Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/D)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not.

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)


  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the individual assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Individual reassessment" and paste in
    {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond. Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).

Good article reassessment

Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. From the article talk page, transclude the community assessment page as follows: Create a new section named "Community reassessment" and paste in
    {{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond. Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.
  7. During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 60) →

Articles needing possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageGAN review
Result pending

The killer I think is the history/operational history section. Iirc the entire desert shield/desert storm coverage is only one paragraph. The tags and banners are another issue. I think the banner can be dealt with by whitelisting those links as they're government links, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. I also have some issues with the prose, style, and some of the facts. For instance the gun program that produced the GAU-8 was separate from the A-10 program. One of three proposed guns were central to the design of the A-10. The flight competition was already over and fairchild was moving into production before the gau-8 was even chosen. Plus there are some sections that could see some expansion or improvement. Sometimes it's hard to tell how articles ever got high assessments in the first place.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: I've already patched up the Intro, which was the only really bad part of the article. The gulf war section certainly needs to be expanded, but again, that seems like a relatively easy fix. I think our time is better spent with the minor patches this needs than pondering previous editor's mental states. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article appears to be well cited and reasonably well written. The issues brought up in the reassessment appear to be something that could be fixed without delisting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no real fault in this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the article, thinking perhaps to close this reassessment, but there has been active editing to it over the past few months, and from what I see at the present time this article does not meet some of the GA criteria. Beyond the fact that there are several bare URLs, which falls short of the verifiability requirements, there are a number of places where it jarringly switches from past to future to past tense, notably in the Upgrades subsections, and it talks about events that were supposed to have been completed in years that are now in the past yet there is no update of the article to indicate that either the upgrade was successfully completed or that it has taken much longer to complete. (One example: the conversion from A-10A to A-10C.) There are also places where the prose is unclear, in part due to introducing unexplained terms. For example, in the "Production" subsection the use of "WS. 23" is confusing not merely because the term is not explained, but because it looks like the sentence ends after "WS." There are also two mentions of TUSK; the second is the one that explains the program as a 2016-announced modernization, and seems to contradict the earlier usage, which talks about initial fittings in 2011. There is also the occasional problematic sentence, such as at the end of the penultimate Hog-Up paragraph.

The thing about a reassessment is that issues brought up during it (such as in the initial post) can certainly be fixed during the course of the reassessment: the whole point here is to note an article's shortcomings and get it back to GA level. However, if these shortcomings vis a vis the GA criteria are pointed out and the article is not brought back into compliance, then the article is delisted. It isn't kept at a GA because it could be fixed, but only if it is fixed. TeeTylerToe, Maury Markowitz, K.e.coffman, can this article's current issues be fixed? It's certainly B-class even as is, and has a great deal going for it, but it needs some work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, before we proceed, are you aware of the history of this article prior to the listing here? If not, I'd suggest perusing the bottom half of the talk page and edit history circa April. You'll forgive me for saying that I believe this GAR is is the result of an attempt to take a talk-page dispute out-of-band when the editors there disagreed.
Now you have raised some actual issues, but honestly, they strike me as relatively minor. As such, if you can provide a bullet list, I would be happy to address them. But in the short term, I would do so only in the context of the talk page of the article, not in the context of this GAR, which I will now officially ask to be closed. I would have done so long ago if I had any inkling it was still open. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, I hadn't been aware of the history of the article, nor, for that matter, of TeeTylerToe's history—he's currently got over five months left of a six month block, and for what I can tell there was forum-shopping involved in that block. I would not be surprised if this GAR stemmed from the dispute you mention.
That said, I came here in good faith about six hours ago thinking to close this, and instead found genuine issues with the article that clearly need fixing. I've very sorry, but now that they've been identified, they'll have to be fixed within this context before this can close. I'm happy to leave it at the above list of issues, and if you're willing to fix them—I'm happy to help with the non-technical side of things—this will indeed be ready for closure as kept. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry BM, I didn't think your post was anything but GF. If you post the list I will be happy to address the issues - and have already started. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep, but fix up The bones of this article are certainly GA class and I'm not seeing a reason to delist. However, the article does need a tidy up. Some suggestions for this are:

  • To review and simplify the material on fatigue-related issues in the "Development" section: this material is too complex, and is written in language which isn't accessible to the average reader. The unformated url references are also obviously problematic, but are easily fixed.
  • The lengthy quotes in the "A-10C" section aren't the best way of presenting this information
  • "Critics have said" - who are these critics?
  • "and the F-35's rising costs" - I believe that the costs are now going down Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • These have been addressed or much improved upon. The costs text was adjusted to better match the source, which mainly compared the F-35's high cost to A-10's cost. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Those changes look good Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The intro's last paragraph needs more information on the future of the A-10, its been well established at this point that the plan insofar as the USAF is/was concerned is to replace the plane with the F-25, and its also been well established that there are several groups and many mission and financial related reasons as to why that move is seen as controversial. This should be touched on in all respects in the third intro paragraph (though I note that the entire debate over the matter should be covered to its fullest in its own section in the article). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Another editor added a sentence to the last paragraph of the lead to better cover the replacement situation and contentious of this. Does that seem to cover it fairly and adequately? Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Fnlayson, one problem I see there is that the potential end of life date given in the lead is 2028, and that's based on a 2007 source. A lot has occurred since then, including the wing-replacement program; the discussion about that program puts that (potential) ending date at 2035, and there's a comment from Boeing positing a 2040 date, though that's their opinion, not when the government might wind down the program. Can this be looked at, and the lead perhaps modified if appropriate? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remember the 2040 date is a very recent life estimate (early 2016) compared to the 2028 date. I changed to date in the Lead to list 2040 as that is the current estimate. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- is the section Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Operators needed in the article? This appears to be intricate detail and a WP:DIRECTORY of all units that use or have used the aircraft. I'm not sure what value it adds to the article. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That's fairly standard. A separate article could be justified though. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The Operators section is not that long compared to other military aircraft articles I've worked on. I can give some examples including GA articles, if interested. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues still needing to be addressed[edit]

Per the earlier discussion with Maury Markowitz, here are the issues I believe still need to be addressed in the article to return it to GA status, a number of which I've mentioned in less detail above. (I've not incorporated ones mentioned by others above, which should also be taken care of if they haven't been already.)

  • The Burton source at the end of the first sentence of paragraph 2 should include a page parameter. (This may need to split off from its other use at the beginning of Gulf War and Balkans, which may well use a different page from that same source.)
  • It's unfortunate that the opening sentence is identical to that of the fourth paragraph of source 42 (, and the sentence after it deals with the same Pave Penny upgrade in similar words. The article phrasing needs to be revised.
Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program[edit]
  • first paragraph: I'd add a wikilink for Grumman Aerospace [Corporation]
  • third paragraph: Three plans were explored, replacing all the wings with new ones was the cheapest, costing $741 million to implement, and $1.72 billion over the life of the program. What were the three plans? Only one of them is mentioned, and if you're going to mention that there were three, say what they were. Also, what is involved in implementing vs. the life of the program that runs a billion bucks?
  • fourth paragraph: this is frankly a jumble of facts, snippets, and hype, and doesn't quite add up. The contract awarding sentence should state how many the initial order (out of an apparent max of 242 wing sets) came to. Was the max eventually reached? Was the contract revised to order still more wing sets, and when does it expire? It could be made more clear (if this is what happened) that the first two wing sets from the June 2007 order were installed and in use in November 2011. The sentence Re-winging improves mission readiness, decreases maintenance costs, and allows the A-10 to be operated up to 2035. reads as if it comes from a sales brochure or a briefing book, and needs a complete rewrite into encyclopedic prose, if it's still accurate (this is the only instance of a 2035 date). The sentence This was organized under the thick-skin urgent spares kitting (TUSK) program. has unclear antecedents: I'd move the TUSK info earlier, and state specifically when it started for the A-10 (and if it isn't A-10A specific, when the A-10A was added to it).
Upgrades: A-10C[edit]
  • Earlier, it said a total of 715 A-10As were delivered. In the first paragraph here, it says the entire fleet of A-10As was upgraded to A-10Cs, and the total upgraded was 125. The natural conclusion is that 590 A-10As had been removed from service (or were destroyed) by this point, since otherwise they would have become A-10Cs. However, this contradicts the Design section's Modernization subsection, which opens by stating that The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant. Which is the correct number?
  • At the end of the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, the inline source (44) is a bare URL. Please fix this.
  • The bulk of the second paragraph is a quote that needs to be paraphrased. (Is this talking about the IFFCC that was mentioned at the end of the first paragraph? I wasn't sure. And there's probably too much detail in the quote.)
  • To start the third paragraph, why not say that the two helmet systems were considered, with Raytheon getting the contract? As it is, the after-the-fact mention of HMCS is like reopening an already-closed subject. (Or don't mention the unsuccessful system at all.)
  • Later in that paragraph, a Suite 8 upgrade is mentioned for the first time, but as being continued. This is the first mention of any Suite. For context, it makes sense to mention that there have been several suites of software upgrades, and that the AF planned to discontinue them, but Suite 8 was ordered to continue. However, this is sourced to a blog; what makes this blog a reliable source? (I note with interest that it quotes a general who gives the number of A-10s as 340 as of early 2014, based on a Defense News article.)
Design: Modernization[edit]
  • The opening sentence uses future tense. I thought all of the A-10A to A-10C upgrades were completed years ago, which argues for past tense. Please make sure this uses the correct tense.
Operational history: Future[edit]
  • Fourth paragraph: the use of "will" in the Retirement has been deferred sentence is surprisingly definite for a plane where future plans seem to change with a certain regularity. And the sentence Retirement has been deferred until 2022 when F-35s will begin replacing it on a squadron-by-squadron basis doesn't agree with what source 128 says, which is that the "final retirement" would be in 2022 (all planes retired); source 129 similarly gives the retirement as happening between 2018 and 2022. However, this is the Air Force's budget proposal, and congress has proved resistant to retiring the A-10 as early as the AF wants; is this still true? (Has that 2017 budget even been passed yet?) Given the available sourcing, I don't see how you can reliably go beyond something along the lines of "the Air Force's latest budget proposal envisions replacing the A-10 with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis, concluding with its full retirement in 2022".

