Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder

Hitler?

Well? Where's the Hitler portrait? Was it every painted? Can we see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It was painted. It hung in the "Wilhelm-Murr-Haus", the local party central of the NSDAP in Balingen and was lost during the occupation of Balingen by french toops in 1945. Either destroyed - target practisses were very popular at the time, as was booting - or taken as souvenir.--Wuselig (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, going to be reviewing this article. Give me a few moments to get started!

This article has a major concern that jumps right out at the beginning, it is almost entirely sourced on "Walter Schnerring (1984) (in German). Der Maler Friedrich Eckenfelder. Ein Münchner Impressionist malt seine schwäbische Heimat. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag." And this qualifies for the tag 'Single source'. For an objective point of view, and better analysis I must insist that additional resources be required. While this is not a strict point of the criteria it is implied that a neutral and fair article will have several different sources and views from different individuals. The one source tag seems very much valid to me, and as a GAN, that tag would be relevant.

Unfortunately there are no more sources.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed a few typos, if they are some regional matter feel free to revert them back. It did not appear correct to my checkers or my eyes.

Some of the prose needs work. In the paragraphs for 'Youth' we have 'The boy's talent for drawing..' and 'The fourteen-year-old boy was raised'. These are poor form and could be made clearer. Sections like 'The Munich period' have off-topic or curiosities which seem to add nothing to the article. Such as the notable teachers of the school, or the concerns of the son who opened a book shop. Furthermore, lines like this MUST be sourced, "Eckenfelder's biographer Walter Schnerring notes an increasing alienation." As a sentence is also poor form. Though such contentious material and possible claims extend throughout the entirety of the article. Here is another example, "Many people in Balingen—even Eckenfelder's relatives—turned a blind eye to the relationship because they found it embarrassing." These lines need a direct inline citation. I do believe you are able to tell which lines these are. Since the prose itself needs much tweaking and cleaning up, I do believe you can address this matter when doing so.

 Doing...--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, one of your pictures has no description. [1] Some of them are still under copyright in the USA, there use seems fine though.

Your external link to http://www.balingen.de/servlet/PB/menu/1238489/index.html is reporting 404ed since August 20th 2012.

Removed the link.--Tomcat (7) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the prose seems very close to a the type of text that would be found in your source, I cannot verify this, but please make sure that a direct translation is not used, but your own words which relay the information in the source. This piece is of concern, "When Eckenfelder returned to Balingen, he met Elsa Martz. 18 years his junior, she was an alto singer and piano teacher from a prosperous middle-class family. When she was young, she had enjoyed going to the opera; however, her family regarded this as beneath their station. Despite or because of receiving many marriage proposals, she had remained single. She and Eckenfelder developed a platonic love." It reads like the biographer's words, not yours. You've made two direct references to the biographer's interpretation, any such interpretation must be duly marked and noted with an inline citation.

I'm going to put this on hold, it needs a lot of work. I won't quick-fail it, but my concerns are great.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I am quick failing this after looking at the German Wikipedia. Google translate was also disturbing here. Since most of the work seems to have been transposed directly from German Wikipedia, I am not certain that this applies for GA. While certainly a notable painter, the fact of one source and the similarity is just too great to ignore. Feel free to get a second opinion on this, but I do not feel comfortable passing this until it is rewritten and improved beyond the one source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia is freely distributable and reproducible (see WP:ABOUT), so I can easily copy and past the whole text. Furthermore it is in a different language. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And can you please decide whether you are failing or holding it for a second opinion? There is a clear difference.--Tomcat (7) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the complete file history or the original German version up to the date of the translation is incorporated it is not just copy and paste and as the initiator and main author of the German version I am proud and happy that the translated version has made it to this stage. Eckenfelder is a painter who is not much known very much beyond the view from the top of the mountains surrounding his hometown Balingen. So therefore there is not much literature about him. There is probably nothing beyond Schnerring, but of course one could try to make the effort to study the literature he has cited. This will not bring further knoweledge to the article, because I doubt we will draw different conclusions from this literature than Schnerring did. The only improvement we will get is that Schnerring's sources will be cited directly. But will we get new insights beyond Schnerring? --Wuselig (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, you are incorrect in your ability to copy and paste, you are specifically not allowed to copy and paste without crediting the authors as per the policy and license. If I were to copy and paste any article, even a direct machine translation of the work, it would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy and the CC BY SA 3.0 license. This is on every page you edit. It does not mean you can do as you please or claim credit for another editors hard work.

