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Final grammar check

• In February 2023, the United Talent Agency announced that they would represent Cenat during a subathon. At the end of the livestream, he had amassed 300,000 Twitch subscribers, a record for the platform. It's not clear whose subathon this was, since it merely mentions UTA announcing they would represent Cenat during "a subathon". This was his subathon correct? I it was his, how did they come to make the mention?  Spintendo  17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo, oh yeah, it was his subathon. I've gone ahead and clarified that in the article.  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  02:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• • • The WaPo article doesn't clarify on how did they come to make the mention, though. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Kai Cenat is an American livestreamer and YouTuber. He attended Frederick Douglass Academy and the State University of New York at Morrisville. Around the time of him attending university, If the university is already mentioned, it doesnt need to be mentioned a second time. And while it says "at this time", the time period for when he went to this university is not stated.  Spintendo  17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Spintendo, so something along the lines of:

At this time, Cenat traveled to Atlanta, Georgia to work with a group of Internet personalities called Any Means Possible (AMP), which he joined in 2020.

right? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added it anyways, so  Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Completed  Spintendo  02:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• In the days preceding the gathering, Cenat announced that he would give away PlayStation 5 consoles at 4 p.m. in Union Square along 14th Street, where he would be joined by Fanum, Duke Dennis and Agent00 We need Wikilinks for these three individuals, if they exist as articles.  Spintendo  17:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Spintendo, I only added a wikilink to Fanum's article because it was the only one I could find.  Partly done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 21:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• I added Duke Dennis as a redlink, as his name is already redlinked in the Duke disambiguation page, it may not be long before he gets his own article.
• I've hidden the final WSJ article claim regading Cenat's ability to "mend relations with the police". As that article is pay-walled, I cannot verify the claim. That would need to occur in order to be able to see if it pertains to the aftermath section. The author involved may have been referring to "having had the opportunity to mend relations at the time or they may mean he possesses an everlasting opportunity to mend relations. I can't say for sure.  Spintendo  03:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Final review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.