That's what I've found that I believe needs updating for the article to be back at GA status. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I've been working to fix or address the issues above. Either the 125 upgrade was wrong or incorrectly worded. Jane's states some 300 were upgraded. But I have been unable to find the actual date for completion of the PE upgrade program to add to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I believe the issues brought up by User:BlueMoonset above have largely been addressed now. But I am going back through the article to verify. Any help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: I beleive the issues brought up here have been fixed or addressed now. Please close this months long review. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
    • G'day, I intend to close this review as "keep" as it appears that the issues raised have been dealt with. @BlueMoonset: can you please let me know if you are happy that your concerns have been addressed? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
      • AustralianRupert, thanks for asking. I just checked through all the sections of my review, and a number of issues have not yet been dealt with, so I would not be happy with this being closed until they are either fixed or a reasonable explanation of why they do not need to be is proffered. In particular:
        • Upgrades: HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program: none of the comments regarding the problematic fourth paragraph appear to have been addressed, and I was unusually blunt in my assessment of the issues I found. This clearly needs work, and is far from the GA "clear and concise" standard.
        • Upgrades: A-10C: source 44 remains a bare URL and still needs fixing; now that the old second paragraph has been removed, the Suite 8 issues in what is the new second paragraph still remain, and the prose needs a bit of work as well. This new paragraph seems to be a combination of three projects that do not go together at all well. I'm still wondering how we get from software (Suite 8) to a removing a pylon that had housed Pave Penny (hardware).
        • Operational history: Future: while the fourth paragraph has changed "will" to "are to", which is an improvement, my point about the sources saying that the retirement was scheduled to take place between 2018 and 2022 seems to have been ignored, and it still says that the retirement is to begin in 2022. Either some new sources are needed if events have overtaken the old ones, or the article needs to better reflect its existing source material.
Until these are addressed, I don't see how this review can come to a valid "keep" conclusion and close. I'd love for this reassessment to be done, but we're not there yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the update. I will be going away on holidays as of about 36 hours from now, so if the issues aren't dealt with by then, I will just come back and review sometime around 31 Dec or so and see where we are at. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz, Nick-D, Iazyges, Sturmvogel 66, and Peacemaker67: Pinging a bunch of editors who have either commented here, or who have experience with aircraft articles. This review has been dragging on for quite awhile. Is anyone able to address these final points? I'd help if I could, but frankly box kites confuse me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I had a crack at trying to address the issues, but doubt I was successful. Please feel free to revert if my changes aren't helpful. These are my edits: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I took a crack as well. I believe I improved the portion to do with the wing procurement, information was a little confusing but I think I figured it out. Boeing was awarded a contract for X wings, with options up to Y. The reason the wings were ordered was so they wouldn't need to expand the SLEP program. I am not 100% sure if that means every wing has been refurbished, therefore the program doesn't need to exist anymore? That would be my guess, but I never saw it explicitly written out. Let me know if I am reading these articles wrong, I added a new source that clarified the options better. Kees08 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What else specifically needs fixed and looked at? Can we get a checklist going below? Kees08 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question. The issues pointed by BlueMoonset just above have been worked and seem to be addressed now. This seems like beating a dead horse, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. This is somewhat of a small thing...but I have no idea what "loiter time" is. I think I know, but am not certain and the concept sure seems to be important regarding the development of this aircraft and so is part of why this aircraft is notable. But the term is not defined or Wikilinked and I am thinking I might not be the only reader who wouldn't know - so a defitnion or note or Wikilink should be added. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The general term Loitering seems common, but the Loiter (aeronautics) link was added to be sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: all the issues I and others have raised seem to have been addressed. I don't see that there's any reason to keep this reassessment open unless further issues are noted. We need an uninvolved editor to evaluate whether this is ready to be closed; pinging Wizardman to see whether he'd be willing to be that potential closer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

William L. Uanna[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I've commenced this reassessment because

1. The article fails GA Criteria No. 3 by focusing in excessive detail on non-notable and trivial biographical details, with insufficient attention - only one paragraph - on the primary reason for Uanna's notability, his role as security officer in the Manhattan Project, for which he was a subject of a number of movie portrayals and extensive mentions in secondary sources oddly not utilized in the preparation of this article. The article fails WP:UNDUE by failing to give appropriate weight to this aspect of his life. I would template for undue emphasis but I am not sure it's appropriate while this GA review is pending.

2. The article has been a subject of edit warring by a COI editor, is unstable and is tagged for major issues: excess reliance on primary sources and COI, as it was created by and was principally edited until a few days ago by a self-described connected editor, the son of the subject. More than four out of ten edits to the article were by the COI editor, more than any other editor. Because of these serious issues it fails GA Criteria No. 5 and meets criteria No. 3 for immediate failure. (Note also removal of "resume" cleanup tag after commencement of this review [2] by an involved editor. I believe this tag should not have been removed.)

3. It rather blatantly fails GA Criteria No. 2, "Verifiable with no original research." The majority of footnotes are to original research uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject.

There are problems with the following references:

  • 1. "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • 2. "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Retrieved September 3, 2015.
  • 6, 7, 8. pages from Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons.
  • 9. "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments U.S. Army Enlistment Record. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • 10. (six footnotes) "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia. March 31, 1947.
  • 13. "Bud Uanna AEC FBI Armed Forces Special Weapons Project V.P. Keay to D.M. Ladd". February 2, 1948.
  • 14. "Bud Uanna Armed Forces Special Weapons Project requesting investigations for personnel that will maintain the Atomic Bombs and the facilities where they are stored". July 1, 1949.
  • 17. Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 5.

Except for the first Ancestry link, which goes to user-created content, and the second Ancestry link, which goes to a census page, the remainder go to self-published primary source material uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject. WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources must be "reputably published" and this is self-published original research.

--Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (revised 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

Primary sources are permitted to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The upload to Commons is merely to make it easier for us to collaborate and verify the source. The documents are all available through NARA. There is no question about their authenticity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
They also have to be "reputably published." The COI editor's word processor is not a reputable publisher. NARA isn't a reputable publisher, it is a document repository where people go and request material via the FOI act in the course of their original research. And surely you're not suggesting that NARA documents are verifiable because you or I can file an FOI request, pay some bucks, and then wait a year or two for compliance? You're not seriously suggesting that I hope? Commons is not a reputable publisher, it is a conduit for any member of the public who wants to upload stuff. What we're talking about here is OR that he's put on Commons and that you've allowed to source the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
NARA is a reputable publisher. Publication is defined as being made available to the public. I have spent a lot of time there, and you don't need an FOI request for material more than 30 years old. The documents are not being published by Commons, just being made easier for us to verify them. Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource were established precisely for this purpose! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think we can accept that every government agency is a publisher because it makes documents available to the public. By using primary source materials to such a massive extent, you've deep-dived into his career to an almost absurd extent, with intricate details that really belong on a personal website. He is notable primarily for his work on the Manhattan Project, and there is all of one paragraph on that. That is what happens when a COI editor dominates the editing of an article and pours the product of his original research into the article. Come to think of it, that is actually a somewhat more serious issue than even the sourcing and I've added it above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I have written over 200 biographical articles, and this is their nature. Most are famous for one thing but it was only a small part of their life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A Google Books search for Uanna shows two books on the Manhattan Project, both of which contain much interesting material on Uanna related to his work on the Project. I find it odd to say the least that neither of these books is utilized in the preparation of this article. I would urge that you remove the excessive details that you have on his various duties and functions and focus on his work for the notable atomic bomb project, so that the latter is given proper weight. Since apparently it did not much interest the COI editor it got short shrift. This article is little more than a memorial website with great masses of trivial material, and I do not understand why it is so when there is source material to prevent that from occurring. With all due respect, I simply at a loss to understand why you leaned so heavily on the COI editor's hand-picked primary sources on minor details of his life, when there were not one but two perfectly usable secondary sources that delved into the most notable aspect of Uanna's career. The fact that you've done 200 bios just makes me even more mystified. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The Manhattan Project has its own article, which I improved and took to FAC. Running the search myself turns up mentions of Uanna in several books about the atomic bombing mission, including Harlow Russ' Project Alberta, Paul Tibbets' Tibbets Story and Leslie Groves' Now It Can Be Told. More interestingly, Advanced Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Operations talks about his establishment of the Q Clearance, and four books mention his movie and television portrayals, notably Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. This establishes his notability; but readers do not come to the article to find out about the Manhattan Project; they come to find out about Uanna. To be comprehensive, a biographical article needs to cover the biographical details, and the article does that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Uh yeah, I imagine the Manhattan Project would have its own article. The fact that you don't see a problem in the little in this article on Uanna's role in that project is less than startling at this point. And by the way, I assume that he is in that "military images in film" book because of his work on the Manhattan Project, which is now given far less attention in this article than is warranted by WP:UNDUE. It really deserves a maintenance tag for that, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so while this is pending. I don't believe that it is in the "nature" of biographies to underweight major aspects of a subject's life. If there are multiple books on the project with references to Uanna, not just the two that turned up on the first page of the search, than the underweighting is even more inexcusable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist In addition to the given reasons, reads like a resume. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    WP:GAR requires you to be logged in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    No, afraid not. See talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (after tweaks): overall, the article seems to conform with what I would expect of a biography, having seen a few come through ACR and FAC. Remember we are telling the whole story of the man's life, so we need to be careful not to overload the article with too much detail on one aspect (remember also he was a pretty junior officer at the time, too). I would like to see a few tweaks, though, for instance:
    • some more references to secondary sources if possible;
    • references added to the Film portrayals section;
    • the imaging/description pages need work. For instance, "File:Bud Uanna State Department 3jpg.jpg" should include the date of when it was taken, not when it was uploaded or scanned. Same same with "File:Bud Uanna State Department 1jpg.jpg", and "File:Bud Uanna War 3jpg.jpg" and "File:Bud Uanna State Department 2jpg.jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I have made the suggested changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I hope that we can cut back on some of the material in the overlong postwar section. Were it not for the primary sourcing it would not be in the article, and I think it overweights, though not so dramatically as to warrant a tag at least in my opinion. Building up the section further as has been done recently makes this problem worse. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist. Traveling now so don't really have the opportunity to go into enormous detail, but I agree with Core's analysis. For some time I have been troubled by the COI editor's dominance of this article, and I agree that his influence has resulted in a ridiculous situation. Uanna is notable for his work at the Manhattan Project, where he was security chief. I agree, we don't want the entire article on that. But just a couple of sentences? Ridiculous. It is barely mentioned in this article at all! I am guilty as any for not previously even noticing that. Primary sources are overused, to be sure. That is a problem. The fact that there is insufficient material on the Manhattan Project to warrant a separate section is indicative of the extent to which this article fails to properly cover the subject. So I therefore agree that it must be delisted and I frankly am surprised that other editors fail to recognize this serious flaw, which clearly indicates a lack of broad coverage required for GA status. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps because the GA "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps if persons other than fellow Military History Project coordinators commented on this article we might get a less self-serving view of the article's obvious imbalance. I would be curious to see the views of editors who perhaps are less steeped in the minutae to which this article is over-dedicated, to the detriment of material that would interest the general reader. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is well-written, well-sourced, broadly covers the topic and is illustrated by appropriate images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    I have added some more material on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    I am glad to see this, and the text that you added is interesting and useful. In my opinion this section needs to be fleshed out fully so that it receives its proper emphasis in the article. Obviously managing the security for the atomic bomb squadron is far more notable than anything else he may have done in his life. The article as currently written unfortunately is bogged down in trivia still, largely due to an overreliance on primary source material on secondary aspects of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - for now at least. While I agree that there have been some valid concerns raised per Coretheapple's commentary above and Figureofnine, it seems to me that much of it has been addressed by a number of editors working in good faith to improve the article. At any rate GAs are not meant to be perfect, and this one does seem to be adequate enough to not warrant delisting, while further improvements can of course continue to be made. FWIW the article seems to cover the individual's life as a whole, which is what I'd expect from a biography, so I'd actually be concerned about UNDUE if it mainly focused on his involvement in the Manhattan project. Finally, if the COI issues were to reappear and become persistent then that might change the equation but at this stage it seems to be being managed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The amount of material on the Manhattan Project was expanded sufficiently in my opinion to warrant removal of the undue weight tag. I am afraid that the other tags do point to issues in the article that unfortunately remain, and the Manhattan Project section definitely can be expanded perhaps into subsections too. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This is the type of nonsense that has kept this article a mishmash of trivia. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with User:AustralianRupert. The article conforms to what a Wikipedia biography should consists of, and I also agree that it is along the lines (in terms of similarity of content) compared to other Wikipedia bios. However, I feel like the "Film portrayals" section should be expanded (and could be expanded). The Above and Beyond "sort-of" statements should follow each portrayal; including with films Hiroshima and Enola Gay: The Men, the Mission, the Atomic Bomb. Most of what brought this article to the reassessment discussion has been handled, so I don't see the need to delist it, especially now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC).
  • Comment: I was invited to participate in the discussion by Figureofnine on my Talk page. While going through the article, I noticed that I relies to a large extent on primary source. Would this not be a concern for a GA article? Since it seems to suggest that the material being cited has not been noted by secondary sources, and thus could be not important and indeed unneeded intricate detail. There are close to 40 citations to such primary sources:
    • "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Retrieved October 22, 2013.
    • "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Retrieved September 3, 2015.
    • "Tufts Quarterback is Due Back Today". Lowell Sun. October 18, 1932. p. 38. Retrieved October 22, 2013. (subscription required (help)).
    • "NCAA 1931" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
    • a b c d e f g h i j k l "Security is his Job – William Lewis Uanna". The New York Times. July 26, 1958. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
    • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 1.
    • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 2.
    • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 4.
    • "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments, U.S. Army Enlistment Record. U.S. Army. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
    • a b c d e f g "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia Commons. March 31, 1947.
    • a b c d e f g h "Short Biographical Sketch of William Uanna". Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Newspaper articles are not primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Newspapers are down there on the list of RS unless written as an investigative report by a notable writer. Regardless, this still leaves about 30 citations to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist: the article is not stable (subject to some edit warring) and some of the sources are problematic (heavy reliance on primary sources, indicating that the details cited may not be important). I'm sure the article can be improved and be re-nominated for GA in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The point about edit warring is correct. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone stop editing the article until the review is over. Bold editing is not the way to go here. It is clear that there are pretty entrenched differences of opinion, so the only way to move forward is to wait for a few other opinions to swing the consensus either way (to delist or not) and then accept it (whatever the outcome) and move on. The best way to achieve this may be a Request for Comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The reasons have been well-established by the other keep reviewers. There is also some rather odd stuff going on here with some of the contributors to the review. Editors shouldn't be being BOLD while the review is ongoing, as that automatically affects the stability criteria and shows a distinct lack of respect for our processes. K.e.coffman once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notability policy and its application, comprehensiveness, the parameters of reliability, and the proper use of primary sources in articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The absence of a Manhattan Project segment or barely a mention of that, a principal flaw and reason this reassessment was started, was rectified during the course of the reassessment. There are other flaws: primary sources, unencyclopedic detail, which has resulted in extensive instability in this article. Indeed, instability in the form of editing warring over trivia was the proximate cause of the ANI. The article is being improved and is halfway toward the goal of not being a personal website containing family nostalgia and patently nonessential material, like the reading matter of the subject of the article while studying up for a non-notable aspect of his career. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It is worth noting that Uanna's Who's Who entry merely notes that he served in the Army during World War II. So that source considered him notable for his other work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe Who's Who in America entries are written by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that this article has been greatly improved since I commenced this GAR. References to the Manhattan Project have gone from nil to an entire section. The article still relies excessively on primary sources, which appear to be fragments of larger documents uploaded piecemeal to Commons. Though most trivia has been removed, there is still an overambundance of intricate detail. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a well-written article about a significant individual. It seems like it was tagged mainly for using primary sources, but there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for basic information. There is a featured article on [Altgens] that also uses lots of primary sources for the same type of information.Homemade Pencils (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Note The above !vote is from an effectively new user and is clearly not based on the GA criteria, as well as apparently indicating not having read the OP's delisting rationale, which focused largely on GAC#3. This is not, technically, a case where Template:Single-purpose account can be invoked, but this user's edits to the Wikipedia namespace have almost uniformly been disruptive and should probably be evaluated on that basis. Their edits to other namespaces have almost all been minor, which makes it look like a troll attempting to cover their tracks by making a lot of kinda-sorta constructive edits but focusing most of their efforts on !voting against community consensus. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
None of my edits have been disruptive. The reasons for delisting this article are simply flawed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then you don't need to say anything.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am troubled by the usage of primary documents:
  1. What confirmation do we have that Uanna himself is the writer of the Foreign Service essay, used for Ref 6, 7, 8, and 23? Was it ever published anywhere? Why was it written?
  2. What is the provenance of the FBI background check document on William Lewis Uanna? It's used to source 6 different statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

