Talk:Führerbunker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reconstructions of the bunker(s)

Hi wikipedians! Finally I have added the reconstructions I made in 2004 of the two bunkers. Instead of repeating the information about my reconstruction here, I refer the descriptions I have made on the actual image pages:

1. Fuehrerbunker.png
2. Vorbunker.png
3. BunkerLocations.png

I hope you enjoy the maps. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Fahrerbunker vs. Führerbunker

Some photos given in a link to a website from Mr. Roland Harder do not show Hitler's Führerbunker, but the Fahrerbunker (bunker of the governmental car drivers) near the Holocaust memorial. This Bunker was opened in 1993, when the area around the memorial was developed for the Holocaust memorial. The owner of that site (Roland Harder) will mislead the reader of his site, that his friend, photographer Harry von Gebhardt, made photos of the nearby Fahrerbunker, instead of the Führerbunker, in 1988. But in 1988 that area was still undeveloped, since it was in the area of east german republic (Berlin wall came down one year later in 1989). Of course, in 1988 the Fahrerbunker looked the same as in 1993 (very probably, but nobody could know that for sure), when the photos of the Fahrerbunker were taken and were published also in every newspaper. It seems that the owner of that site only wants to have full score of the visitor counter for his site. In a little comment he corrected himself after a phone call with Mr. Rochus Misch, Hilter's telephonist. Please be aware, that this comment is still not commented, and you should read that between the lines. Maybe the photos shown on the site of Roland Harder were taken in occasion of the removal of the nearby real Führerbunker, but very probably the photos were made in the early 1990er years, when the Fahrerbunker was opened while developing the area.--145.254.56.61 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I intend being in Berlin again early next year and one of my projects will be to photograph everything that can be photographed in relation to the Reichschancellery / Fuhrerbunker site. I will then be able to provide new photos for this article among others. Adam 02:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

New sentence

"In 2006, the Berlin Underground organization installed a small plaque with a schematic of the bunker to mark the location. Hitler bodyguard Rochus Misch was on hand for the ceremony." Can we get a source for this? What is the "Berlin Underground organization?" I snooped around the Chancellery site only three weeks ago and I saw no plaque to the bunker, only the blue historical marker on Wilhelmstrasse marking the site of the Chancellery. It must be very obscure. Adam 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When I read this message, I too found it strange and doubtful. But I have googled for it and found two news articles that confirm it:

• Yahoo News article
• Israel Center article

So, it appears to be a fact. Damn it, I'd very much like to see a photograph of that plaque, due to my historical interest. If any one finds one, please, please notify me. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, you'll find that plaque as pdf-document also on the web at: [1]--212.144.10.53 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Berlin and will visit the site next week to take a picture for you. I have never added a picture to wikipedia so i probably will post it on another site and leave the link here for you to see it.

Point of the article

Reading this article, I found myself highly interested in the details of Hitler's last days, and then, all of a sudden, I realized that this is supposed to be an article about his last dwelling, not his last days. Assuming that this information on Hitler's end exists elsewhere, shouldn't this material be deleted from this article? Or at least, seriously abridged? Unschool 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I put in a lot of the detail recently because it was embedded in the Battle in Berlin but much of it is not directly relevant to the battle as it is to do with the political comings and goings from the Bunker. The only other article available seemed to be Adolf Hitler, but that ought not to cover the events after his death. I suppose it depends if one sees the building as only the ferroconcrete or as a "machine for living in" (Le Corbusier Vers une architecture, 1923). If the latter than the social events connected with it when it was part of history are just as important as its physical layout. At the moment the article is not large enough to have to make the choice of less on the physical side for more on the social side or vice versa. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No big shakes; I was just thinking. Unschool 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gerhardt Boldt?

This article claims that there are only two surviving eyewitnesses to the last days of the bunker, but isn't Gerhard Boldt still alive as of Summer 2007?