Secondly, 'on hold' does not mean that I am requesting a second opinion. It was pending fixes and changes. While you may not like the decision I am making, I am making it out of concern about the article's very valid concerns. I haven't tagged it as such, but the one source tag applies. Also I've pointed out many issues with the prose, a lack of in-line citations and points that come off as original research. If you are unable to address these matters then it will not pass GA. #3 of the Quick Fail criteria is "There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags." I am going to place those now. This is a fine article, but it has issues that prevent it from becoming a good article according to the good article criteria.

Third, as the matter of the translation is quite eerie to a machine translation that little alarm bells started going off in my head. I believe this needs an explanation as to the nature of the translation and how it was done. Because of this, I am under the impression that you (Tomcat7) do not have access to the source material. Then, because of this strong assumption which is noted in both a current machine translation of the German article and the current English in this article, I believe that some very close paraphrasing (an unacceptable amount) is present. Furthermore, because direct opinions of the biographer are put in without inline citations and without regard as to the audience my suspicion approaches a point at which I cannot expect it to be completed within a week.

And lastly, please do not undo my decision to quick fail it. You are more then welcome to refile or have a different editor review instead of me. I have long since passed the point of being comfortable with this article, my approval will not be granted today or likely within a week from now. End of story. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: Do you Tomcat7 have that book on hand to address these issues? I suspect no, so rather then letting it languish for a week, I quick failed it and tagged it appropriately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliance on a single source

From discussions transcluded here from the GA review, and also on the main GA talk page, here, it appears that consensus is unanimous from all parties that this article relies largely on a single source, and therefore a {{one source}} tag on the article is appropriate. Please do not revert this tag without adding a second source. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to post more sources. Please stop inserting the nonsense tag. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I infer from that statement that you agree with consensus that the article currently only has a single source. Please do not revert, as you may be subject to blocking via the three revert rule, regardless of whether or not you agree with the content. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you want exactly? Do you wait until I will get blocked?--Tomcat (7) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was checking in on the article and saw the valid tags were gone, again. Concensus is clear, it has one source and the one source tag is valid. It also does not have a neutral point of view and it does not have inline citations for opinions and it calls the subject an illegitimate child born out of wedlock without citing a source. Removing the valid tags is disruptive when you acknowledge that there are no other sources, yet you will not allow the valid tag to remain until one is found. Its WP:IDHT and borderline WP:POINTY to do so. Your repeated personal attacks against me are also uncivil, argue on the merits of the article instead of calling me an idiot. Seriously, I'm not going to rubber stamp and sign off this article as a GA when you cannot even cite contentious claims. Its not personal, but as you lack the material and the ability to correct them, I'm afraid the valid tags should stay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gbern3 (talk · contribs) 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article does not meet GA standards at this time. I have provided several examples illustrating the issues I found.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose overall needs work and is very inconsistent. Some places seem like they’re written at the elementary school level and other places sound editorial. At the elementary level, I caught a few basic grammar mistakes such as having capital letters after a colon and using a comma in place of a period. These were jammed/run-on sentences that should be broken up into two or more sentences. In other areas, there were a few instances of not following parallel structure (here are examples of what parallel structure is). The editorial areas had too much verbiage or jargon. Plain, clearer language is much better and more accessible to layman readers who aren't familiar with the German language or with art terms such as “atelier”. At minimum, link to its Wikipedia page or its entry on Wiktionary per WP:UNDERLINK or explain the terms per WP:JARGON. Last but not least, I found more than one instance of what looks like plagiarism. I'll start with this point:

   Atelier is a French word that is quite frequently used in the English language.--Tomcat (7) 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

   Atelier is also an art term that is quite frequently used among artists. It is not frequently used among the general public which is why it needs a link. Please consider layman readers. // Gbern3 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

