Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anschluss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anschluss

The article has been a FAC when it was not quite ready. Since then Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anschluss/Archive1 it has been substantially expanded and restructured. It is partly a self-nom (I wrote the majority of the first part). Themanwithoutapast 03:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Mhhhmmmm, silence is the worst criticism... Themanwithoutapast 01:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you, Themanwithoutapast. I will review this FAC in a few hours. Phils 16:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's dense. A few small things I think should be addressed while I read it in more deatils include, shortening some of the really long section headings and fixing up the notes, I think that you should remove the numbers from the notes list since they don't correspond to the numbers in the text.--nixie 02:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support now. Object. It has improved (longer, more pics, better language), but some of my past objections are still not adressed. References are still mixed up with external links. I don't think it is comprehensive - the appeasment is not mentioned at all, neither is Munich. On the bright side, this is not far from FA quality and I hope I can support after those points are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a paragraph on the consequences and reactions part of the article concerning the British appeasement policy. I have linked those external links to the text that have some specific bearing to it. If you want more on the appeasment issue, please state so. P.S.: added some new pics. Themanwithoutapast 03:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It is comprehensive now, I think. I don't see references now - please read Wikipedia:Cite sources and format this properly (i.e. create a section 'references' and copy and format positions mentioned in notes into it, also, if some external links were used as references, move accordingly). Also, I think that note on spelling (and naming - the first para) should be moved from lead into either a separate section (name) or simply to notes below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • 1. references: I formatted it according to wiki-cite sources + as stated there I only included references that give an in-deep view of the subject at hand + additional reading. 2. moved the note of 'ss' and 'ß' down to notes. Themanwithoutapast 14:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The intro isn't an intro to this subject, which is the Anschluss of 1938, but the current intro gives a potted history of distant events; it's also written in a dense style I think is hard to follow unless you're already familiar with the subject. Also, the notes: I'm not keen on doing it this way (though that's just a personal preference, not an objection), but is the link given in, say, the second note actually the source of the sentence or paragraph? And if so, why not place that link in the text rather than make the reader jump first to a footnote? (Again, this is just a question, not an objection, because I know others accept this way of doing footnotes. I'm asking only because I find it confusing.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • 1. As far as I know it is not necessary to give a summary of what follows in the article, an introduction - as the term states - should be an introduction to the article and well that it is in this case. 2. dense: in what way (which paragraph or section is hard to follow?) - please eleborate or give an example so that I can fix that. 3. the footnotes: there were direct links in the text before - I prefer it that way too - however it was critizised last time this article was a FAC and therefore changed. Themanwithoutapast 12:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I see no need to launch into Ausschluss in the second sentence of the intro. The intro should highlight the most notable points about the Anschluss of 1938, and give the reader a taste of what's to come: X number of German troops marched into Austria on (date) after Hitler declared Y. How long the Germans stayed; effects on Austrian population; the extent to which the Nazis had the support of the people; effects on the Jewish and other vulnerable populations. That should be the intro, not the history of the 50 years or so before Anschluss. Anyone who knows nothing about Anschluss still knows nothing about it after reading your intro.

As for the dense writing, just looking at the intro - examples: "The prospect of an Anschluss had been the subject of inconclusive debate prior to the Austro-Prussian War of 1866": debate where, between whom, why inconclusive? "Bismarck deliberately excluded Austria because he believed the Austrian elite would be a harmful counter-balance to the Prussian landed aristocracy — the so-called Junkers — in the reunified Germany." What does "harmful counter-balance" mean? Why harmful? Why would this matter to anyone? Why would it matter to Bismarck? In what way was the aristocracy of Austria different from the Prussian aristocracy? It all needs to be unpacked, and the intro is not the place for it. Is all this directly relevant to Hitler's decision to invade?

Regarding your footnotes, it's a shame you were forced to use these. Just to repeat my earlier question: is the link given in, say, the second note actually the source of the information in the sentence or paragraph, or just some further reading in relation to that sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • 2. When you reference "a potted history of distant events" in the intro, I take it you are talking about what was considered but never came to pass in the 19th century? I'd reckon that this part of the intro is the section that's not been overhauled in the extensive editing process which this article has undergone, which is to say that this is fair but hardly beyond repair. Buffyg 16:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I've changed the intro now and shifted the old introduction to the main body of the article. With regards to your examples to "dense writing", well we could ask why? and "give more details" in every single article on wikipedia. So if the argument of "dense writing" only applied to the introduction then I hope you are satisfied now, however if it was a general remark on the article I've to say that would lead us to object to every single FAC. Themanwithoutapast 16:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The new intro is much better, thank you. Regarding the writing of the rest, I'm not sure how to explain clearly what I mean by dense; but what, for example, does "harmful counterbalance" mean, and in what way would the Austrian aristocracy have provided it to the Prussians? That sentence is unclear; and what I'm saying is I think there's a way to write intelligently without using words or phrases that won't be understood by people who don't already know the subject. It isn't always possible to do this, but it should be the aim, particularly with an article like this where there are no technical terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I think there was really a problem with the first section "Situation before the Anschluss" - this consisted of many contributions that have made it into the now comprehensive article from the early beginnings and therefore the whole section was difficult to read. I hope it is better now. Themanwithoutapast 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Every change that you've made has improved the text and has made it much clearer with a better flow. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • The second footnote clearly refers to this passage: Even before the February meeting, Schuschnigg was under considerable pressure from Germany. This may be seen in the demand to remove the chief of staff of the Austrian Army Alfred Jansa from his office in January 1938. Jansa and his staff had developed a scenario for Austria's defence against a German attack, a situation Hitler wanted to avoid at all costs. Schuschnigg subsequently complied with the demand. and - while a german source - exactly gives this information; in fact I took the information from this article in the Wienerzeitung. It is therefore a valid citation. Themanwithoutapast 16:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
      • Thanks for the explanation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I hope I'm entitled to vote although I made some edits to the article in the past. I think Themanwithoutapast did excellent work to bring it up to featured article standard. Martg76 22:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thx, at least one person in support. Themanwithoutapast 01:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm also supportive, but, then again, I wrote much of the section about the legacy of the Anschluss, which is the section that probably leads to regular remarks about dense style. Perhaps someone should drop Piotr a line on his talk page to remind him to see whether his objections have been addressed. Buffyg 08:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, readability has improved alot since my last read through, covers the topic very well. --nixie 14:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Reads well now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)