• Gerhardt_Boldt says he died in 1981. 86.20.197.57 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

aa

Armin Lehmann died so the postwar events section might need some changes --71.101.33.94 (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of images

I am unable to determine if this edit was constructive or not, so I will note it here for others more familiar with the subject to review more closely. It may be that the best course is to add images rather than replace them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the old map was simply wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.37 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That edit was almost certainly vandalism. Note the above IP, who made the edit, has been blocked repeatedly. However I'm not too familiar with wikipedia formatting, and I fear that if I attempt to restore the image at this point (can't do a simple revert at this point...) the result will be a disaster. Could someone else fix the article? 67.167.12.112 (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

medal ceremony

According to the sign placed at the location by the Berlin authorities the medal ceremony to Hitler Youth members was on March 20th not April 20th and has become a common error due to the sychronicity with Hitler's birthday. 85.177.89.63 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd, but the Berlin authorities must be wrong. Both Goebbels' and Speer's memoirs mention the Hitler Youth incident as taking place on April 20, and the various Bunker accounts compiled by Trevor-Roper, etc., seem to all agree as well. The Youth were from the same units fighting at Wiedenhammer.

I'll add that the article's reference to Hitler walking in the Chancery garden "up until Match 1945" when he stopped due to shelling is also wrong. The Soviets were nowhere near close enough to shell Berlin until the final assault and investment in late April. Berlin residents (and Hitler himself) were shocked when the first shells began dropping into the heart of the city in the final days. Bombs in March, yes; shells, no.72.255.48.186 (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen

Not epicenter

An underground bunker surely must have been the hypocenter, not the epicenter. 121a0012 (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not just five hundred soldiers and civilians

I have revered to the old version of this paragraph because this is wrong on so many levels

About five hundred soldiers and civilians were intending to attempt to break through to areas where they could avoid being captured by the Russians. Mohnke gave the order for the break-out to begin at around 21:00 and led the first group from the Reich Chancellery. Many attempted to escape to the north using a subway tunnel that led to Freidrichstrasse station. Bormann left in the third group, at around 01:00 (2 May), and managed to cross the Spree. Arthur Axmann, who followed the same route, reported finding his body a short distance from the Weidendammer Bridge; he had taken poison.

• Far far more than 500 attempted to break out.
• It was not Russians but Soviets.
• Weildling was the one in overall command who gave the order to break out at 21:00.
• "Many attempted to escape to the north using a subway tunnel that led to Freidrichstrasse station" Freidrichstrasse was inside the German held perimeter, it was the start point for one of the breakouts north over the river. See this Google map to get a grasp of what this sentence means. -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This material was taken from Kershaw 2008 and Shirer 1960 and was intended to replace material that seemed poorly sourced. Assuming everything in the restored paragraph is in Beevor 2002, I have no problem with changing it back. I will be copy editing the wording to improve the punctuation. In the notes section, a semi-colon should not be used as a substitute for bolding, as it is semantically incorrect (a semicolon introduces a definition list). --Dianna (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is all from Beevor. In what way did it seem poorly sourced? -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the material seemed to be sourced to de:wiki. I hope you have had time to check over my copy edit and made sure that I have not misconstrued the meaning. --Dianna (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you not see this edit at 07:55 on 7 February 2012 ? -- PBS (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I do not understand what your point is. That edit had not yet occurred when I made the edit to which you objected: this one. -- Dianna (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand that it is a matter of cross communication. When you made the edit the "de:Weidendammer Bridge" was there. But before you made your comment I had already made the edit which answered your question. However a bit more on the history of the paragraph. When I added that paragraph to this article in July 2007‎ there was no article for the Weidendammer Bridge (it was not created until in November 2008‎). What you saw was not a citation but a footnote to the German article ( created because there is a prohibition on directly linking other language articles into the text of English language articles). Basically I think that any footnote containing a English Wikipedia page or a link to another language (but not to Wikisource or dictionary), is by definition of the Wikipedia verifiability policy a footnote and not an inline citation. But of course judgement has to be used because some inexperienced editors do try to use Wikiepdia as a citable source. -- PBS (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Need a cite

We need a citation at the spot marked, where there is a general description of conditions in the bunker. Otherwise the article is in good shape, and I am going to be nominating for GA. --Dianna (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I must have been tired when I said that, as the "post-war events" section is totally unsourced. I will keep working on this and hope to pursue a GA nomination once the sources for that section have been found. Add 'em if you got 'em. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will work on it tonight when I get home (after the day job). Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Weidling, 56th pzr corps and details

Weidling certainly was not made commander of the 56th as late as the 20th. All sources show that he was actively in command of the 56th by the time of the Berlin operation. Also I thought that it would be illuminating to the reader to have a minor background on the 56th having been heavily engaged by the time it withdrew to the olympic stadium and surrounding district when W was briefly condemned to death for his supposed desertion.