   • In this period, he mainly painted on commission: Portraits of citizens of Balingen, views of the town, flocks of sheep and horses: horses at the blacksmith's, pulling hay wagons, pulling post wagons, pulling coaches, at pasture, at rest, being shown, in the market ... Eckenfelder complained about the bad quality of oil paints after the First World War; in particular, the yellow for warm summer light on the hide of a grey was no longer adequate for his requirements. With two colons back-to-back and an ellipses this is one big, long run-on sentence. It looks like WP:COPYPASTE but since the source is written in German I would say closely paraphrased instead especially since there is no citation. How do we know what Eckenfelder complained about? Without a citation it's just hearsay and conjecture. Since "portraits" is not a proper noun and does not come after a period, it should not be capitalized.
   • Eckenfelder's ploughing horses become more monumental and infused with pathos,... This sentence sounds so dramatic and romantic that I can't help but to suspect plagiarism. Again, there is no citation provided.
   • He was named an honorary citizen of Balingen in 1928, a street was named for him in 1931, a gallery devoted to his work was established in the town museum in 1978, and the banqueting hall of the town community centre is also named in his honour. The last part of this sentence lacks parallel structure. Suggestion: He was named an honorary citizen of Balingen in 1928, a street was named for him in 1931, a gallery devoted to his work was established in the town museum in 1978, and the banqueting hall of the town community centre was also named in his honour in [year].
   • The children were declared legitimate through marriage and, through their mother, citizens of Württemberg. Parallel structure again. Suggestion: The children were declared legitimate through marriage and declared citizens of Württemberg through their mother.
   • The boy's talent for drawing was discovered in elementary school and advanced training was recommended, which he received from 1875 in Professor Oskar Hölder's drawing class in Rottweil. Around this time, Christian Landenberger (de) trained there, too. Questions: From 1875 to when? Who is Christian Landenberger and why is he important? I see that you've provided a link to the German language article but please provide some context to layman readers and non-German speakers. A comma is not necessary before "too". Another issue is that two sentences do not qualify as a paragraph. I think it would be better if these sentences joined the third paragraph.
   • She gave a birth to their son Friedrich Junginger on 19 September 1879 in Munich. Basic grammar problems here. Suggestion: She gave a birth to their son Friedrich Junginger on 19 September 1879 in Munich.
   • Please refer to Eckenfelder as "Eckenfelder" and not as "the boy" per WP:SURNAME.
   • Eckenfelder's family tried to conceal this "misstep", from the age of six months, the boy was raised by his grandparents, as if he were their own child. Another run-on sentence. Why is "misstep" in quotes? Suggestion: Eckenfelder's family tried to conceal this misstep. From the age of six months, he was raised by his grandparents as if he were their own child. Technically, using the active voice like this From the age of six months, his grandparents raised him as if he were their own child would be better, but I believe this argument about active vs. passive voice is beyond the scope of GA and therefore, not required.

• I know the definition of active and passive voice.--Tomcat (7) 20:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. • Eckenfelder lived in the artists' quarter of Munich, Maxvorstadt, near other artists. He shared quarters first with Bernhard Buttersack. Christian Landenberger lived on the opposite side of the staircase. Paul Burmester, Georg Jauss (de), Richard Winternitz and Gino von Finetti moved in the same circle, as well as the so-called "Schwabenburg" (Swabian castle), the atelier of the painters Anton Braith and Christian Mali, from Biberach an der Riss. Their meeting place was the "Arzberger Keller". If he lived in the artists’ quarter then it’s obvious that he lived near other artists. Suggestion: Eckenfelder lived in the artists' quarter of Munich, Maxvorstadt.near other artists He shared quarters first with Bernhard Buttersack. The sentence starting with Paul is jammed with information. Please break it up into two sentences or rewrite it. Also, it would be helpful if you put in parenthesis what "Keller" means. Is this "circle" an association of people or a group of houses like a cul-de-sac?
   • Both artists were members of the artists' society Allotria and in 1892 founding members of the Munich Secession. Eckenfelder showed two horse paintings at the founding exhibition in 1888, and at the exhibitions in 1896, 1899, 1903, 1906 and 1911. This doesn’t make sense. They founded Munich Secession in 1892 but they had the founding exhibition for Munich Secession in 1888—four years before they founded it. How did they have an exhibition for something that wasn’t founded yet?
   • To the south, the so-called Balinger Berge (Balingen mountains), prominently split by the valley of the Eyach, include the Lochen and Lochenhörnle (956 m)... For a reader not familiar with Germany, the Eyach could be a city, a river, a type of tree, or a tribe. Please add the word "river" to make this clear.
   • There are more prose problems but I’m going to stop giving examples now because I believe you get the point.

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

   The lead adequately summarizes the biography section but it does not say anything about the works section. Another paragraph should be added to make up for this. I appreciate the use of interlanguage links in article. I see you also have persondata. The layout is fine. The table of contents is not too long. It wouldn't hurt to add more works to the infobox but I don't think this is a requirement for GA. There are WP:PEACOCK words throughout the article. Read WP:WTW for a longer explanation of why this is not good. The works section in particular sounds like an opinion piece.