David Meerman Scott[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This community reassessment is being started because an individual reassessment had been started in July 2013 by EBY3221 that was never closed (or contributed to beyond the following day), but raised some cogent issues that I think need to be examined. The article's primary author, Woz2, became a Vanished User in June 2014, and EBY3221 was indefinitely blocked for COI/undisclosed paid editing in September 2015.

The main issues had to do with the sheer amount of primary sourcing, from Scott's own websites, companies that presented his webinars, or his publishers. The article is quite positive—there don't seem to be any equivocal or negative comments about any of Scott's books or talks, which seems to violate the neutrality criterion. The lead had five of six source citations directly to Scott's material; it's now up to six of eight, with the other two being related press releases: all primary sources, all laudatory information. This raises verifiability issues.

Other issues, both from the previous GAR and from my own observations:

  • The lead contains information, primarily in the second paragraph, that does not appear in the body of the article. There shouldn't be anything significant in the lead without it also being in the body per WP:LEAD, another GA criterion. Examples include the book being "inspired by an accidental discovery" and another by being a bond trader.
  • The "Early life" section is misnamed, since it goes up until he was 41 years old, and doesn't start until he graduated from college. It seems to be about his education and corporate career, before he was let go from Thomson. The third paragraph, starting and ending "he says", should be paraphrased and condensed; this is not a magazine article interview, and it's also self-sourced.
  • The article hasn't been updated much since late 2011, so statements such as how many keynote speeches he gives per year are probably out of date and need more recent sourcing and revised wording.
  • The Books subsection could use some reorganization; it's sometimes unclear which book is being talked about; EBY3221 suggests a subheading for each of Scott's significant books.

This should be enough for editors to start working on, and for the community to consider during this reassessment. Many thanks for your contributions. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to use instead of the primary ones viz. Wikipedia Reliable Sources search but the extensive redo envisioned here would take more time than I have right now. What is the time frame for these reviews? Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 11:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
SageGreenRider, these community reassessments typically take a month or longer. If you can take on updates over the longer term that would be great; if not, then it depends how long it takes for a consensus to develop on the article vis a vis the GA criteria. Thank you for considering undertaking addressing the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
OK great. I can get to it weekend after next probably. Talk to SageGreenRider 10:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to this yet. I did find a bunch of sources that I'll try to add this weekend:

Five Questions about Newsjacking with David Meerman Scott

Using Ungated Content to Drive Outstanding Marketing Performance

Has the term ‘newsjacking’ damaged the PR industry? - this is the only negative one I found - it will help fix the NPOV objection

David Meerman Scott: The New Age Of Sales And Customer Service

People I'm Grateful for #4: David Meerman Scott

'Marketing the Moon' examines Apollo program as one giant leap for marketing kind

Concert ‘Merch’ Comes of Age

Preeminent Book on Marketing and PR Gets an Update

Marketing Lessons From the Presidential Election

How 5 Influential Leaders Keep Their Sales Forecasts Laser-Accurate

Two Colorful Infographic Wheels Used to Track the Apollo Missions

Got a book in you? Self-publishing could be your best bet

Apollo Lunar Program A Big Marketing Success, Book Says


Free art: blessing or curse?

How NASA Sold Us The Moon

Mad Men in space: the ads that sold NASA's golden age

The Anatomy of a Great Content Strategy


Nasa's Mad Men: How the agency sold the Apollo missions to the public and inspired a golden age of space exploration

Independence Day Special: Here's how newsjacking looked like in 1947

How to Launch a Viral Marketing Campaign

With Twitter wit, CIA tries to shed staid public image (+video)

Save Big Bird! Will Romney’s Threats Wind Up Boosting PBS Fundraising?