I can get the cites easily, but I am still technically under using wiki, and im not confident of inputting citations without screwing things up horribly on the article. Also I have a problem as I no longer have my copy of Cornelius Ryans "Berlin. The Last Battle", which has a wealth of information on W and 56 PC activities up to his "promotion". IMO there is far too much reliance on Beever in the cites on the subject, whereas IMO Ryan is a better source and by far the better book. (A lot of Ryans work was based on actual interviews with participants). My original Ryan died on me some time ago, and am attempting to get a new copy, to properly and interestingly source this solid article. I may just need a bit of time. Any technical assistance you could offer re citation creation would be appreciated. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Once you are ready to add your citations you can post here and one of us can add them for you. If the book is not already listed in the article as a source, we need the following information: name of author; title of book; year of publication; name of publishing house; location of publishing house; ISBN. A page number is required for each fact. -- Dianna (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked my copy of Beevor's Berlin – The Downfall 1945 (2002), Viking-Penguin Books. It does not state Weidling was appointed commander of LVI Panzer Corps on 12 April. That is from Weidling's Wikipedia article where it is uncited. However, Beevor does write of Weidling as commander of LVI Panzer Corps, first mentioned on the date of 16 April. p. 225. Beevor doesn't state when he was appointed to same. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Weidling appears to have been posted very briefly to a reserve officer pool and assigned the 56th either on the 10th or 12. Now I know Wiki isnt a source , but actually I think it should be, if we have confidence enough in the project, and our articles are solidly cited. The wiki articles for the 56th pzr corps and W state either the 10th or 12th. If these are uncited then we should revisit the articles as editors. This info must have come from somewhere, and the original editors should be contacted. Neither Beevor nor as I recall Ryan, give a date for his appointment, so there must be a seperate source out there to track down.

@ Dianna. Cheers for that. I believe all the info, incl ISBN is on the Wiki Ryan article itself. Havent checked, but there may even be an article on The Last Battle created here. I seriously need a copy, as Beevor is so boring :) Irondome (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You will have to get the information about the book from the copy of the book from which you get the facts you add, not from another wiki article. That's because there are (according to Worldcat) eleven different editions of Ryan's book, and the pagination will be different in different editions. Listing the specific edition from which you obtained the information ensures the information is verifiable. -- Dianna (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I need to comment also that Wikipedia articles are never to be considered a reliable source per WP:WPNOTRS, which is part of our reliable sourcing guideline. There are no exceptions. -- Dianna (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My copy of Ryan died years ago, so its paging is moot. I will buy a new copy and cite afresh from that. Another overlooked but rich source is the Fall Of Berlin, Anthony Read and David Fisher. I have a copy of that and will check it out for support.

Its the sources that underly them, not the articles per se. One would obviously quote the seconday source in that case, and not the article itself. Or are all secondary sources, even if rock solid, not permissible if they have been once used in a wiki article? Irondome (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You actually have to look at the sources yourself. There's no exceptions. -- Dianna (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Armin Lehmann

Regarding the unsourced info about Armin Lehmann at the botom of the article. I found this PDF which shows Lehmann acted as consultant for a TV special for Spiegel TV. Not sure this is immediately relevant to the history of the Fuhrerbunker. Should we take it out? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is not needed and should be removed. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fuhrerbunder: Discovered Its Mysteries