   • In the lead it says By 1878 he was referred to as an "animal painter". This is not mentioned in the youth section which talks about his life in 1878. It’s mention in “1890s” section: During this period, Eckenfelder is described by the specialist press not only as an animal painter, but also as a landscape painter and "Kleinmeister" Which one is correct? Either way, it needs a citation specifically in the lead since it's quoted there WP:CITELEAD.
   • ...the so-called "Schwabenburg" (Swabian castle), the atelier of the painters Anton Braith and Christian Mali, from Biberach an der Riss. "So-called" is WP:ALLEGED. Please remove it.
   • Already in 1883, Eckenfelder had exhibited his Überschwemmung im Neckarthal (Flooding in the Neckar Valley) at the international art exhibition in the Glaspalast in Munich. Normally the first sentence in a paragraph serves as a topic sentence/introduction to the rest of the paragraph. The sentence I just quoted is the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Munich section but it has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is about the relationship between Eckenfelder and the prince but this sentence is about an exhibition in the Glaspalast. It would be more appropriate if this was moved to the fifth paragraph which talks about the rest of his exhibitions and sales throughout Germany. What is the difference between the press and the specialist press? If there is no difference, "specialist" is WP:PEACOCK. The prince regent took a lively interest in the artistic life of Munich... lively is also WP:PEACOCK. Just say "the press" or "The prince regent took interest..." Those sentences will have the same meaning without the puffery. ...[he] supported young artists not only financially, but also with the renown they entailed. What are you trying to say? What does this mean? How did the prince support someone with renown? English is my first language and I don’t even understand this? I hate to bring up plagiarism again, but sentences like these make me feel like it's a valid concern.
   • Works of this period include the types that are icons of his later paintings: horses in harness at rest, riding out or riding home, and the Zollernschloss. Please put in parenthesis "Zoller Castle" for people who don’t know what schloss means. Not everyone reading the article will be familiar with German.
   • There are about 30 full views of Balingen, plus in addition pictures of market scenes, individual houses—these clearly recognisable as commissions... "clearly" is WP:EDITORIAL.
   • "supernumeries" is spelled wrong (supernumeraries). Per WP:JARGON please explain this or replace it with a simple term.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   The formatting in the references section looks fine; however, please translate the quotes in the citations per WP:NONENG/MOS:FOREIGN. Concerning the sources section, I realize the GA criteria does not explicitly say there should be more than one source but I honestly think that's because this is obvious. The reason why I say this is because when you only use one source, you run the risk of the article sounding just like the one source you've used for information. I haven't read Schnerring's book at all but there are parts of the article that read like they’ve been translated verbatim from the book. This is why it’s better to use more than one source. When you use more than one source, it's more likely the article will sound like it’s in an editors own words—or in this case your words—and not like it has been closely paraphrased. I did a brief search on Google and found three sources: gallery on page 34, brief bio, another brief bio. I admit, they aren’t much but you could use these as references in the biography section at the very least. Note, the WP:BURDEN lies on the editor to provide references when challenged. This is policy.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The article is peppered with {{fact}} tags and I’ve found other sentences in the article that need citations. Again, the WP:BURDEN lies on the editor.

   • The entire first paragraph in the youth section has no citations. Citations are required for all the dates and facts presented.
   • In his late work, the motif of "ploughing horses with Balingen landscape background" emerges. If a sentence has a quote, it needs a citation.
   • Eckenfelder created well over a hundred variations on this theme. All statistics need citations.
   • Many of the foreground locations in which Eckenfelder's horses are seen ploughing, were enclosed and made into housing estates after the Second World War. Citation please.

   C. No original research:

   No original research that I can tell.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers life from birth to death. Talks about his work and how the themes in his paintings changed over time.

   B. Focused:

   The article stays focused on Eckenfelder for the most part but the following sentence went off-topic for me. Eckenfelder was the first private pupil of Heinrich von Zügel. [Zügel] was also a pupil of Hölder; their relationship was a "… mixture of teacher/pupil, friendship and father/son relationship.” Why does the relationship between Zügel and Hölder matter? What does this have to do with Eckenfelder? This either needs to be removed or put in a footnote like this for miscellaneous information.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I can’t really say if it’s neutral or not. I think relying on one source makes the article bias in an inadvertent way. How can the article be neutral when the whole thing is based on one book—the voice of one author. Perhaps I'm over thinking this.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No major changes from day to day.