Talk to SageGreenRider 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delist: Unfortunately, it has been a month since the list of sources was posted here, and no edits have yet been done to the article. All of the issues enumerated above remain true. If these issues are eventually addressed, I will reconsider my recommendation. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist -- I had a look and the article is in a bad state; it's promotional and suffers from the use primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I reorganized the book section per the suggestion above and added some of the third party cites. Please take another look and give me some feedback? Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is still too promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist.
  1. Most of the trees [refs] are to Press releases and are therefore not sources independent of the subject.
  2. and WebInkNow are both Scott's websites.
  3. Ref 41 is dead,
  4. Ref 11 implies it is a direct quote from Scott but it is instead a 2011 Tweet from Colin Warwick.
  5. Ref 17: Ok. AdAge 150 is a daily ranking and it is waaaay out of date. Frankly who cares that a blog/website was in a daily Top 150 10 years ago? and the sentence in the article says that the blog is in the Top 150. No. Not so. the statement should be stricken from the article along with the outdated source.
  6. Image problems - the source of some of the images lead to WebInkNow but the trail goes cold there since apparently the internal URLs have changed.
  7. The fact that Scott's book The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly is a present best-seller on Amazon and that fact indicates he is notable, but the present state of the article does not prove that notability.
  • If I were giving this article a first-time review for possible GA status, I would quick-fail it for its many referencing issues and for its promotional tone. Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, most of those are actionable, except for "promotional tone" which isn't obvious to me. Can you point to specific passages? Also I'm not sure what you mean by "most of the trees are to press releases." Can you be more specific? Last question, from the list of sources above that have not yet been included in the article, are there any that you would consider more worthy than the ones that are there now? (PS I'll work on the issues you mention this weekend hopefully.) Thanks again. Talk to SageGreenRider 15:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Promotional tone
@SageGreenRider: Ok. The article does not read like an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, it reads like a press release. Here are a few examples:
  • "However, the idea was too radical..." Really? Who said so? Oh, looks like the subject said so, not an independent source.
  • "such as the David Scott who walked on the moon as the commander of Apollo 15 (and whom he has met)" extraneous trivia, that is, again, sourced to the subject. Frankly, who cares? Content about who the subject has met is trivial, it demeans the importance of the subject if their article has content like this.
  • "Scott is the author of a blog, Web Ink Now, which was ranked in the now defunct AdAge Power 150 as one of the top marketing blogs." This is a mischaracterization of the AdAge content. The blog was listed as a Top 150. For one day. Ten years ago. This is trivia, unless the blog was named as a Top 150 of the year or something like that. Also, anyone and everyone has a blog now...having a blog does not seem like a bullet-point on one's resume that is important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article.
  • ybcTV is a press-release created platform, the contents generated by this firm is not news from an independent source, it is paid-for and is therefore not a reliable source and yet is it being used as a reference.
  • "To promote this book Scott created several videos including one evocative of the joyous Matt Harding Where is Matt? series[45] and a series of three[46][47][48] in the workplace mockumentary style of both Ricky Gervais's The Office and the Art of the Sale videos.[49]"
Really? who said it was "reminiscent of...?" and who said it was "in the style of...?" Those two assessments are not in the cited sources, those are characterizations I would suppose from the subject himself.
  • The only evidence one can find about "In 2015, Robert Stone announced that a documentary film entitled A Place Beyond the Sky, based in part on Scott's book Marketing the Moon, is in production. The film is currently in post-production and is slated for completion in 2018.[41]" is Stone's own press release. There is nothing in any of the trades about the documentary, nothing on IMdb about it...actually, I couldn't find a thing about it in any other source other than the press release on Stone's own website...this project has a little bit too much of a WP:CRYSTAL in it to be included in this article and should be deleted.
  • Non-encyclopedic... How about the fact that the pronoun "he" is used 9 times in the "Education and career" section. Combine a few sentences, use his last name, do something to avoid the redundant use of's very jarring and slightly juvenile.
  • What is up with the books getting individual sections and the main Books section being a single sentence fragment ending in a colon. So ALL of those book paragraphs, those seven sections about the books, are subordinate clauses to "Scott is the author of ten books:"? I am sure this usage is against some kind of WP:MOS subsection but don't want to try to look it up at the moment. If you want to get an idea of what this article should be striving for, take a look at some of the Featured article biographies on businesspeople like Finn M. W. Caspersen. Yes, I understand it's an FA and not a GA, but read it for the tone. A Featured article has the proper tone - *that* is what you should be thinking of when you work on a biographical article in Wikipedia.
This article needs to drastically pruned-down. No one is saying that it should be deleted, Scott is clearly notable especially because of his one book being a consistent best-seller but in its present state this article is not a Good article. At this point, the discussion has been going on since August 2016...that's four months. 3 editors have stated that the article should be delisted - 1 in October 2016, 1 in December 2016 and 1 in January 2017... the issues are still there, they haven't been fixed since the first statement on this page (which dates back to even farther - August 2016). In my opinion the article should be delisted to a C, completely rewritten, and then given a new GA Review. If I came upon this article in its present state and it was nom'ed for a GA, I would Quick Fail it for its many referencing issues and for its tone. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll work on it this weekend. Sorry to have so many questions, but what does "delisted to a C" mean? i.e. what is a "C"? Talk to SageGreenRider 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Shearonink: I think I've addressed most of the issues. Could you please take another look? Talk to SageGreenRider 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe I've addressed all of the objections above. Note to closer: This is the only !vote that is based on the current version. Pls ping the other folks to get an updated !vote. Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- confirming my "delist" iVote. The article is still highly promotional with many self-citations. For example, the lead includes this passage (all cited to Scott):
  • The book's core message is that creating useful content oneself is consistently more effective than expensive professional public relations programs. Subsequent books draw from his experience as a real-time bond trader,[1] and his observations about innovative marketing by organizations as diverse as IBM[2] and the rock band The Grateful Dead.[3]


  1. ^ Scott, David Meerman (2010). Real-Time Marketing and PR: How to Instantly Engage Your Market, Connect With Your Customers, and Create Products that Grow Your Business Now. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-64595-6. 
  2. ^ New Rules of Marketing & PR, also by Scott
  3. ^ David Meerman Scott; Brian Halligan (2010). Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead: What Every Business Can Learn from the Most Iconic Band in History. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN 0-470-90052-0. 
K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the above passage as self-cited and promotional. However, the rest of the lead has similar issues, being cited to press releases or otherwise non-independent coverage:
  • American online marketing strategist,[1] speaker, and author of several books on marketing, most notably The New Rules of Marketing and PR with over 350,000 copies in print in more than 25 languages.[2][3]


  1. ^ Willaman, Mark (July 10, 2007). "Thought-leader David Meerman Scott Headlines July Webinar Showing HR suppliers How to Target Buyers". Retrieved May 10, 2009. 
  2. ^ "Books by David Meerman Scott". Retrieved 2017-01-15. 350,000 copies sold in English 
  3. ^ "With A Quarter Million Copies Sold, David Meerman Scott Releases Third Edition of his Modern Business Classic, The New Rules of Marketing & PR" (Press release). Retrieved July 12, 2013. 
If I continue, there will be nothing left :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I count 36 third-party refs including Forbes, WSJ, Boston Globe, Sydney Morning Herald... , so the article has considerable substance. I'll work on the lead this coming weekend. Talk to SageGreenRider 14:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ABOUTSELF reads in part Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities... followed by some conditions. So I think some of the deletions are not justified. ... But out of an abundance of caution I removed the material from the lead and have not reverted the deletions by others. Talk to SageGreenRider 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Joachim Helbig[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending


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

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; please see sample of Berger's work The Face of Courage
  • 2 citations to Helden der Wehrmacht – Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten ["Heroes of the Wehrmacht – Immortal German soldiers"], mentioned in Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 as being offered alongside such book as "KZ-Lies" and "Wehrmacht as Liberator"

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. 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.[6][7]


  1. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 47.
  2. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 44.
  3. ^ Berger 1999, p. 120.
  4. ^ Schumann 2007, p. 80.
  5. ^ Taghon 2004a, pp. 22, 23.
  6. ^ Kurowski 1996, p. 48.
  7. ^ Taghon (2004b), p. 11.

These sources are not in line with the WP:MILMOS#SOURCES guidelines 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)

Initial discussion[edit]

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)