I have removed this from the "Further Reading" section. The book is self-published (here is the publisher website). The author is an amateur historian. A PDF copy of the book is available online here. It's not the scholarly type of work that should be added to our reading list in my opinion. Comments welcome -- Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be excluded. Not shown to be WP:RS. 22:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Kierzek (talk)

when i see Jesus Christ vs Adolf Hitler as a title to a section, I tend to stop reading. It is not appropriate in terms of being a reliable SS. There is far superior material out there. Concur with User:Diannaa. Irondome (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am Pietro GUIDO, the author of the book FUHRERBUNKER-DISCOVERED ITS MYSTERIES, published by the society of capital ISEM SRL, of which I was president. In fact the isbn number 88-87077-03-7 is indicative of the publisher ISEM. Is this a valid motive to be excluded by the list of the books in "Further Reading"? Coming to the contents of the book, it is worth to quote that it has reached the sixth edition and from over 10 years it is purchased all over the world. Who is interested can go on the page "Readers' Reviews" of the site www.hitlerbunker.com where are published over thirty letters of readers (among which the builder of the bunker and Rochus Misch) that judge my book as the best and the more detailed book ever written on the Fuhrerbunker. Even the prestigious book of Kelleroff on the bunker has reproduced images taken from my book. At this point, do you think my book unworthy to appear in the Further Reading page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.32.250.129 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss this matter. I have several reasons for wanting to exclude the book. It is self-published; the prose is low quality; the book is not written by a historian or academic but rather by an amateur; although there's a bibliography, there's no footnotes; and the book will be impossible for most readers to obtain and hence useless to the general reader. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply to the talk page. Despite your exclusion of the book, it has sold in ten years so many thousands of copies that you cannot imagine: I beg you to go and read the letters received from all over the world, published in the "Readers' Reviews" page of the website, written by more competent personalities (among them Hochtief,the company that built the bunker, the Berlin Senatskanzlei, the Hitler's bodyguard Rochus Mish, etc..) ,with their enthusiastic opinion on the value of the book. I am not a historian or academic or an amateur,I am simply a researcher. If parts of my book are reproduced, without my permission, in other books (Sven Felix Kelleroff) or websites for online reading, this testifies the significance of this source.

By the way, the book is easy to be purchased: it is enough to enter the website www.hitlerbunker.com and go to the page "Order the book". Pietro GUIDO

Sorry but the consensus is to not include the book in Further Reading. The three experienced Wikipedians who have commented have said no, which is a pretty clear consensus to exclude. Consensus is how we make decisions on this wiki. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Consensus, congratulations for your "objective" taking of position. God enlightes you! Pietro GUIDO, 30 May 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

"Construction" chapter, 4th line: Please change "located 2,5 metres (8ft 2 in) lower" to "located 2,25 metres (7 ft 5 in) lower" because the unique, reliable source "Stasi - Archiv der Zentralstelle MfS-HA IX/11 UTA n°5 Kopie BStU-AR8" shows that the difference of level between the Fuhrerbunker and the Vorbunker is 2,25 metres (8,50 - 6,25 metres). IDROSTICCHIO (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The current source for that claim, The Reich Chancellery and Führerbunker Complex: An Illustrated History of the Seat of the Nazi Regime, actually has its own article. That gives it the edge in verifiability, even if it were mistaken. Regardless of that, there is no way for us to make a change like this through the {{edit semi-protected}} template because it inherently lacks consensus. The best way for you to move forward would be to start a discussion with your fellow editors here on the talk page and try to reach a new consensus or compromise. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Te map with the vertical section of the two bunkers drawn by the Stasi experts in 1974, is visible at page 107 of the Pietro Guido Book "FührerbunkerDiscovered Mysteries" published by Isem Srl. I would like to ask the Consensus if it is the case to make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.32.221.43 (talk • contribs) 15:58, May 31, 2014

