Hello, I am a Navy Veteran of nine years, I have travelled to many different countries throughout my time, but I primarily spent my time in Iraq. I enjoy many types of music but specifically music in the Metal/Rock genre. I am a student of history and my favorite topics are World War II and Norse mythology or Viking era. Speaking of Norse mythology, I have a two year old German Shepherd named Loki.

My primary Wikipedia interests would on the topics of surrounding eccentric and unforeseen events during WWII. Some of these events may have had little to no impact on the outcome of the war, but make for phenomenal stories. Another interest I have is on the American auto manufacture rivalry^[1] during the muscle car era of the late 60's and early 70's.

When you think of the events of World War II, you think about the battles in the Pacific, the largest amphibious assaultin human history on D-Day, and the use of the atomic bomb in Japan. But there are more events that happened in between these that are not often talked about. These types of events almost seem fictional or made-up but they are real. One event in particular is the Battle of Castle Itter where for the first time the US army fought side by side with German soldiers against the Nazi SS soldiers. I visited the Battle of Castle Itter article on Wikipedia and looked for policy violations, ways to develop the article, and other issues.

Policy Violations:

After reading through the article I didn't find many policy violations. There are a few statements that lack sources for confirmation which kind of muddies the water of facts. The verifiability policy is violated right in the beginning line of the article with no sources sited for the date on which the battle was fought on, and another example would be under the "Prelude" section there is a statement that lacks a source sited. Another verifiability violation would be under the "Battle" section when it mentions that the castle was shaking from the gunfire and anti-tank rounds and that bricks were falling and one falling on Schraders wife. No source was cited for this statement.

Developments:

The article is well written and goes into a lot of detail about the characters and parties involved in the event. One improvement I would like to see is more sources. Most of the article is written and cites primarily one source; a book written by historian Stephen Harding. However, it is understandable that there are very few sources for an event like this because of the technology of the time and the fact that it is a battle and record keeping may not have been possible or even considered under the circumstances. Another small improvement would be to maybe further describe the tactics and strategy used to defend the castle from attack. It mentions the Sherman tank parked at the gate, but not much about the positioning of the infantry. Defending a castle with less than 20 men against a small force of 100-150 people is a significant feat and it would be interesting to know how they were able to hold the castle long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

Other Issues:

There is not much to criticize about this article, it seems like its written fairly and is credible. More sources would be very beneficial to this article and if possible maybe quotes or testimony from those involved to add more validity to the event.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this article appears legitimate, and I don't have many critiques about it. It primarily cites one source which is a book written by a historian and although it lacks multiple sources to confirm the event, I find no reason to believe it's not credible. It would be interesting to see journal entries at the time of the events, or newspaper columns that were written at the time added to the article, if they even exist, but considering the severity and nature of the event it is understandable that such sources may not exist. So naturally, word of mouth describing the event is probably the best we'll get. The article reads pretty straight forward and does not appear to exaggerate or embellish the events. In fact, I would argue that it was a fairly broad description of the event, all things considered,