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)
@Roches: G'day, can you please highlight areas of the Defense of the Reich section that are not neutral? Is it the wording that you think is problematic, or the events that are covered? If it is wording, I can try to help, but otherwise this isn't a topic I have expertise in, or sources for, so I am hoping that the article's main contributor, @MisterBee1966: might be able to address your concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Procedure note: I assume you gentlemen have given notice to the original GA reviewer - Auntieruth55. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I posted a notification to the MilHist Talk page (link), but I see that I did not include the article name in the title, so it was not obvious which article was being reassessed.
Good idea on a separate notice. I will notify the GA reviewer, plus others who took part in the peer & A-class reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments/suggestions from AustralianRupert: G'day, I have the following comments and suggestions focused upon hopefully improving the article so that it can be kept as a GA class article (I will try to help where I can): AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • in the lead Gross register tonnage is over linked, as are Hauptmann, Oberfeldwebel, Heraklion, Leutnant, Lehrgeschwader 1, and Generalfeldmarschall in the rest of the article
  • "...while on a recon mission over Poland, Helbig shot down a Polish reconnaissance aircraft". Probably best to clarify that this was with one of the aircraft's defensive machine guns.
  • where possible I would like to see other sources used to corroborate Kurowski and Berge etc, but if it is not possible I suggest using in text attribution more to distance Wikipedia's voice from these sources, but if they could be pared down to a minimum I think it would be ok to keep with proper attribution etc.
  • In addition to the point above, I think some discussion of Kurowski's (and potentially the other sources) work should be mentioned in the article with some of the academic commentary being included (if the works remain as citations). This could possibly be put in the final section of prose, e.g. "Much of the detail about Helbig's military career comes from the work of Franz Kurowski... In characterising Kurowski's work, academic.... (and so on)..." A short sentence in the lead could also possibly be added.
  • " In defense of the Allied landings in Algeria and Tunisia..." Probably should be "In opposition to the Allied landings in Algeria and Tunisia..."
  • the lead mentions that he was banned from further combat duties after receiving the Oak Leaves and Swords, but I don't think this is mentioned in the body of the article;
  • "enemy" where possible should be changed to a different pro noun, e.g. "Allied", or "British", or "US" where it is known exactly who he was fighting
  • there is a mixture of US and British English variatio nthat should be rectified (e.g. "defence" and "defense" - a thorough check should be done as these might not be the only two instances)
  • I think that the headings would potentially be better as all second level, with the first "Military career" heading probably be better if styled as "Early life", while the "In defense of the Reich" header could be have "and later life" added
  • inconsistent citation styles, e.g. "Williamson 2004, p. 46." v. Taghon (2004b), p. 12." Not necessarily a GA criterion, but could be fixed within the context of this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "headed for quadrant 6450/23 East..." the article probably doesn't need this level of specific detail as the lay person won't understand it. A generic description would suffice, e.g. "headed to attack an Allied convoy 200 miles to the north-east of Malta" (I have just made up these details to illustrate my point, please don't use these descriptions and distances etc).
  • "armed reconnaissance patrol in the sea area south of Crete on..." --> "armed reconnaissance patrol over the sea south of Crete..."
  • OVERCITE: I'm generally not too concerned by this, but some sentences have three citations at the end. Potentially a bundled citation style might work better here, e.g. <ref>Smith 1998, p. 1; Jones 2004, p. 61; Kafoops 2013, p. 111.</ref>. If this was adopted, it would need to be consistent throughout.
  • Comment -- I don't believe the above (keeping Kurowski et al & adding a discussion section) is a workable solution, for two reasons:
  1. If these sources are kept, then the article would not be in compliance with the GA requirement that "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". Kurowski's citations are from Luftwaffe Aces. If Panzer Aces (which I've seen: sample) is any indication, then it's mostly historical fiction, and Wikipedia does not source articles to fictional accounts.
  2. The proposed section discussing sources (I believe) is intended to be similar to "In popular culture" section at Wolfgang Lüth. This section is included because Kurowski's hagiography of Lüth was covered by a secondary source (Hadley). Kurowski wrote over 400 books, so it seems highly unlikely that Kurowski's discussion of Helbig would covered in any secondary sources. If the editors were to include such a section based on their personal experience, then it would most likely be editorialising or synthesis, not sure which, but this does not sound right to me.
Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I am not willing to condemn wholesale any book published by VDM Heinz Nickel. I own the Taghon books cited in the article and they're not pro-Nazi in any way, although I cannot speak to any other books published by them. However, I cannot support the self-published book by Berger without looking at it to see his sourcing and I honestly don't care to invest the time to try a track down a copy. I'll cross-check the Kurowski cites against Taghon and other English-language source and have already deleted one bit that cannot be supported. More will follow. KC winners are not an interest of mine and I cannot validate anything to do with award dates, etc. Even with replacement cites added from Scherzer, etc., I'm afraid that the article will still fail the GA criteria after I'm done trimming the extraneous material and the non-RS citations. Especially if no one has access to Schumann or some other source to replace the info from Berger. Remember, though, the goal of a GAR is to fix the issues if at all possible, not to simply delist it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the input on Taghon. I added Helden der Wehrmacht to the list of problematic sources, along with a sample from Berger's The Face of Courage. Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, just to clarify, what is the issue with the Berger work? From the link provided above ([3]), it doesn't seem to be self published, as it appears to have been published by J.J Fedorowicz and then reprinted by Stackpole Books, which appear to be Canadian and US publishers. Am I missing something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the fact that the Berger book cited here is self-published is almost irrelevant since we've now seen that he is a published author with a mainstream press. So I think that Berger just moved from non-RS to RS with the usual caveats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I do not necessarily agree that the sample provided signifies that Berger is RS, for two reasons:
  1. I provided the English-language sample as a means to show that his works are hagiographic and uncritical accounts of highly decorated German soldiers of WWII. Both Kurowski and Berger have been published by Fedorowitz and Stackpole, and that does not make them RS.
  2. The work that is being cited in the article is Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges ["With Oak Leaves and Swords. The Highest Decorated Soldiers of the Second World War"], which was printed via Selbstverlag Florian Berger, meaning "Self-published by Florian Berger" (this book was not reprinted in English, as far as I know). Some more context on Berger is in a 2013 MilHist thread, with an editor noting: "As for Berger, I only found one review of his work in a journal for librarians. The reviewer of this self-published book basically advises the author to go and find another hobby" (link).
Hope this is helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I've got no concerns with removing the work that hasn't been reprinted by an independent publishing house (i.e. Mit eichenlaub...) but I do not support the wholesale removal of the works that have been reprinted independently (e.g. Stackpole etc) without strong evidence that they are not reliable for the information cited. As for a review in a journal for librarians, I have a couple of concerns. What qualification did the person who wrote the review have? I have written a few book reviews for a peer reviewed journal myself does that make me an authority on the work I reviewed? No, I wrote my opinion. I'm a professionally published author and have four degrees, but I wouldn't say that makes me more qualified than the average person. Also, most works will receive some criticism in reviews, it doesn't mean that they do not qualify as reliable sources in a Wikipedia sense. Remember the term isn't literal, rather it is a purely Wikipedia construct. Equally, if you read WP:RS as a whole, I believe the approach it requires is more nuanced with some sources being RS for certain things, but not for others, e.g. a biography on a cricketer could well be an RS on the details of particular matches that might have been played during a certain period of history, but it wouldn't really be RS for the intricate details of the political climate that the match might be played in (e.g. for example, a book discussing a cricket tour of South Africa during the Apartheid era). Hence, a book like The Face of Courage seems RS for biographical details of the recipients included therein, but I wouldn't consider it RS for detailed analysis of political and strategic aspects of the war. There is a fine line I agree, but we need to be careful also not to set the bar abnormally high lest we create double standards. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
While it is helpful to review the sources, it is important to consider the use of the sources. While overall the source might have a bias about the historical context, it could still be accurate regarding the biographical information of the individual, as Rupert pointed out above. Part of the role of the historian is to separate the chaff from the grain, so to speak. Although Mr. B may have used sources that by and large would not be acceptable in article about the role of the Luftwaffe in the war, for example, his use of these sources for biographical information about the subject may be entirely in line with the article and indeed the only way to construct a comprehensible time line of the individual's action.
In general, my attitude toward the Stackpole republications is that if they publish them, it's by an large reliable as to fact, although not necessarily to interpretation. To throw out a source, published by Stackpole or not, on the basis of its unreliable interpretation would not be appropriate, especially if its summary of fact based material relating to the biography of the individual is the resource. We might put together a statement to this effect to be included on these articles, rather than argue this case at every review. auntieruth (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)'
Furthermore, even a basic search on Florian Berger suggests that he has a very decent education and a high level of interest in flying. The fact that his books are self-published simply means that he did not get them published in an academic publication. This does not mean that he is ignorant. I suggest we examine these further before we throw out the baby with the bath water. auntieruth (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I've not been able to find any reviews in literature of Berger's works, except for user-generated ones at Amazon, such as:
  • "For anyone who collects WWII german autographs,researching or has a interest in WWII german histroy this is the book about what most WWII collecters/veterans would probly agree, tells of the most elite 98 and only 98 soldiers whom received both the Nahkampfspange in Gold and Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes..."
This indicates to me that these works are targeted at collectors or German WWII militaria. The comment on "one librarian" was from a German speaker, and they said they were not able to find any other reviews either. This shows that these works have been ignored by reputable historians and probably by the general public. Stating that the author has "a very decent education and a high level of interest in flying" is insufficient to establish that these works are RS. See also these relevant AfD discussions that touched on the topic of "specialist literature":
In this article, Berger is used for military statistics and details of the subject's career, which is not recommended under WP:MILMOS. I also subscribe to the view expressed on the initial discussion about Kurowski: "Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty." link. If the information was important, then surely a reputable historian would have covered that. One starts by using Berger and ends up including citations to straight up WP:FRINGE material such as Helden der Wehrmacht. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
a cursory search generates this: information about him. you might do some of your own research too. auntieruth (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this the same person though? The web site states:
  • "Doctoral candidate at the University of Education Weingarten, Germany. My research topic is adaptive educational games. Lecturer at the Department 4 of the HTW University of Applied Sciences Berlin. I have worked as a teacher in vocational education, as a lecturer for media software at the SAE Institute, and as a freelance engineer."
This seems to be unrelated, i.e. results for "florian berger" historiker; or at least the personal web site linked above says nothing that I could see about WWII interests or being a writer. Such as the articles section. What suggests that this is the same person? K.e.coffman (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
not the right person. I've "talked" to him via email. Not the historiker. auntieruth (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I commented on Berger's works in more detail below. I do not hold the other works referenced for this article in very high esteem, either. Brütting worked for the German war propaganda and had flown with KG 2 and 53 during the war. After the war he carried on writing about the Luftwaffe (just that a foreword by Göring was removed from later editions of one of his works). As to Bergström, he provides a good bunch of sources and references, but also adds a lot of suspense to it. He is with Helbig and his gunner as well as with the British fighter pilots and literally recounts all the sweat and the cold wind touching their faces. Are these sources reliable? That depends on your point of view. They do not represent academic research. Most likely, they take their information and detail from Nazi propaganda and eye-witness accounts. Admittedly we do not know much about the effect of German bombings, but as with the tank commanders there is reason for some scepticism. How does someone, e.g., develop "into an industrial target specialist"?--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Berger; related articles[edit]

I think that you'll need to point out to me the exact language in MILMOS that discourages use of "military statistics and details of the subject's career" from sources like Berger. Rather, I think, much like auntieruth55, those are the exact things that we can use from those types of sources and while ignoring all the NPOV and puffery. There's some of that in the Stackpole book of his that you linked to, but nowhere near enough for me to agree with you that he's non-RS without looking at the book, and most especially, his sources. And you seem to be very concerned about the tip of the camel's nose underneath the tent and all that regarding sourcing although that appears to be related to your willingness to paint various authors and publishers with a very broad brush as neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. I'm sure that's true for some people and publishers, but even a crappy author like Kurowski can and has produced work of genuine value. Notably, his unit histories are actually semi-decent sources with far less peacocking and NPOV, a restraint notably lacking in his biographies. Not to mention they're far more factual, something that cannot be said for the latter, as I've demonstrated by the amount of errors sourced to Kurowski that I've eliminated from the article thus far.

I prefer a more nuanced view that each work should be examined on its own merits and it troubles me that you disparage Berger without actually having read his book. You're basing your opinion of Berger as non-RS solely off an excerpt on Google Books, am I right? You did much the same with Taghon simply because he published with VDM Heinz Nickel. I've owned a couple of the latter's aviation books over the years because I'm interested in the operational and organizational history of the Luftwaffe and I'm willing to assert that none of those that I've looked at had any particular pro-Nazi bias. I'm not willing to assert that for any other books published by them because I haven't seen them. Nor have I seen "Helden der Wehrmacht" and have no particular opinion about it, although it didn't seem to be a particularly high-quality source based on its usage in this article.

