Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Socialism in Germany/archive1

History of Socialism in Germany

I've listed this article for peer review because… I have concerns regarding the neutrality of the article, and the disputed originality of my claims, as well as the relevance of the SPD sections.

Thanks, Immafinnabustanedit (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A few things stand out:

1. The formatting of the citations is incorrect. As a result, this article technically cites no sources.
2. There are many sections, but most of of them are very short. Consider consolidating them.
3. The tone and choice of words makes this page read like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article (an example of this being sentences starting with "Indeed, ...")
4. The lead (the paragraph that precedes any section) is quite long. The lead should be concise and touch on subjects that will later be mentioned during the article, providing a helpful overview of the article, but not act as an introductory paragraph or thesis statement. Both the number of paragraphs and the size of the lead need significant changes.
5. The SPD is frequently cited as the primary example of socialism in Germany, but the SPD (social democratic party) believes specifically in social democracy, which is often regarded as a form of welfare-state style capitalism, not necessarily a socialist or post-capitalist philosophy, and it is very out of place to group it with mentions of Marxism. "Socialism" is a very loaded term with many wildly different definitions ranging from anarchism to communalism to progressivism to socialism in one country, etc. This is not to say that the term can't be used, but it should be used clearly with sufficient context. In the current state of the article, it's unclear what is and is not to be included or excluded in the history of socialism in Germany. Other terms such as "communism" and "democratic socialism" can also refer to different ideologies depending on the context, so just be sure that there is no ambiguity.
6. This page has no in-text links to other articles.
7. There are no images in the article; images, while not necessary, are recommended.
8. Please read the Manual of Style. This article may need to be thoroughly rewritten to comply with it.
9. This article has no categories.
10. The following recommendations are from the automatic peer review tools. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
11. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
12. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
13. You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

I have added a number of these notes to the article. I may recommend that - for the time being - the article is moved back into draft space.

Cheers, Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the page back into draft space with a redirect. The redirect may or may not be deleted by another editor. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)