# Talk:Hitler's Generals on Trial

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: 

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.
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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
 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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
 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)
 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)

_______________________________________________________________________

GAR #7 Book cover needs a caption.
 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 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)
 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)
  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)
 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)
 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)
 Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________

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

 

 Done. How does the new version look? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 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)
 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)
 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)
 Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________
 

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

 

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

 Deferred
____________________________________________________________________________

IR Reference note #3 needs a page number.

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

 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
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.

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

GAR #16 Alaric Searle redlink.
 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  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)

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


### Review table
 = Exceeded the requirements    |
 = Met the requirements   |
 = Failed to meet the requirements


#### 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:

The difference between this trial and the other, better known Nuremburg trials.
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."
That the "evidence of the specific war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the accused was damning"
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)