# Talk:Walther Dobbertin

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

Status: On hold — The article is generally well-sourced and informative, but lacks enough secondary/scholarly reception, critical assessment of colonial and political context, and depth in the lead. These are fixable in the hold period. Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Munfarid1 Crystalite13 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Crystalite13: Thanks for your review and helpful comments. As I am currently travelling without access to a PC, I will only be able to improve the article by 19 October. I hope it is okay to hold it until then. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, @Crystalite13:, I have just enlarged the article as you suggested. Unfortunately, I could not find more secondary sources and hope this will be sufficient for GA. - Looking forward to your assessment, Munfarid1 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:William Morris's influence on Tolkien/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, could you give some guidance on the issues that are not yet up to the GA standards? For example, where do you see OR or non-reliable sources? (The blog by the German Historical Institute London should be a RS, according to WP rules.) - And which major aspects of the coverage need focussing and more or less broadening? - Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, was in the middle of other reviewing, please look at the spotcheck I just posted! Crystalite13 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck
Ref 28: This reference only gives a link to said book, not mentioning page number or confirmation that his images were actually used.
Added the link to the page numbers of his photos mentioned in the List of Illustrations at Google books.
Ref 16: This ref only links to a commons category and does not support the statement "Other, "exotic" photographs...". This would be a different case should it state something like “Dobbertin’s surviving photographs include portraits and images of local people in German East Africa.”
Fixed, using your phrasing.
Ref 29: All good, supports statement, goes directly to examples of Dobbertin's works
Ref 23: All good, got the example of mosques
Ref 25: All good, went directly to correct page Crystalite13 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world Am I doing this review correctly? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Crystalite13, you seem to have done an effective spot check which is great, and you evaluated broadness at the beginning. I don't see any comments on the other criteria though. You can insert these throughout the review criteria template, but I find it often becomes a bit messy, so I'm going to add some sub-headings for all the criteria below, so we can ensure every one is evaluated fully. You'll want to write a short sentence on how the article meets or does not meet each criteria. I'll fill out some of the review, and you can fill out the rest. IAWW (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I have started a structured review below. Going through the criteria one-by-one did uncover some issues. I reviewed the image tags and captions, and the source health/formatting, so that you can see what the comments should generally look like. I also did a section of the prose review ("Early life and career in German East Africa"). You can fill out the rest of the review, and feel free to ping me when you are done or if you have any questions. If you are struggling to evaluate any criteria, just follow the links on the criteria template which explain exactly what each criterion means. Hopefully that way you should uncover some issues with the article, but if not, just justify why it meets the criteria. IAWW (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I just evaluated "stability" to give an example of evaluating a criterion which has no issues. IAWW (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)


### Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) Y
#### Lead
Y
Lead looks good, was earlier expanded and some minor grammar comments were already addressed by myself.


#### Early life and career in German East Africa
and attended painting courses: Overdetail in my opinion IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

for a photographer, some training in fine arts such as painting can be seen as enhancing his skills in visual culture. This is why I mentioned it in the first place. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm happy for it to stay IAWW (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"also operated" -> "operated": Conciseness IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Done Munfarid1 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"camraderie" -> "camaraderie": Misspelled IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

word deleted and replaced by a better wording Munfarid1 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"stereotype notion" -> "stereotypical notion": Correct form when used as an adjective IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Done Munfarid1 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
he expressed the stereotype notion of the camraderie between German superiors and "the brave Askari soldiers".: Could you rephrase this so it doesn't rely so much on understanding exactly what the word "camaraderie" means in this context? Especially because the wikilink to camaraderie doesn't define it in exactly the same way you used it here. IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Done, Munfarid1 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Later life in Germany
"Lettow-Vorbeck's Soldiers with 120 copperplate engravings" --> "Lettow-Vorbeck's Soldiers that included 120 copperplate engravings.." conciseness
"taken prisoner of war" --> "taken as a prisoner of war" smoothness  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC) 

Done Munfarid1 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Photographic work
"big game hunting" --> "large game hunting" grammar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC) 

Done Munfarid1 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Own publications and illustrations for others Y
I see no issues here, so I'll tick this