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:

   The images are tagged but the fair use rationales for a few of them are not valid. I found three images (the main picture in the infobox, the picture of Elsa Martz, and the picture of two horses ploughing) that do not have a suitable copyright license because they are not in the public domain of the U.S. For this reason, they shouldn’t be used in the English language Wikipedia WP:NFCI. There may be other images in the article that are not in the public domain (U.S.) but I stopped checking after finding the third one. On a positive note, I really like the table in the works section that illustrates how Schnerring arranged Eckenfelder's paintings by category.

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

   The captions are suitable but I don’t understand why the panoramas and the pictures in the table don't have dates (the year)? All of the other images have dates.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article in its current state is a "fail". It meets #3 and possibly #6 on the list of quickfails. There are cleanup tags peppered throughout the article and a one-source banner at the top. Considering the 300+ backlog at GA, the basic grammar issues (missing periods, run-on sentences, comma splices), prose issues, missing citations, and copyright violations, everything in me says I should fail it. Against my better judgement, I’m going to put it "on hold" for a week instead to give you the opportunity to fix the issues just in case you’re able to. Should this article end up failing, I strongly suggest that you get a peer review before renominating. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 The seven-day hold period is over. Closing the review as "fail". // Gbern3 (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you finished with your review? Please read WP:GA, the top banner, how to close nominations. I am quite offended by your libels, so it is better to just close this page to avoid any future conflicts. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm finished with the review. Why are you offended? What libels? Are you referring to the points I brought up about close paraphrasing/plagiarism? I'll admit, I'm not that experienced when it comes to good article reviews. I volunteered to do this one to help with the backlog. Even with my inexperience, I do think the points I brought up were valid and I provided examples because I thought they would be helpful. I don't know why this offends you. I'm open to feedback. // Gbern3 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.--Tomcat (7) 20:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Gbern3, you did a good job with your review and you had the patience to point out the vast majority of the problems with the article. Your own review dealt with much of the concerns that I had about the writing . I'm glad to see that another careful editor was able to recognize such a difference as it paints a close parallel. I've brought the matter to DR as Tomcat7 has once again removed the valid tags in an attempt to cover up some of the more blatant concerns. He is has incorrectly cited material the page source as indicated in this diff, where he claims it is on page 18. [2] Tomcat7 has no idea of where the content is. And quite frankly I am appalled that Tomcat7 would make this up. Tomcat7, answer a question for me. Do you have the book, yes or no? You've never answered this question. How can you correct the errors when you do not have the source. If you did have the source, why are you giving the wrong pages and sections for the content in this book? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gbern did a quite libellous review, but I will forgive him. I don't have and need the book! User:Wuselig may help further, but after seeing your poor review I don't know if he wants to collaborate with me. Now answer me: Did you found more reliable, third-party sources apart from the biography? Please answer this as I did. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 11:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to assist in fixing this article. I have no requirement or need to provide additional sources. I noted where they could be according according to the name being mentioned, I doubt they are more then a passing reference, but if they are it could fix this article. As the nominator, you should be addressing it, while I as the previous reviewer, assist in helping you address it if I cannot. I have neither access to those works, but they do mention Friedrich by name at least once. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris for your compliments. I tried to be helpful. Tomcat, you never answered my question. What libels? That's quite an accusation. I want to know how you came to this conclusion considering I provided examples for all of my concerns. // Gbern3 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've placed the tags as relevant, you and I both agree about many of the concerns in the article. After noting Tomcat7 providing false inline citations I believe the section below is warranted. Please do not let this article throw you off GAN, I too was once deterred by such a review, but I support and have learned from your review. Though if I might point out something, I do not think inline citations are not required for every date specific event, but are encouraged. I would advise not failing it before a week has passed, as you see where that mess got me after putting it on hold. I'll be here to support and monitor improvements in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomkat, I dropped by today to remind you that the seven-day hold period ends tomorrow. You had a series of edits on the 16th but there hasn't been much activity concerning the prose, images, and references since then. If you want the article to obtain GA status, please make the appropriate changes. // Gbern3 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat, not Tomkat, and I won't talk with someone who teaches me basic English as if I were dumb. Learn how to properly speak, and I will reconsider.--Tomcat (7) 20:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No you won't. You haven't WP:LISTENed to anyone since this review began. Learn basic grammar, how to remove images with copyright problems, how to not closely paraphrase an author's work, and how to add inline citations. I'm done talking to you too and I'm closing this review as "fail" since you have not attempted to resolve even half of the issues that are wrong in the article. // Gbern3 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of the tags