In my experience historians with academic backgrounds generally don't work on medal winners and similar esoteric subjects so it becomes very difficult to weed out and distinguish between reputable and non-reputable authors until you've delved deep into a subject. Forex, Alain Chazette and Rudi Rolf are probably the best authors currently working on the technical/military aspects of the Atlantic Wall and other WWII fortifications, but I have no idea if either has any formal qualifications or training as historians. I've seen academic works on the Atlantic Wall, but they're usually focused on its political, social or economic aspects, not the technical or military side. And much the same is true for technological things as well as ordinary people who've earned the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor. So we have little to rely upon except our own considered judgement and I think that you've been a little quick to evaluate sources on only a modicum of information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment -- here's the relevant passage from WP:MILMOS:
Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. (...) Articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant.
The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited. At a minimum, the following all require direct citation:
  1. (...)
  2. Numerical quantities or statistics.
In general, any statement for which a citation has been explicitly requested by another editor should be provided with one as well. Beyond this, editors are encouraged to cite any statement that is obscure or difficult to find in the available sources, as well as any significant statement in general.
I interpret the above as articles requiring citations to reliable sources. What makes Berger a reliable source? Are there reviews of his works by reputable historians? The source is not considered reliable by default, we as editors use our judgement to evaluate sources based on available information (i.e. being self-published).
Re: Berger, here's a prefaces to the Face of Courage by Manfred Dorr, another author of "militaria literature":
  • "The attitude of the author impressed me in that he views the soldierly values of courage and bravery separately from the political system (...) This an indispensable requirement for a treatment of this topic..." (link).
That's what Kurowski has been criticised for (among other things): presenting the German armed forces in an ahistorical context, as "merely soldiers" (Nur Soldat). For this article, the source is self-published, and accepting sources that are also biased and / or built on unreliable Nazi propaganda is not in line with GA requirements designed to feature Wikipedia's best work.
I agree that "...historians with academic backgrounds generally don't work on medal winners and similar esoteric subjects...", but this does not mean we should accept WP:QS sources instead. This would require too much original research to weed out any biased content, which is against policy.
This "nuanced approach" results in articles that are unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research. That is why Otto Kittel was delisted and Wolfgang Lüth was heavily redacted to bring them in line with Wikipedia policies. An editor above noted that the article is "absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda", while another A-class article (Der Panzergraf) was described as a "10,000+ word essay full of Nazi fancruft" (link).
Expectations for verifiability and NPOV are part and parcel of Wikipedia, and this article as it stands does not reflect that. Thus, it should be delisted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure and I think that we can all agree that the authors of this article were not careful enough in evaluating their sources. OTOH, I think that you yourself have not done enough reading to evaluate whether someone like Berger is really RS or not, relying mostly on the fact that he self-published the book in question. You missed the connection between Berger and Scherzer and discount that fact that Stackpole translated and published one of his books, probably because he uses some of the peacock and NPOV phrasing endemic to these sorts of works, even American or British ones. To my mind, that's the stuff that we as editors are here for, to extract the wheat from the chaff.
You spend your time here identifying sourcing and NPOV issues, and that's a valuable service, but I'll confess that I'm more than a little troubled by the fact that you make no effort to fix the problems that you discover and appear to have no interest in doing so. I don't know if that's because the best sources for KC winners are all in German, and you can't read German (just a guess), or what. As far as I'm concerned this significantly weakens your case for reworking these articles as it means that you cannot truly evaluate the sources as to their reliability. If you or somebody like ÄDA - DÄP VA were to tell me that the best German-language sources, like that multi-volume series on KC winners, the authors of which I'm drawing a blank on at the moment, cannot support a GA-quality article on some winner, I'd believe you, but since you can't, it causes some problems with my own assessment of your reliability as a researcher.
I hope that you weren't offended by this, because that's not my intent, but you seem very quick to judge books and authors on what appears to me to be insufficient evidence and it significantly weakens your case in my eyes. I'd be far happier if you were to borrow the books in question through Interlibrary loan (or buy them) and could provide scans of the relevant pages for somebody fluent in German to use to improve the articles in question (if you can't read German). ::I dunno, maybe we're talking past each other, you being so focused on how you believe various sources to be non-RS and how that taints an article and me saying that they're salvageable given the right sources, which are probably out there. I will say again that I think that you're doing Wiki a valuable service, but I'd be far happier if you were to follow WP:SOFIXIT and deal with them yourself, without sending articles for deletion or delisting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Here are the relevant comments by Assayer from the AfDs above regarding "the best German-language source, like that multi-volume series on KC winners" (Thomas & Wegmann); this editor is a German speaker:
  • Thomas & Wegmann collect the names and military biographies of KC recipients by using archival records directly related to the award process, but they did not conduct further research, e.g. look for other sources to verify the accounts. Their multiple volumes might suffice as a directory, but it does not mean that their account of the events which lead to an award is historically accurate. They merely reproduce the claims made within the context of the recommendation and, above all, the reasons officially given for the award. From AfD:Styr.
  • In 1990, when reviewing another publication by Thomas (and Manfred Dörr) on the bearers of the Close Combat Clasp in Gold, Reinhard Stumpf of the MGFA made clear that for the time being the research on military symbols would remain to be the domain of enthusiasts outside of professional historiography. (MGZ 47/1990, p. 298) (...) Even though it might be possible to reconstruct the military careers of each and every Knight's Cross recipients, these biographies present a distorted picture of the actual events (i.e., if the provision "played an important role in a significant military event" in WP:Soldier, is to be based on historical fact instead of Nazi propaganda). From AfD:Debus.
As can be seen from the AfD discussions this source was not deemed acceptable for WWII articles and all KC winner articles brought to AfD were either deleted or redirected. I believe that the same critique is likely to apply to Berger (given the evidence I presented). He may be correct in identifying all of the awards that can be confirmed via archives (same as Scherzer) but that does not mean he's RS for anything else. And listing all of these minor awards (including non exiting ones -- see sample) results in articles that are largely of interest to a "specialist audience", i.e. collectors of WWII German memorabilia, and/or full of fancruft, bordering on indiscriminate collections of information.
To sum this up, reliable historiography, that would be suitable as sources for encyclopedia articles, on highly decorated Wehrmacht / Waffen-SS personnel does not exist, unless they were notable for something else. WP:SOFIXIT does not apply to the large majority of these articles. Hence the suggestion that I should look for sources is not meaningful; information sourced to non RS should simply be deleted.
Regarding GA articles, my good faith attempts to correct sourcing, excessive intricate detail, and POV problems have been consistently reverted, for example:
The reverting editor further stated: "MB, feel free to bring to my attention any GA or higher articles that are getting this "treatment". I am happy to revert and ensure GAR/Milhist ACR/FAR processes are used" (link). Hence the GARs, including this one.
What would be helpful is for the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: to look at similar articles of which there are probably dozens. Here's a start: list of articles that use neo-Nazi publication Helden der Wehrmacht in the bibilography. These articles are GA / A-class, with one being a featured article. It boggles the mind that such a source would be considered acceptable and the article containing it be promoted by consensus. Some additional potentially problematic articles are listed on my user page, in the section Special mentions, including FA/GA articles. It would benefit the project to have more eyes on such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well it could be that some minds are more easily boggled than others... I received the coordinator ping, so I'll open the batting re. Helden der Wehrmacht. Not being familiar with it, I searched a bit on the web and I found a couple of works that pointed out a nationalist connection, so I then went through each of the eight articles in which it appears to see how it was being used:
  • Helmut Wick: used once, in conjunction with another source, to cite him being the first Oak Leaves winner to die in combat.
  • Walter Oesau: used twice, once in conjunction with three other sources to cite a short paragraph on his early life, and then with two other sources to cite his Spanish Civil War record.
  • Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld: used four times, in each case as the only source, for highlights of his wartime record including victories, decorations, and commands.
  • Helmut Lent: used once, in conjunction with another source, to cite his first aerial victory.
  • Heinrich Bär: used twice, once to cite a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht and then, in conjunction with two other sources, to cite a short paragraph on his post-war career and death.
  • Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein: used once, in the lead, to cite his posthumous Oak Leaves and Swords; this appears to be cited again, to a different source, in the main body.
  • Walther Dahl: referred to in the text but not used as a source.
  • Hans-Ulrich Rudel: ditto.
A bit of housekeeping: it's not one FA and the rest GA/A; two of the articles are FA, three are GA/A, two are GA, and one is Start. That out of the way, I understand concerns with citing information to this source given its authorship, but in no case did it appear to be used to cite extraordinary, laudatory, or otherwise unusual claims. If the consensus was to avoid the book entirely, I expect that most of the info in question could be cited to other works (it seems much of it is already) and the remainder would probably not hurt the articles too much if it were removed. Indeed, it's not a source in Dahl and Rudel, and it looks to me that it could be deleted from Sayn-Wittgenstein without altering the text; the other five articles would require further investigation. I'd like to see more input on it, but I note that the book isn't used in the article presently under review, so we might want to consider moving this to a more central location. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Thank you for your comments. The Helden der Wehrmacht source has been removed in the course of this GAR; here the pre-GAR version with two citations to it: Sept 2016. Immortal German Soldiers is more of a symptom of hagiographic articles, such as this one, built on biased and / or non RS sources.
If a more complete list is desired, then this one may be fairly indicative of where to look for other problematic prose and sources: List of articles with Schaulen in bibliography (another neo-Nazi publication, according to ADA - DAP (60+ entries). If there's interest in looking at GA/A-class articles only, I could compile such a list (in addition to what's on my user page). I believe there's a planned initiative to re-look at GA articles and above, and I feel that articles on highly decorated German WWII personnel would be excellent candidates to be looked at first. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If I am not mistaken, Artl wrote the foreword. Berger is sometimes referred to by academic historians when it comes to awards. Reviews of his works, however, are scarce. I found one by Klaus Schreiber for the Informationsmittel für Bibliotheken, a journal to help librarians to assess publications. PDF The review is of the Ritterkreuzträger mit Nahkampfspange in Gold (2004) and quite sarcastic in its tone. I will translate parts of it. Florian Berger, who identifies himself as a "military historian" and "author of non-fiction books" in the head of his letter deals with the closely circumscribed field of the "heroes" of WW II, particularly of the German Wehrmacht, who were awarded with the Knight's Cross. [...] In alphabetic order the portraits convey loose information to the biographical facts, but focus on a retelling of the fighting, in which the soldier has participated. In addition there are b/w photos of the person with and without order, documents of approval and so forth, memorabilia and numerous other photos, in no relation to the person, of life at the front, German and foreign weapons and the like. So obviously there is still a market for publications such as this, even though hardly anyone of these recipients is still alive. Or maybe close-combat-clasp-specialist Manfred Dörr finds the right words for the consumers of such works in his foreword: "May this work find the most widespread circulation, to honor these soliders of the former German Wehrmacht! They only did their duty and to this and their fatherland, like all other brave soldiers of this world; in the past, and in the present and in the future. Don't forget them!" - This is in line with the opinions uttered by Florian Berger in his afterword, in which he wordily explains, what his answer is when he is asked, how he can deal with this subject. Ultimately one can see this as hero worship: "German and Austrian veterans lived for decades through smear campaigns and defamations and Knight's Cross recipients are after all the emblem of the former Wehrmacht." In other words, Berger carries on the narrative of the clean Wehrmacht, who fought expertly and gallantly like any other army. This is not, however, how the Wehrmacht is seen nowadays. To view KC recipients like Helbig out of context, is neither neutral nor historical. --Assayer (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy[edit]

  • Comment
  • ad Kurowski
I did a bit of digging and found the source for Kurowski's story about Helbig. IMO the problem with Kurowski is not only his POV but also his methodology. Kurowski basically takes someone else's work and enriches it with details for dramatic effect. He might spin a good yarn, but for our uses his publications are useless: the bits that can be verified, can be referenced to his sources, and the rest is just fiction. There might be a case about availability, as his publications are more affordable and hence more widely circulated.
  • ad Berger
I finally got hold of a copy of Scherzer's book. Scherzer has earned a reputation as a serious scholarly author, although he has no affiliation to any research institutions and it seems that his publishing house is basically supporting his own research. So, technically self-published, he should be considered more reliable than any other publication in this field. Now, Scherzer lists Berger as a collaborator on his 2007 book on Knight's Cross recipients, so some of Scherzer's reputation shines on Berger, who is doing pretty much the same thing in Austria that Scherzer is doing in Germany.
  • ad alii
Another issue with the article is that references are not checked critically against other available sources, e.g. SS Ellenis was not sunk in Piraeus, but in Patras. It's not of any significance to the article, but shows that the authors cited don't work to scholarly standards of reliability and verifiability. It would be the job of an editorial assistant to make sure that such errors are not perpetuated by indiscriminately copying from other works assuming someone down the line had checked the facts. The problem will be to find reliable scholarly sources on biographical material for many of the individuals we are dealing with here, as the scientific interest in these people is very limited. Without reliable sources we face the dilemma of either limiting the article to bare facts like date of birth, or spending a disproportionate amount of work on tracking down sources.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, but Shores, Cull & Malizia credit Ellenis with being sunk in Piraeus. Taghon makes no claim about the ship in particular, but discusses LG 1's attacks on Piraeus and Chalcis. As far as I can tell, the Luftwaffe made no attacks on Patras that day, being mostly focused on the Athens area. What's your source that says differently?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid it will be all Greek to you, but here it is. BTW, that's exactly the kind of critical approach I'm missing in many of the cited references.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You're right, not much I could do with that ;-) But did I see a reference to Ellenis being sunk on the 21st? If so perhaps you could append a note saying that the sources disagree when she was sunk? While I've not gotten to the 1943+ period yet, I'd be interested to know what else you've identified as problematic; I might be able to replace or improve the references and their facts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
re:Ellenis here and here, the date is put as 21 April (Easter Monday according to Orthodox rite). There was a mention of Good Friday, which would have been 19 April.
Other problems I encountered regards the action of 15 August 1940. Brütting puts the number of aircraft at nine, Williamson obviously gets the date wrong, and Kurowski makes RNAS Worthy Down a seaport. Furthermore, sinking hospital ships would actually have been a war crime, only that they lacked the white coat of paint required by international law. In the case of Dronning Maud there is also an inconsitency with the dates, in the WP article and this source, the date is given as 1 May rather then 2 May. Apart from that, is there a chance to find out which ships were sunk by Helbig's flyers? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Leave it with me.
Plus, I fully agree with AustralianRupert's post on 3 October. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