I don't agree with making this change, as I am unable to access the Stasi report to confirm that that is what it says, and besides, secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. The Peitro Guido book (of which you are the author) is self-published and cannot be considered a reliable source. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr Guido, please read the message I have posted here regarding conflict of interest. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked my sources: Kellerhoff states, page 56: the Führerbunker was 2.5 meters beneath the floor of the Vorbunker. "10 steps went down a staicase that made 90-degree turns". He matches with Lehrer 2006, with info. as to both bunkers, pp. 117, 119, (and mainly for this point) on page 123 who states, of the two separate shelters, the Führerbunker was located 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) lower than the Vorbunker. Kierzek (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear “Older and…well older” first of all I would like to know why a secondary source has to be thought more reliable than a primary one (unless this is established by the Wikipedia Bible). If you have a minimum knowledge of the principles of statistics you should know that the primary sources are more reliable because they come from official bodies, while the secondary sources are background that explain, interpret and analyze. Normally the secondary are a good way to start research and often have the scope to arrive to the primary ones. A primary source is more reliable since it shows or gives exact happenings without bias unlike a secondary source, which might interpret the information differently and with various perceptions. Let me make an example: primary sources are from a person who has witnessed the event firsthand, a secondary sources are the first person he told. As a consequence your sentence that the secondary source “The Reich Chancellery….” gives it the edge in verifiability is a logic swearword. Going to my proposal to change the object of the claim (and cancelled from our mind that “secondary sources” are preferred over primary sources) what does it mean that my book is not a reliable book? Forget my book! I have indicated the unique primary source to change the statement (2,25 metres instead of 2,5), the Stasi document, to amend an error. If you are not able to find it, this is your guilt. I can publish it in the talk page or send to you by post. Please stop to hide you behind the leaf of fig tree of the “self-published book” and the” conflict of interest” (!).With my proposal I do not ask you to mention my book, I am only communicating to the Consensus a primary source, more reliable than all your secondary sources (Kellerhoff e Lehrer included), with the aim to improve the Wikipedia information. With reference to the Kellerhoff book I would like to know what foresees the ethical code of Wikipedia with reference to the inclusion in the list of “Sources” of a book that contains pages copied from other books, (as my book), without the permission of the author/editor. IDROSTICCHIO (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.32.208.30 (talk)

The relevant Wikipedia policy page is WP:PRIMARY, which states that secondary sources are preferred over primary and tertiary sources. It's not just a question of the editors here present being able to access the document, it's also for the future, as content must be verifiable. Since using secondary sources is preferable to primary sources, it's unlikely that you will get consensus to change the content based on a primary source that is difficult/impossible to access. I personally am opposed to making the change for that reason. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, this is an extract of the Wikipedia policy about sources: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[3] Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge..." At this point, even a child, understands that the most reliable source is the primary one. In this case you can have directly or through me (forwarding to you the original source) the original source which does not require a great intelligence to read two numbers (8,5 metres and 6,25 metres)! You are putting your hands on your eyes to defend obtusely a foolish thesis contrary to the common sense and the Wikipedia policy. Frankling speaking, I have not understood what is the true reason of such behaviour. Going to another topic: why don't you express, in this talk page, your opinion about the case of the Kellerhoff book above quoted in my talk of 1 June 2014? -- User talk Idrosticchio11.30, 3 June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.32.208.30 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline clearly states that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Regarding the Kellerhoff book possibly being in violation of your copyright, I am not going to express an opinion about that. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

Please change "2,5 mt" in "2,25 mt /7,4 Ft" . The primary source is the Stasi investigation published on the P. Guido book "Fuhrerbunker-Discovered its Mysteries", published by Isem srl, 2009. 93.148.81.50 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In "construction", line 4, please change 2,5 mt in 2,25 mt/7,4 Ft IDROSTICCHIO (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As indicated in the section directly above this one. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Feitlebaum (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Everything passes except for 1a. now since those minor copy edits were made.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   I've only got a few small quibbles-

• exits led into the main buildings and there was an emergency exit up to the gardens-Perhaps that could be rephrased as exits led into the main buildings, as well as an emergency exit. Done
• The 1943 development-It says 1943 in the lead, but 1944 in the body. It's unclear when the second part was built. Done
• He was joined by his senior staff, Martin Bormann, and later, Eva Braun-Was Bormann his senior staff, or was he joined by Bormann and his senior staff? When did Eva Braun move in? Done
• The bunker was crowded and oppressive,-Oppressive? How can an inanimate be oppressive? I don't understand that. You must have meant something else. Done - see what you think.

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Pretty much complies with all of the MoS for GA.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources look reliable.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias whatsoever.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars, although it's edited semi-frequently.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are from Commons.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article looks really good, and if those small prose issues are fixed, it'll be GA-status. Great job! Feitlebaum (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo caption

"the cone-shaped structure in the centre served as the exhaust," Surely that should read "served as the chimney"? --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)