The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I[edit]

Notified: Batmanand, Bastin, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Luxembourg, WikiProject Germany, [2]

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because issues raised on the talk page have not been resolved. This includes inconsistent formatting in the citations, a lede that needs expansion to cover the later parts of the occupation, and a disorganised Background section. Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle

• I agree that the lede is insufficient. This statement; The German government justified the occupation by citing the need to support their armies in neighbouring France, although many Luxembourgers, contemporary and present, have interpreted German actions otherwise. is a wholly inadequate vague euphemism for what I presume is German designs on annexation.
• There is an overreliance on primary sources that makes this article smack of WP:Original research and WP:Synth. The third paragraph in the "Invasion" subsection relies wholly on a telegram, a speech, and letters. Scattered throughout are citations to more letters, telegrams, speeches, and even a "Proclamation". There are no links to these resources either, so it may be that they were never even published (thus not useable for any claim under our guidelines). This is a major issue.
  • There is other use of questionable sources. It's not apparent to me how the World@War article by Richard Doody is any better than blog posts. WorldStatesman.org is equally dubious.
• Citations are missing in many places.
• The following photo caption: The outpouring of national grief at Eyschen's funeral was evidence of the nation's debt to him. is POV and sentimental.
• I think the legacy of this war could be expanded upon...for example, Charlotte's decision to flee Luxembourg during WWII was directly motivated by the legitimacy crisis her sister faced for staying during WWI and appearing to be a collaborator.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• I've cleaned up the actual references section by adding OCLC #s and ISBNs as well as publisher locations.
• I think that all of the various letters, proclamations, etc. are found in the GWDPA page at the head of the references section. I agree that the article looks too heavily reliant on them.
• The footnotes use a mix of author (date), page and full-length cites that needs to be standardized on one or the other. My preference would be to move the long ones into the bibliography.
• I'm also concerned by the advanced ages of many of the links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Move to FARC, no further edits since Indy and Sturm commented. Moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements, but they are not happening now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist. Citation needed tags from January 2021. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist - Missing citations and overuse of primary sources. Since there are secondary sources on this topic, we shouldn't be using a letter to cite "The massive Spring Offensive had been an unmitigated disaster". " and Eyschen did nothing to hide his indignation" is sourced to a telegram, and possibly OR, unless the telegram explicitly states this. Significant outstanding issues remain. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist, considerable issues, not being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.