#### Photographs as visual documents for historical studies
bit weird here, "Through improving and relatively cheap postal services" sounds rather strange in the sense at first it's talking about improving then talking about relatively cheap postal services. Also "through" --> "though", typo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC) 

Changed to: "Thanks to improved printing and relatively cheap postal services..." Munfarid1 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Colonial and political context
"This book and later reuse of his images demonstrate" is a bit confusing to me, because it's first referring to the book and then saying "he" as in Dobbertin. I would suggest either shifting it to "reuse of its images" or slightly reworking the sentence to be more appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC) 

Changed to: "This book and the reuse of its images demonstrate..." Munfarid1 (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Dobbertin's photographs in historical studies and re-interpretations
Would suggest spelling out "32"
I think "2014-15" would be more appropriate then "2014/15"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC) 

Done Munfarid1 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Collections Y
Can find no issues here


### Sources Y
#### Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y
[20] is down, probably link rot. An archive should be added if one exists.

Better link has been inserted. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y
#### Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Y
Done earlier


### Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y
Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, low percent of copyvio.


### Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y
Evaluated at the start of the review


### Stable (Criterion 5) Y
Pretty much all major edits have been made by the nominator over the last few months.


### Media Y
#### Tags (Criterion 6a) Y
All the photographs taken by Dobbertin himself are correctly tagged, linking to the cooperation project page that justifies their licensing.
The only image not taken by Dobbertin himself is File:Portrait of Walther Dobbertin (1882-1961).jpg, which is tagged as being public domain in the country of origin due to the copyright term being the author's life + 70 years or fewer. However, since we do not know when the author of that image died, it's impossible to ascertain whether this is actually correct. Since the author is unknown, the correct tag should be this one, which is used in cases of an unknown author in countries with the the life + 70 years copyright term. However that tag requires the image be at least 120 years old to account for the rest of the unknown author's life + 70 years. Hence, unless we can determine the author of that image, it has copyright issues and should be removed from commons and this article. I couldn't find the actual origin of the image as the metadata on Commons is not very good, and a reverse image search did not yield anything. IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point. The image is on this German wiki project, but I also could not find information on the actual photographer. - Could we still use it as a non-free file on en.wikipedia.org for this article only? Munfarid1 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I think we could, but first you should probably make sure that it is actually a photo of him, which isn't necessarily a given since that one photo only exists on one blog. Maybe contact the authors. Either way, it should be removed from Commons via the appropriate procedures. IAWW (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I have deleted the picture from the article and asked on Wikimedia to delete it. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
For now I wouldn't oppose adding the image with a fair use rationale, while trying to figure out its origins IAWW (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I suppose this is resolved? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes IAWW (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe everything is done in this review now except the review of the lead. IAWW (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
That has been done. Crystalite13 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Captions (Criterion 6b) Y
A Muslim at a mosque in ruines: Misspelled "ruins" IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Corrected Munfarid1 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
"Schutztruppe Askari flag carrier, German East Africa, 1906" to " A Schutztruppe Askari flag carrier, German East Africa, 1906" and "Schutztruppe with a Gatling gun in action" to " A Schutztruppe with a Gatling gun in action" Crystalite13 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Change "Askari reading the colonial newspaper Kiongozi to his comrades" to "An Askari reading the colonial newspaper Kiongozi to his comrades" Crystalite13 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Crystalite13 Try to provide an explanation with each improvement explaining what the issue is, so the nominator knows you aren't just enforcing personal preferences rather than actual issues. IAWW (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Schutztruppe referred to the entire German army. There never was a Schutztruppe, but only the Schutztruppe, so I changed this to "Schutztruppe soldiers with a Gatling gun in action". The other caption has been changed as advised. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks, apologizes Crystalite13 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)


### Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)
Suggest archiving all references to prevent link rot. IAWW (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, will do as soon as the review is finished Munfarid1 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Crystalite13:, just included your latest suggestions from 20 October. It seems we are getting close to finishing this, thanks to your and IAWW's helpful comments. Munfarid1 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Yep! Crystalite13 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Congrats!Article promoted Crystalite13 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks again to both of you, your review has been really helpful and I appreciate your thoroughness. This will also help me for future articles. ;) Munfarid1 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Portrait of Walther Dobbertin (1882-1961).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)