Talk:Julius Cebulla
Add topicLatest comment: 3 months ago by Vanamonde93
 | Julius Cebulla has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 9, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
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.
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Some comments below to resolve, largely to do with explaining jargon
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- No issues
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- All content is sourced
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- All citations appear reliable.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Spotchecks are clear.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Spotchecks are clear.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Article is sparse, but at the level I would expect for a person of this prominence.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No extraneous material
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No issues
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No images are included, but I see no evidence that any are available. Given the scarcity an NFUR could easily be justified, though
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Not applicable.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- As a suggestion only, you could use Template:Sfn or similar for the first citation, so as not to have page numbers cause clutter
- There are a lot of abbreviations in this article, including ones that aren't used again after being introduced. Sometimes these are appropriate because they constitute the common names of the organizations (KGB, for instance), but otherwise they should be pruned. I will leave it to you to check. Also, where these are relying on a German name, I suggest offering the translation, though this is not mandatory.
- Suggest a gloss for "Volksschule", "Volkspolizei", "Reich Labor Service", "KoKo", "Peaceful Revolution", and "Stasi"
- Suggest including translated titles for the German sources
- The list of deputies in the infobox isn't sourced or mentioned elsewhere in the article.
- The lack of an image is a little sad. I understand one may not be readily available, but given the scarcity, an NFUR could easily be justified, so if you are aware of an image I encourage its use.
Spotchecks
[edit]- Allowing for a little wiggle room for machine translation, all citations to 2 check out.
- With the same caveat, I spotchecked half the citations to 1, all checked out.
@Vanamonde93 Thanks for the review, I've addressed the points you've raised. As for the deputies, Trappen being a deputy is cited in source 7 (in the SED's records, the outgoing person for a position came first, so the quote from source 7 means that Cebulla relinquished his role as deputy head and was replaced by Trappen), Knigge and Bernhardt in source 1. While "SED-Hilfe für West-Genossen" does show a employee of the Trafficking Department, the caption says it's Steidl and there are no pictures to be found of Cebulla unfortunately. I'm not all too familiar with the new Sfn method for citing multiple page numbers and I honestly prefer the old rp system. Is there an automated tool to convert these? I know on German Wikipedia they had one. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good. Passing momentarily, as the source formatting isn't a GA issue strictly speaking, only one of tidiness. There isn't a wholly automated tool as far as I am aware, but citer will do a lot of formatting for you, and the inline sfn syntax is very close to what rp uses (for instance, on the first citation, you would go from {{rp|p=69, 91, 96}} to {{sfn|Mensing|2010|pp = 69, 91, 96}}, which is an easy change in my view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
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.