Before removing any tag, the correction should be made, and I have made clear that I am challenging Tomcat7's sources as the previous citations added by Tomcat7 were false. As Tomcat7 does not have the source material, I am questioning the factual accuracy of these inline citations and I and another editor have expressed concerns about the close paraphrasing of the article from the book source. Even though translation, this is apparent and qualifies for that tag as such. I am not adding the 'paraphrasing' tag to every paragraph which warrants it. Though it is the majority of the article. According to disputes and WP:BURDEN the material can be challenged and removed, I am doing the interim step with the citation tags. This is to prevent axing a large part of the article. Contentious material must be sourced and all those under WP:LIKELY. As there is clear falsifying of page sources, I am replacing all those tags and marking the previous contentious material as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need in-line citation for every sentence, this is more than ridiculous. Also do not place banners at the top; instead discuss it here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, why do you want pages if everything is available in the only source? Does not make sense at all.--Tomcat (7) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to know the specific page in the book, this is for reference. This is common practice in academia, why? Because it helps combat plagiarism and let's the reader confirm that was is being stated is backed up by the sources. If that is not the case here then it should be done, sourcing correctly and factually is an integral part of the encyclopaedia anyone that can be easily abused. Instead of removing the tags you should be workingto fill them. F course every sentence doesn't need a citation, but contentious ones do. That is why pages are needed, it allows the reader to easily verify whether the claim is backed up bybthevsource, regardless of whether there is only one source. NapHit (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, inline citations are required for contentious claims. Let's start with the first paragraph. The prose states that Friedrich Eckenfelder is the second child born out of wedlock. Then when the third child is born the parents are married. He is a legitimate child by marriage at the age of 4. I think that every sentence is contentious ! The next is less, but still states he was discovered and given advanced training. Your source which you added was false the first time and your current source is not helpful, but that is another matter.

The second paragraph is even worse. He goes to live with his teacher and the teacher's friend, at the age of 14. That is not 'normal' to most people and should be cited. The part about Marie being 14 years his senior should be cited as it is going to become a problem soon enough. The next sentence is specific and should be cited out of principal. Though Maria becoming pregnant should be cited as this effectively states that a then-17 year old Friedrich and a then 31 year old Marie has sexual relations which resulted in a child. That should be sourced. The next sentence is about how the 'misstep' is concealed, and gives specifics and claims that Friedrich's son goes to Friedrich's parents. Then the one which does seemed properly sourced states that it is traumatizing to learn that the man he thought was his brother is in fact his father. Do I REALLY need to go on why the tags were valid? It is highly disruptive to remove such tags when you read the claims the sentences make. So yes, a cite for every sentence is not out of the question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You must eventually understand that I just translated this article; the main contributor is User:Wuselig, not me. And not every sentence needs an in-line citation, as clearly explained several times to you.--Tomcat (7) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot expect to get an article to GA status by just translating it and without even having access to a single source about the topic. A GA needs to be well researched, and it is entirely proper for a reviewer to react to that. This article is simply not GA material and you are not currently equipped to make it so. If the article was creasted by Wuselig and he has acces to the source then he should have nominated it not you. You can't nominate an article that you are not able/willing to improve through doing basic research. The article has problems with sourcing and the tags need to stay untill they are resolved. Every sentence that is challenged by another editor needs an inline citattion, and refusing to provide citations when requested is not helpful and will simply have to result in the material being removed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

3O request

3O Response: A third opinion was requested for this article, but there are already at least 4 editors involved in this discussion, so 3O is not an appropriate venue. If one or more of you still want outside opinions, try an RFC or the DRN. —Darkwind (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

comment

I saw this listed as a copyright problem. Personally, I doubt there are copyvio problems. This is a fairly rough but not purely mechanical translation from the deWP. acknowledged as such in the page history on August 20, 2012‎. There was discussion on the talk p of whether it was a copypaste--but it was not, for the complete history of the German version up to that time is in the page history. (And it is now indicated on this talk p also.) Any copyvio would therefore be in the German version, from the Schnerring book, but neither the translator nor any of the GA reviewers had a copy of the book; there's the equiv of a GA review on the talk p. of the deWP article, but nobody there raises the question of paraphrase. The challenge is based on a few phrases here that read too much like a book, but this can't be judged without actually seeing the suggested original and matching it against the deWP article. I see nothing obvious in the snippets. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)