Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Albert Kesselring

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted by the_ed17 [1]

Albert Kesselring[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

Wiki-historians from three countries with totally different views of the subject team up to tackle one of the most famous generals of World War II. You decide if the result is a masterpiece or a mess. The Field Marshal is optimistic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is needed about his transfer to the Luftwaffe. I read that part to mean that he was part of the civilian ministry, not the Luftwaffe proper, despite the colonel's rank. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Luftwaffe proper. The Air Ministry was established as a civilian agency to control both civil and military aviation. This was similar to a number of countries. The twist in Germany was that the Treaty of Versailles forbade German from establishing an air force, so there was nominally no military aviation. The Luftwaffe was re-established as a separate military entity in 1935 when Hitler repudiated the Treaty. Then Göring was both Air Minister and commander of the Luftwaffe.
I have updated the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WW1 section is very short but do you believe this should be included it seems to be very trivial;
    During the war, Kesselring frequently smoked up to twenty cigars per day but he quit smoking in 1925
    • It pertains to his getting throat cancer later in life. I can remove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it's still there in the article - I'd be happy to see it left where it is, but you could also move it to the part where his cancer is diagnosed, for context. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a mixture of languages used in the ranks English up to General and German thereafter it may be better to use the German titles. I don't know what the MOS for this requires ?
    • MOS:TEXT says "use foreign words sparingly". Consistency therefore was not the primary consideration. So we used German where there was no English equivalent (SS ranks), or where that might confuse or mislead (general officer ranks). There was a bit of debate about Generalfeldmarschall as Field Marshal is a good English equivalent. Originally the article used both interchangeably; I decided to settle on one. The Wikipedia article is called Generalfeldmarschall rather than Field Marshal (Germany) and this was the rationale behind that choice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Italian campaign the images seem to have no connection with Kesselring can you explain there inclusion
    • No picture was included just because Kesselring was in it except for the one at the top. Each adds a bit more to the text. The text mentioned the attack on Robert Rowan so I included a picture. The one on Salerno was to illustrate the fighting, as there was concern that too many pictures just showed people standing around. I took my cue from the Featured Article on Walter Model, which contains a number of such pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to neutral for now, pending added details on the Italian campaign. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose on criteria A2. The article as it currently stands is very good, it just has a few issues that I've outlined below:[reply]
  • Of the sources listed in the "References" section, not all of them appear to actually be used in the article. I don't see the Atkinson, Belote, Bloxham, Dulles, Ford, Friesler, Goldensohm, Kesselring's A Soldier's Record, von Lingen's Kesselrings letzte Schlacht and Conspiracy of Silence, Murray, Silveri, and either Williamson sources used anywhere in the article. The sources which aren't actually used need to be removed from the "References" section and placed in a separate "Further reading" section.
    •  Done. Removed. Except for Friesler, who is used by footnote 34. In most cases, the references were used in earlier versions of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps because some of these sources aren't used, some important details from Kesselring's leadership in the Italian campaign are omitted, such as his use of air power to try to defeat the Allied invasions of Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio, his orderly withdrawal up the Italian peninsula after the Sicily evacuation, his brilliant surprise Air Raid on Bari, and his defeats of several attempts by the Allies to crack his defensive lines during the winter of 1943-1944 which caused severe problems for the Allies' strategic plans. Atkinson's would be a valuable source for this information.
    •  Done. That would be unlikely. However, I can and will expand the Italy section. I was actually more concerned about the Soviet Union section. But I think you are right on this point, because it is Italy that Kesselring is most associated with.
  • The "Cassino and Anzio" section needs some dates included in the text so that the reader knows when these events are happening without having to click over to those particular articles.
    •  Done. I included a date in response to the when tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the copy edit. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
  • In the lead where you say he resigned as Chief of Staff because of arguments with "his superior" it would be nice if you mentioned who that was (Milch, based on the main body).
    •  Done
  • Watch over-linking, for example, Luftlotte 2 is linked over and over, and there are many, many other things which are linked several times through out the article.
    •  Done When the article was written, there was no articles on the Luftflotten. Looks like somebody created them and used a bot to link them in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still check over the linking again, for example, Rommel is mentioned 13 times before he is introduced, linked, and his first name and rank given. Hopefully this can be fixed in the copy-edit, though. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit in Africa when he was fired upon confuses me. Was he fired upon by Germans, Italians, or British from the ground, and who were the planes attacking?
    •  Done. Re-worded.
  • Please redo that passage. It also links badly to the next part; the reader's mind is thinking about the attack and then the article goes back to Bir Hakeim.
    •  Done.
  • The prose can be a bit choppy in places, I'd recommend a copy-edit.
    • Good idea.
  • Don't call the Soviets the Russians, they're different.
    •  Done. I've check both the English and German versions. Kesselring refers to "Russian" every time.
  • It's fine if it's in a direct quote, but if you're paraphrasing you can change it to avoid the fallacy. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't call the Eastern Front the "Russian Front", that's just wrong.
    •  Done.
  • "Known as Operation Sunrise." Fragment.
    •  Done. Corrected.
These issues need to be resolved before it's ready for A-Class, but they shouldn't be too hard. – Joe N 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, few more comments. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've done some grammar and MOS cleanup. Further issues:
  • Allies should be wikilinked in the lead.
  • The lead should probably mention his Knight's Cross, and both the lead and the text about it later in the article should also mention the specific grade he received as it was quite rarely given, wasn't it?
    •  Done. There were only 27 recipients of the Knight's Cross with oak leaves, swords and diamonds. It hadn't occurred to me that Kesselring might qualify for an article on that basis alone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics for foreign-language words need attention throughout. The lead both italicizes and plain-texts Luftwaffe. The infobox plain-texts Generalfeldmarschall but italicizes Luftflotte.
  • Pick a style for year ranges (both "19xx–19yy" and "19xx–yy" are in use just within the infobox).
  • Why does the infobox link his birthplace as being in the Kingdom of Bavaria whilst the Early life section merely links to Bavaria?
    •  Done. Two different editors. The infobox editor was probably influenced by the need to cite different "allegiances". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inline external link for the "Royal Warrant of 18 June 1945" will be a no-no at FAC.
    • Removed. I doubt if it can ever be a FAC though - it is too controversial. As it stands, there has been no support for an A so far. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many places where it appears that direct quotes are given without a clearly correlating citation (such as the quotes from Kesselring in the Later life section).
    •  Done. The source is right there. Put the reference in triplicate.
  • The Battle of Gazala image is tagged PD-USGOV but sourced to a USMA page which wouldn't load for me. Can the specific source of this diagram be clarified?
    • The site is probably down for maintenance. I took it from the Gazala page because another reviewer had trouble following the description of the battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diagram captioned "German defensive lines south of Rome" is tagged as GFDL-self but lists no sources. The specific sources used should be clarified, both for attribution and to avoid OR.

The citation/reference formatting is spot-on; well done. Interesting article! Maralia (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It certainly seems well researched. For a group effort, this is very well organized and very well presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major improvement since the last time I read this, one of the most detailed bios I've seen. Apart from very minor style and grammar tweaks that I took care of, I've nothing but praise for this great endeavour - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Albert_Kesselring&oldid=1142557708"