John Weal has another book out soon: Ju 88 Aces of World War II (title is a bit daft, I don't remember the Ju 88 serving in any other conflict). Could offer more info. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrapping up[edit]

Where are we with this now? It seems to me the request to delist this article should be rejected, particularly in light of new additions. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dapi89, I came by and saw this, but looking through this community reassessment I see many mentions of delisting (though only one !vote, from K.e.coffman), including CCCVCCCC and Roches, and I haven't seen any post that specifically says the article currently meets the GA criteria, or has been improved to the point that it does. (Perhaps these editors will wish to revisit their earlier assessments in light of the recent upgrades.) Your post could be interpreted as doing so, since that's the circumstance that means it should be kept as a GA; if it isn't there yet, then work on the article should continue until it does. (While the ultimate goal of a GAR is to bring the article back up to GA level, sometimes it isn't feasible to do so.) I can't close this at the present time. There's no real rush; the article continues to retain its GA listing while the reassessment is ongoing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate the comments. If there are any specific instances that require re-sourcing, I'd appreciate it if these are pointed out so I can deal with it. I intend to have a look at the Norwegian phase of his combat career later today, time permitting. Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- The POV "industrial target specialist" language comes from yet another dubious source in this article, this time a book published by Merriam Press, a small-time militaria publisher. This imprint also runs Richard Landwehr's Siegrunen magazine, popular with the neo-Nazi crowd. Sample Siegrunen issues: link on their website. Here's a 2010 full issue for anyone interested: ink (PDF). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This source / content was added after this discussion commenced (diff). In another recent edit, the descriptor hospital ship was take out (diff); compare with "flying Red Cross flags and carrying medical personnel" (diff).
Such edits make this article worse, not better, and I still advocate delisting. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I read the discussion above. The concerns regarding the eligibility of this article for GA status seems to stem mostly on concerns regarding the sources. I have no opinion on this, because I cant judge them as I have not much knowledge in soldiers biographies. What I want to ask is: What would be an acceptable RS for a subject like that? This way the non-RS may can get replaced. I think if that doesn't get clarified, there will be much more similar GAR's and additional endless discussions without a solution. Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a good question. I consider none of the literature used for this article as being up to the standards set forth in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is literature of a certain kind, which focuses on awards and presumed "achievements" and pretends to be non-political and merely documenting. Therefore, as I have argued, it subscribes to a certain image of, as in this case, an expertly and gallantly fighting Luftwaffe. It is ahistorical and impossible, however, to view the actions of historical actors within the values of the time. As Jürgen Habermas has put it: "The historian does not observe from the perspective of the actor. Rather, he describes events and actions from within the experimential horizon of a history that transcends the actor's horizon of expectations." ("Review of Gadamer's Truth and Method," 1977) There has not been much scholarship on individual fighter aces of the Luftwaffe. Some of it has to do with the lack of primary sources. Many documents of the Luftwaffe were destroyed at the end of the war, many systematically by the Luftwaffe themselves. So it's indeed the question whether GAs can be written on any subject, regardless of what kind of sources and what kind of literature is available. Are GAs to be based on sources which meet the standards of WP:SCHOLARSHIP? In the latter case I don't see a way to significantly improve the article about Helbig and the article should be delisted.--Assayer (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dead Mary: Acceptable sources generally include those outlined in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. ÄDA - DÄP states above: "Without reliable sources we face the dilemma of either limiting the article to bare facts like date of birth, or spending a disproportionate amount of work on tracking down sources" — I would take this further and say that finding such verifiable information would involve too much OR, or that such sources simply do not exist.
This point is born out by the fact that even after collaborative efforts of several editors, the article is still lacking in reliable sources. The subject does not appear to have played a significant role in military history to warrant attention to his biography from mainstream or academic authors; what’s in the article is mostly unreliable publications, such as "catalogue of KC winners" type of material (Stockert, Berger, Kaiser) and / or fringe / POV works (Brütting, Merriam Press, Berger). Nor has it been sufficiently demonstrated why works published by a small-time right-wing publisher (VDM Nickel) should be considered RS.
For example, the article still contains intricate detail cited exclusively to such material:
  • After completing his training as an observer and aerial gunner on 20 April 1937, he was posted to the 3rd Group (III. Gruppe) of Kampfgeschwader 152 "Hindenburg" in Schwerin. III./KG 152 became II. Gruppe of Lehrgeschwader 1 on 1 November 1938, where he started pilot training.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ Berger 1999, p. 120.
  2. ^ Schumann 2007, p. 80.
  3. ^ Taghon 2004a, pp. 22–23.
Three unreliable citations do not make the information they support worthy of inclusion. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
While I recognize that you have the best of intentions, I must voice some concern at this point as I have real concerns about where this discussion is going. Forgive me if I misinterpreted, but essentially what is being stated is that none of the sources in this article qualify as WP:RS because they are not written by an "academic", right? That is a very high bar you are setting, and I doubt that many articles on Wikipedia would completely live up to it if you extrapolate it to its fullest. Many of the sources here are independent and published by mainstream publishers, which seems like the definition of a reliable source to me so long as they are used appropriately. Some are not, of course, and probably should be removed. However, please remember we are not writing (or re-writing for some of us) our PhDs. Wikipedia's job is to simply report what others say about something in a neutral manner and an editor shouldn't have to spend hours researching the book that they have on their shelf to see if it is acceptable. Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the average person. The case for the removal of Berger seems solid to me in this case as it is a self published source, but what of the others in the article? What is wrong with Weal, Shores, Cull, Smith, Miller, Maclean, Hooton, et al? If you are going to state that they are not RS, please provide some evidence of this so it can be properly discussed rather than a blanket statement that they are all not reliable. I caveat all of this with this point: personally, I care not one jot about German bomber pilots, or anything else related to Germany's war effort. The Nazis were hideous and I have no interest in venerating them. But I do care about how the decisions that are being made here impact upon the project as a whole moving forward. If too high standards are set in one area, we essentially create either the perception of bias when it isn't applied consistently, or the expectation of perfection elsewhere. Wikipedia will not survive either of those. Regardless of what qualifications individuals bring, at the end of the day we are all volunteers – ergo amateurs – so we are setting ourselves up for failure if we expect our contributors to have the skills (and sources) of academics and professional researchers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this ( the need for reliable sources (added for clarity) as an excessive requirement, especially for a GA article. The guidelines are outlined in WP:RS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCE, and that's what I've been following. MacLean (as I understand) compiled efficiency reports (promotion recommendations, etc). Miller is suspect as coming from Merriam Press, which I mentioned above. Weal is a tertiary source, based on other uncritical accounts. Shores is RS, but he is cited once, etc. If Brütting et al. are removed, there won't be much left. GA status is expected to be reserved for articles that represent Wikipedia's best work, and this article does not, even in its less POV / non-Kurowski version.
The bottom line is there's no dearth of reliable sources on notable topics relating to WWII: the interest in it continues unabated and new books are being published by reputable historians all the time. What we have here is (IMO) a subject that is only marginally notable. If the bulk of sources on a subject are WP:QS then perhaps this topic does not warrant an extensive article? Wikipedia policies seem to suggest so, as it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Otherwise, it runs the risk of turning into a collection of WP:MEMORIAL and / or fan pages. This is not needed, as such pages already exist elsewhere; see for example Aces of the Luftwaffe web site.
Which reminds me, I've recently had several discussions with an editor who had literally turned several Wiki articles into fan pages, by copying content from the site above (See User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/October#Luftwaffe pilots, as well as at Talk:Günther Seeger). Copyvios are obviously against policy, but new editors do need help in understanding which sources are suitable and which are not. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I remain concerned about your interpretation of what is and what isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and your explanation does nothing to alleviate that concern. Unless I missed it, I don't see where you discuss Miller in any detail, other than offering your own opinion about Merriam Press being a small press. Is there any evidence that it is unreliable because of that fact? I will reiterate, we are not a university and this isn't a PhD that is being written. Our job is simply to tell people what other people have written. By discounting many of these sources, you are actually obscuring what has been written and setting an artificially high bar for a small set of articles. That is not to say that you have to swallow the POV of these sources, nor that they are all acceptable. Some clearly are not acceptable and in relation to the others you can adequately deal with POV and weight issues through proper attribution, well crafted prose and clarification about sources in text. If other sources tell a different story, then contrast them, but so far it seems the concerns are that they don't mention the whole story, even though we are apparently not sure what the whole story is...? Additionally, to correct your point above, FA represents Wikipedia's best work, not GA and we shouldn't be conflating the GA criteria to equal the FA criteria. That said, if you think this topic isn't notable, please just nominate it for deletion rather than continuing this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Like Rupert I share a nagging concern about the wider implications of where this is leading. I’ll concede immediately that I haven’t followed this issue closely in the past—and wont be in the future either—but it does seem to me that higher than normal standards ("excessive" even) may be being applied to some of the sourcing in this, and other similar articles, in regards to whether they qualify as “reliable” as defined by Wikipedia. Sure there are many things to consider and sometimes the specifics of a source will need to be considered carefully to determine if it should be used, or for what it is used for, yet on the whole we tend to be able to assume good faith as long as a source meets the basic requirements of WP:RS (and other related guidelines). I could understand if there were obviously extremist views being advanced in the article (and accept that some vigilance is prudent given the connection of the subject with Nazi Germany etc) but as near as I can tell that is not the issue here. Sure some sources used have been shown to have not met the criteria to be considered reliable and they mostly seem to have been addressed by being removed or replaced, but there seems to be others that probably would be considered suitable / RS in any other article that are being dismissed here if there were not written by an “academic”. That is not a requirement of WP:RS, and clearly numerous sources currently being used in our many articles at the moment would not pass that test if it were. As such applying it here would indeed result in a double standard, and ultimately a self defeating and unsustainable one. At its heart it is elitist and the vast majority of our articles wouldn’t make the grade, while neither would most of our editors (myself included). A good article only needs to be just that and nothing more (that is why we have A class and FA above it, while perfection is obviously not expected or req’d there either). In the end Wikipedia is the product of an imperfect compromise between user generated content and necessary measures for quality control. Attempting to impose doctoral level research standards on a subset of our articles will result in driving away otherwise valuable contributors (volunteers like the rest of us) due to the atmosphere it will create, and may—at its extension—ultimately end in the failure of the project (see what happened to Citizendium for instance, which requires contributions to be peer reviewed by “topic experts”). Of cse I do see the value in scrutiny and occasional review of our content, but I’d prefer to see it being done with the aim of improving articles through fixing problems, rather than simply delisting them. That said I have no knowledge of these subjects, and no interest, and cannot offer any assistance in fixing them either so at best I offer my opinion as a bystander (and a hypocritical one at that). For that reason I don’t feel qualified to make an assessment of whether this particular article should be kept as a GA, or delisted, so will leave that up to others to decide. TLDR? Yes, sorry about that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I've had an article go through GA and one the reviewers' comments was: ""Good articles should exemplify some of our best work", so I don't see how this requirement is excessive or should be reserved for FA articles only. "Our job is simply to tell people what other people have written" is not how I interpret WP:RS, which states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". In this case, many sources are "published" but it has not been sufficiently demonstrated what makes them reliable.
Publishers are part of the source evaluation, and both VDM Nickel and Merriam Press fall under WP:QS. The burden is generally on those who would like to use a source to demonstrate that it is reliable, but here's a few passages from The Myth of the Eastern Front, discussing the "gurus" (Landwehr, Kurowski, etc):
  • "In some cases, as their [gurus'] appeal grows they graduate up the scale of publishing importance from self-publishing to the myriad small presses, such as Schiffer, Bibiophile Legion Books, Merriam Press; to the top, particularly to the Fedorowicz publishing house. (...) To be published through Fedoroticz is to have arrived". "Merriam Press later published the Siegrunen monographs of Richard Landwehr".[1]


