Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:17, 29 September 2016

Joachim Helbig

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I am nominating the article for community reassessment due to the concern over sourcing and potentially failing GAC #2b:

Verifiable with no original research
- reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

The article contains:

21 citations to Franz Kurowski (please see linked article)
5 citations to Ralph Schumann by the right-wing German publisher VDM Heinz Nickel [de] (pls see linked article)
10 citations to Peter Taghon from the same imprint
12 citations to a self-published source Florian Berger

Sample of the content supported by the above sources:

In more than 200 combat missions, Schlund successfully fought off 13 attacks by enemy fighters.^[1]
During this moonlight mission, Helbig dive-bombed and sank a troop transport ship, most likely the Ellenis, which was also used as a hospital ship by Greek forces.^[2]
After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner on 20 April 1937, he was posted with III. Gruppe (3rd Group) Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wing) 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 "Hindenburg" became II. Group of Lehrgeschwader 1 (1st Demonstration Wing) on 1 November 1938, where he started his informal pilot training.^[3]^[4]^[5]
At 2:30 pm 14 Ju 88s from I.(Kampf)/LG 1 headed for quadrant 6450/23 East. The aircraft were armed with two 500-kilogram (1,100 lb) and two 250-kilogram (550 lb) bombs. Despite the protection of accompanying Bristol Beaufort torpedo bombers from No. 272 Squadron RAF, the Ju 88s attacked. The HMS Lively was struck by Oberfeldwebel Leupert and sank at about 3:30 pm. After refueling and rearming, a second wave led by Leupert failed to reach the destroyers.^[6]^[7]

References

^ Kurowski 1996, p. 47.
^ Kurowski 1996, p. 44.
^ Berger 1999, p. 120.
^ Schumann 2007, p. 80.
^ Taghon 2004a, pp. 22, 23.
^ Kurowski 1996, p. 48.
^ Taghon (2004b), p. 11.

These sources are not in line with WP:MILMOS requirements that military history articles, and especially results of operations and any statistics, be cited to published works by reputable historians. The authors and publishers included above do not have a reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking. Please also see prior GARs involving some of the same concerns:

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the delisting for the exact same reasons listed in Kittel (and above, obviously), which incidentally is a GAR I've started myself. To be perfectly honest I'd love it if this got more feedback than Kittel so it doesn't feel like we're just reenacting that GAR or whatever, although I do think the issues here are pretty obvious, just like with Kittel. It's also been three months since the refimprove with no activity on that front – again, pretty much a mirror of Kittel. In fact if there are more obviously Kurowski-ed (or any other unreliable author) articles like this (with no signs of improving), then the above should apply to all of them. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of delisting because of criterion 4 (neutrality) as well. The "In defense of the Reich" section is not neutral. I'm not very familiar with the modern German literature on WW2, but I've read contemporary sources extensively, and this section reads like Nazi propaganda. It is not in keeping with the style used in modern English-language histories either. The same is probably true of the Battle of Britain section. It states that Helbig flew over 100 combat missions but elaborates only on missions ostensibly against military targets.

That is absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda; the German bomber pilot only ever hit military targets while the Allied "terrorists" only ever hit churches, hospitals and orphanages. I suppose that says something about criterion 2 as well. That is, Helbig's life story is precisely what one would expect in a propaganda account of a German bomber pilot. That leads me to suspect, very strongly, that the sources used here are leaving something out.Roches (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Kurowski_p47-1] Kurowski 1996, p. 47.

[2] Kurowski 1996, p. 44.

[Berger_p120-3] Berger 1999, p. 120.

[Schumann_p80-4] Schumann 2007, p. 80.

[5] Taghon 2004a, pp. 22, 23.

[fkurowski_p48-6] Kurowski 1996, p. 48.

[7] Taghon (2004b), p. 11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 I'd support the delisting for the exact same reasons listed in Kittel (and above, obviously), which incidentally is a GAR I've started myself. To be perfectly honest I'd love it if this got more feedback than Kittel so it doesn't feel like we're just reenacting that GAR or whatever, although I do think the issues here are pretty obvious, just like with Kittel. It's also been three months since the refimprove with no activity on that front – again, pretty much a mirror of Kittel. In fact if there are more obviously Kurowski-ed (or any other unreliable author) articles like this (with no signs of improving), then the above should apply to all of them. --[[User:CCCVCCCC|CCCVCCCC]] ([[User talk:CCCVCCCC|talk]]) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
+:I'm in favor of delisting because of criterion 4 (neutrality) as well. The "In defense of the Reich" section is not neutral. I'm not very familiar with the ''modern'' German literature on WW2, but I've read contemporary sources extensively, and this section reads like Nazi propaganda. It is not in keeping with the style used in modern English-language histories either. The same is probably true of the Battle of Britain section. It states that Helbig flew over 100 combat missions but elaborates only on missions ostensibly against military targets.
+:That is absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda; the German bomber pilot only ever hit military targets while the Allied "terrorists" only ever hit churches, hospitals and orphanages. I suppose that says something about criterion 2 as well. That is, Helbig's life story is precisely what one would expect in a propaganda account of a German bomber pilot. That leads me to suspect, very strongly, that the sources used here are leaving something out.[[User:Roches|Roches]] ([[User talk:Roches|talk]]) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)