# Talk:Julius Schaub

The image Image:Walther-hewel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever wrote this. It needs minor edits by a native speaker of English. -24.4.26.116 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've spend my night improving (and expanding) the article as best I can and have nominated it for GA-status. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julius Schaub/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article is not broad enough in its coverage and is inadequately referenced. Hence, I recommend it be delisted and put into the GA queue Billsmith60 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It covers his life to the degree known and is WP:RS sourced; vouching for my part. Certainly, one might add some content, if known, as with any article, but that does not equal delisting. @Tomandjerry311: vetted and reviewed it for GA. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I also do not see a problem with this article. There are relatively few citations because the article is relatively short, but everything is cited, so it's not "inadequately referenced". As for broadness, it's difficult to find sources for certain aspects of some subjects, which is fine for GA but not for FA (which requires "comprehensive" coverage). The GA criteria only require that an article mention all major points about a subject, which this article also seems to do. It seems Schaub is mainly notable for his association with Hitler, in which case there is no issue regarding broadness either. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it seems pretty tidy and offers good coverage in an encyclopedic format. I've repaired a link but there doesn't seem to be much wrong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide some specifics about what is missing? There is no need for a formal GAR if the issue can be solved through normal editing processes. CMD (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I have done some copy edits and made some further additions of detail with RS cites. There is one further sub-section I’d like to review, but do not have time at the moment. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. I understand the point about what is known of this person. But if the article was coming to me for GA assessment, and using Hermann Fegelein as a broad and fair comparator –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Fegelein – I'd want to see headings on his military and SS progression, and one on his awards (or one that combines the two). Traudl Junge may have considered Schaub a person of little consequence, but that's nonsense: for a start, he outranked Fegelein, and his daily closeness to Hitler requires marks him out as a person of considerable importance. So I'd want that brought out more in a stand-alone heading like "Assessment", as Fegelein has. The man was Hitler's personal aide, which should appear in the first paragraph, so he was very important. Maybe Schaub has no memoirs of his own (if that's the case), but 28 citations is surely insufficient to cover him adequately. I'm not going to lose sleep over this, but I feel this article *deserves a greater treatment. Regards  Billsmith60 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)