Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently successfully underwent GA review and I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. A division in name only, the 24th was formed with a cadre of officers consisting of SS geologists and engineers, as it was raised to fight in the ravines, caves and rugged terrain of the Karst areas on the borders between Italy, Yugoslavia and Austria. One of the last German units to surrender. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "The remnants of the unit finally surrendered to the British 6th Armoured Division on 9 May 1945, one of the last German formations to lay down its arms.": I recommend "The remnants of the unit became one of the last German formations to lay down its arms when it surrendered to the British 6th Armoured Division on 9 May 1945."

• addressed, thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your new version is much better than mine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
  • Image has
    Alt Text [3]
    (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD/free or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per
    WP:REPEATLINK
    (no action req'd).
  • Title case should probably be used in the refs here: "Development of military geology in the German Wehrmacht 1939–45"
    • done.
  • The article is fairly concise, just wondering if there is anymore information available about it? If not, and the article reflects the sources available, then that's fine. In particular I wonder if the number of casualties it sustained is available?
    • I went through Kaltenegger, while he does mention casualties from a couple of minor operations, there are no overall casualty figures I am aware of.
      • No worries, happy with that. I guess I'm used to most Australian bns/bdes/divs which often have extensive coverage in secondary sources (in relative comparison to formations and units from other countries). Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read through it in full and the prose looks fine to me. No obvious MOS issues either. Anotherclown (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comments: I couldn't see much of concern with this article. Overall it seems like it meets the criteria to me and only have a couple of comments:
  • the term "Nazi Germany" is possibly overlinked in the infobox;
  • in the lead and body, Austria links to "Nazi Germany": this isn't my area of expertise, but I wonder if there might be a more specific link?
  • the sourcing for "File:24divss.gif" might be problematic. Currently the image description page states: "Originally from it.wikipedia; description page is/was here." But if you following the link through to it.wikipedia, it appears to be a self ref there (the source on it.wikipedia says the same thing, e.g. "Originally from it.wikipedia; description page is/was here"). To be honest, I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, so I'd be more than happy to strike this if others disagree. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the first two, will look into the image file. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have posted a message to uploader (who is a current user) on it WP here. No response as yet. Have also asked Nikkimaria to take a look. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't originally a self-ref - the page on it.wiki is, like the one here, transcluded from Commons. The original version appears to be deleted, so you'd need an it.wiki admin (or the uploader) to figure out the original source. Even without one of those, it probably wouldn't be too hard to find, since it's PD and we just need to confirm accuracy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Nikki. AR, the citation already in the article is from p139 of Keegan, I have checked my copy and the insignia in this image is identical with the one for this division in Keegan's book. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.