This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Germany This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Nominator: Maxwhollymoralground (talk · contribs) 14:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Spartathenian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of my first two reviews. Please bear with me. I will read the article soon. Spartathenian (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think there are too many short paragraphs in the lead section. Combine 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at least; maybe leave 4th alone as the context changes.

1. Starting with "After completing his polytechnic secondary school", it looks as if something is missing. Can you begin with birth and childhood?

2. If that is done, maybe the section title should be "Early life"?

3. Wikilink lathe?

4. Need to know what FDJ is.

5. Use of "subsequently" is unnecessary given that the period is stated.

6. Vietze's name does not appear in the whole section.

1. There is a degree of overlap between sections 1 and 2 which is a little confusing. I think you should end section 1 in 1970, and begin this section with his Stasi and Second Secretary roles.

2. The sentence about Rainer Speer needs more words to explain the disparity between the church groups and the FDJ cultural center. Why was it an issue?

3. What was the Enquete Commission? This is the sort of background a reader will need, perhaps in a footnote.

1. What was the significance of the "enemy in his trench" statement and how was it received?

2. Duplication in the Bezirk Potsdam SED elected him as First Secretary of the Bezirk Potsdam SED.

3. The second paragraph needs some background to set the scene. Why should Krenz resign?

1. Vietze's name is needed in the first paragraph, also early in the third and fifth paragraphs.

I think this is the biggest problem, although I've already touched on it above. The sense of the article is a succession of roles and memberships, few of which are defined or explained so that the reader has some idea of what their significance was. Taking the first paragraph of "Reunified Germany" as a case in point, what was important about those three roles and what did he do?

No problems on the whole except where mentioned within prose section above.

Again, no problems except where mentioned within prose section above.

WP:GAN/I#R3 requires me to spot-check a sample of the citations. I've chosen nos 01, 10, 12, and 21.

01. After completing his polytechnic secondary school, he trained from 1964 to 1967 as a lathe operator, as vocational training with Abitur (university entrance qualification). Verified.

10. In the Ministry for State Security (MfS), Vietze was registered from May 1972 to May 1975 in his role as secretary of the Potsdam FDJ as a Societal Security Collaborator (GMS). Partially verified, but this citation shares the role with four others. Satisfactory.

12. This is a book source which I cannot check. Would you please confirm that it provides sufficient verification, bearing in mind that the statement is supported by four other citations?

21. Served as borough councillor in Potsdam-Golm until July 2024. Verified.

Reference layout (2a) is fine, and there is no indication of original research (2c) or copyright breaches (2d). Condition 2b will be a pass if FN12 is confirmed.

This appears to be sufficient, and there is nothing out of scope. Focus is maintained and no micro-details. Satisfactory.

Satisfactory.

No issues.

Only one which is freely licensed by a Wikipedia editor.

This is looking okay but I'll place it on hold for now to give you time to address the points raised. Please take your time as I don't do deadlines. Do let me know if you need to ask anything.

Good luck and all the best. Spartathenian (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has significant coverage issues. FN 6 and 7 are not well summarized. The quote If the enemy rises in his trench to directly fight against us, aims sharply, and uses all he has, then in the German Democratic Republic, the discussion about the last leaflet or trench newspaper must stop, and we must talk about who is aiming at this enemy, and with combat power, with class-based positions. is out of context and not really MOS:QUOT. The source also mentioned that the LP denies making this statement. WP:BLP care means this should be included. Who is the enemy in the quote? Should that Hartz IV campaign be mentioned? Also, to tell newly elected SED General Secretary Egon Krenz to resign well did he? Why was he telling Egon Krenz to resign? Czarking0 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maxwhollymoralground. For the purposes of the review, you need to concentrate on the current version and on points raised about that version. As stated in the review, coverage as presented is satisfactory, but please bear in mind that several of the points raised in the Prose and Understanding sections will require extra content such as background and significance. The difference is between scope and content.

Questions about Krenz and the "enemy in his trench" were raised in the review, and did not need to be repeated. Footnotes 6 and 7 are outside the spot-check sample, but you should check them as suggested here to see if there are any issues. However, for review purposes, the sample applies.

I've looked at FN6 and the Berliner Zeitung report is in German, which I can read. Even so, I've used the translation function which has produced: "If the enemy rises up to fight us in his trenches and takes sharp aim and uses everything he has at his disposal, then in the German Democratic Republic the discussion about the last leaflet or trench newspaper must stop. Instead, we must talk about who is targeting this enemy, and who is targeting them with fighting power, with class position". So, no, that isn't precisely the same as the translation you have given in the article, but it amounts to the same, and I do not see any issue concerning MOS:QUOT. As for the context, you will provide that if you address the point raised in the review.

I cannot comment on inclusion of the "Hartz IV campaign", as that is a decision for you as author. I will say that it is not in the review version, and so it would be a post-review addition if you decide to include it. This would be a broadening of scope, and not just content added to satisfy the review. If you should decide to include the campaign, I suggest doing so after the review has been completed.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will get to it on the weekend, especially the early life section and the quote – it does require a lot more context. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. No rush, and good luck. Spartathenian (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartathenian @Czarking0 I just overhauled the entry. In regard to the quote, Knabe 2007 also mentions that the quote has been reproduced with slight variation. As for the Krenz visit, the Vietze interview is unfortunately interspliced with other footage, but [this section, in context, strongly suggests it was due to a lack of support]. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maxwhollymoralground, and thanks for the work you've done on the GA review points. I'd say lack of support for Krenz at that time is entirely to be expected as the reason. I'm happy with the article, and I think it meets all of the criteria. It's a good article and it deserves to be promoted to WP:GA. Well done, and best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bring this up in some other places. I want to point out that when this passed GAR one of the section titles was not in English and here are several places of WP:CITEKILL

• hold until 1983
• First Secretary of the SED in Kreis Oranienburg
• First Secretary of the SED in Potsdam in 1988.
• 1989 as a reformer
• state parliament group
• parliament's presidium
• chairmanship of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation

Czarking0 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He also has the officeholder infobox when he should not. This should have been covered under GAC 1 Czarking0 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have spotted Nomenklatura but I speak German, and I tend to fuse German and English words. You were right to amend it to nomenclature.

I'm not sure if I agree about the infobox as he did hold a couple of offices, including one as a First Secretary. Unless that infobox has a specific purpose for presidents, prime ministers, and so on, it seems okay to me. What's the alternative?

I'll look at the citations you've listed later on (must go for now). Spartathenian (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the citations are concerned, I think it's up to Maxwhollymoralground to determine which should be retained, if some of them are deemed to be superfluous. CITEKILL isn't policy, just an essay, and GACR/2 only requires reliable sources to be cited inline at the end of the sentence or paragraph. GAI obviously recognises that a large number of citations presents a huge obstacle for the reviewer, which is why the sample spot-check is required. I think the sample is sufficient for the purposes of a GA review. Spartathenian (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Officeholder infobox is not for things like Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. At least that should not be included in it. Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]