  1. ^ * Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83365-3. , pp. 158, 184.
(Fedorwicz has a very poor reputation on Wikipedia as a source, and Merriam Press is one step below it).
On a general note, how does what I've written contradict the GA and WP:RS requirements? K.e.coffman (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
GA articles should represent quality, I agree, but the standard is not meant to be pitched at FA level. For instance, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not: "The standards for GAs are fairly high, but noticeably lower than the Featured article criteria." The level of scrutiny that is being applied here is beyond that which I have seen at GA. Beyond that, I've provided my opinion. While I agree with many of your concerns, I disagree with others. I remain concerned that you are falling into the trap of holding these and similar articles to a standard that is potentially too harsh. Nevertheless, I agree with you that in its current form it is not a GA; I disagree with you, though, about what needs to be done to bring it back up to GA. Anyway, that's my opinion and I do not intend to comment further for concern that this will just keep dragging on. The worst that can happen here is for the debate to continue without a resolution like the Strachwitz review. Hopefully some other editors will come to the review and offer an opinion so it can be closed one way or another and we can move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not found anything in WP:SCHOLARSHIP that would warrant the conclusion, that RS are only produced by "academics". The whole section is about review of various kinds, i.e., other people, who can be considered qualified to do so, tell you whether a source is reliable or not by reviews and the like. If a source is considered to be reliable it should be easy to substantiate that with some references. You could easily show, for example, that Hooton is a respected author in the field. As such he is mentioned in a Reader's Guide to Military History by Charles Messenger and his claims are discussed by a historian like Philip Sabin. But does Hooton deal with Joachim Helbig at all? Without checking the credentials of Shores/Cull, what do they have to say about Helbig? He is not listed in their detailed index. Publishers like VDM Nickel do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Yet, as it is practiced here, the burden of proof is routinely reversed. That is not only unfair, but becomes an impossibility, the less attention a source has generated. The job is not simply to tell people what every other person has written, but to give an accurate account of the mainstream view. By accepting all of these sources just because they have been written, you give a wrong impression as to what military historiography is about and accept information with dubious credibility. Yes, this kind of literature can be proven wrong on certain issues with the help of other sources, but would anyone accept my word and my primary research for it? I doubt it. In some respects Wikipedia sets higher standards than a PhD., because you don't deal with primary source and you cannot maintain your own POV. Thus it is even more important to carefully assess the sources . After all, there is not much difference between GA and FA criteria and an AfD discussion. It all boils down to the question of how we deal with these sources. Notability would be maintained on the basis of the very same sources upon which some want to keep it as a GA and you just might as well nominate it for FA status and let others try to show that these sources are not high-quality. But maybe these general issues should be discussed elsewhere with more input from other users.--Assayer (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I reviewed Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Joachim Helbig, where the nominator was asked to use the history of LG 1 by Peter Taghon. That work is held by only a few German libraries. It is still in print, but quite expensive. I find it strange when it is argued that the bar should not be set "artificially high" in terms of evaluation of literature and sources, so that Wikipedia remains "accessible to the average person", while it seems self-evident that literature is being used and asked for that I would consider literally inaccessible, because it is rare and hard to get. Talking about Taghon's book, it is designed to be a chronicle and documentation, based upon memoirs and documents of veterans.--Assayer (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the situation you refer to about Taghon, so I can't really comment on that, although I agree that it sounds problematic; however, I will clarify my concern. It is regarding your statement: "I consider none of the literature used for this article as being up to the standards set forth in WP:SCHOLARSHIP." Leaving aside the point about whether they cover this topic specifically (because I cannot comment on that), works like Weal, Shores and Cull, etc. seem very much like mainstream works, and as such the types of books that the average person wishing to contribute to Wikipedia might cite. Thus it creates a dangerous precedent to set down a blanket statement that such sources are not RS without providing evidence of that as it leads to precedents being misunderstood, which will potentially be applied elsewhere and result in new editors being given the wrong impression and most likely scared away. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rupert, and to an extent, AnotherClown. It appears to me that this is a part of a wider campaign to destroy articles like this: particularly K.e.Coffman who frequently makes large deletions to articles without discussion. It appears the strategy here is to set the threshold of reliable sources so absurdly high that anything added to this article, regardless of the author or his publisher, can be regarded as non reliable. I see Hooton is now also under attack and for no good reason. Hooton is an expert on the operations of the Luftwaffe. The wing and group this man led belonged to that organisation. By default he can be considered reliable, after all Hooton is intimately familiar with the way the Luftwaffe worked. Many claims can be cross-referenced with other combatants loss records, particularly the British and Americans and Hooton has also done work in this field. He doesn't need to be familiar with the personal life or career of Helbig. The same for Shores and Cull. Dapi89 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For matters of clarification: I might have been mistaken and overly harsh in generalizing that none of the literature used for this article meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I would maintain, however, that the bulk of specific references is to sources that are not up to that standard and I do not know any sources to substitute those. That someone could perceive it to be "an attack" when I call someone like Hooton "a respected author in the field" was beyond my imagination.--Assayer (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that editor Dapi may be referring in part to this edit (diff), which reverted my good faith attempt to reduce the amount of intricate and inconsequential detail, including, for example, the registration number of the subject's car ( "AWW 44-3425") and GPS coordinates of where the traffic accident occurred (44°42′04″N 0°42′20″W / 44.70111°N 0.70556°W / 44.70111; -0.70556 (Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer road accident)), and many more. I believe my edit was following the "summary style" approach and was an improvement, but for another discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I have not posted a comment here as I don't write on Luftwaffe personnel. From a quick view of the article it seems that it could use a little copy edit work on words used; I don't know the sources used, so I will be judge them. As for RS standards for GA, mainstream works are allowed (as they should be; as long as not pov pushers or fringe or blatantly not RS) but certainly the bar should not be only those produced by "academics". There has to be balance here; this article is for general readers and this project is voluntary and frankly many publishers are a mixed bag when it comes to books they publish on a subject such as World War II and Nazi Germany. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that it's been argued that only academic sources are allowed; for example, I said above "mainstream or academic authors". The problem with the article as it stands, even after recent improvements, is that the majority of citations are not to the mainstream sources. By looking at the current article, I see 20 citations to Berger, Taghon, Schumann, Miller and Stockert combined, vs 5 citations to Weal, Hooton, MacLean and Shores, with the latter being mostly about the unit overall or other events, rather than the subject himself. For example:
  • In June 1942, British commandos targeted Helbig's unit at their base in Heraklion, and succeeded in blowing up seven Ju 88s.[1]
  • The small passenger liner SS Ellenis of 876 GRT, carrying 278 wounded, was sunk on 20 April in Patras and SS Ioanna of 1,192 GRT was sunk on 21 April in the same harbour.[2]


  1. ^ Hooton 1997, p. 212.
  2. ^ Shores, Brian Cull 1992, p. 405.
I don't see the mainstream authors covering the subject of "Joachim Helbig" directly and in detail, or am I missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not wrapping up[edit]

Still up to your habit of slandering material you haven't personally examined or even dug into the author's background, eh? I told you that I owned a copy of Taghon and that it was RS by every stretch of the imagination, yet you still persist in claiming that it's not RS, presumably because it was published by VDM Nickel. If you don't believe my assessment that it isn't RS how am I to take your assessment of all the books that you believe to be non-RS that I haven't read? You know a bit about the various KC books, but know very little about Luftwaffe books, and don't appear to realize that. I know very little about KC books and am willing to defer to your opinion on those books that I haven't read, but you are apparently not willing to do the same. If you'd done even a modicum of research you could have found out that Peter Taghon is an author who several books on WW2 history in Dutch, French and German with a variety of publishing houses. I'll even include here the Worldcat to his bibliography for your edification.

And I'll reiterate my previous comments and echo most of the previous commenters that you're setting the bar too high in judging what's RS. Academic authors don't generally write about such specialized topics as aviator biographies, individual ouvrages of the Maginot Line and ships, forex; no, they write about more general aspects of the subjects like organizational histories, place in the culture of the country and general shipbuilding programs. The detailed and technical stuff is generally left to non-academics who are interested enough in the topic to invest years, and often, their own money, to research their topics. Some of their work isn't worth the paper it's printed on, but much is worthwhile, but they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I also find your attitude rather insulting to non-academic authors like Barbara Tuchman and Martin Middlebrook who have done superb work without the resources of a university and are often far less prone to academic fads. Middlebrook was a English poultry farmer, for Christsakes, who interviewed survivors of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, a resource almost totally ignored by academic historians, and almost single-handedly overturned the reigning paradigm of WWI studies and revitalized that field. But you would deny somebody like him any mastery over his topic just because he lacks academic standing.

Mainstream means not fringe, like conspiracy theorists or UFO cultists; I dunno what definition you're using. I'll grant you that there's definitely a pro-Nazi fringe out there, and a general purge of Kurowski from biographical articles is definitely in order under that rubric, but I'm not at all sure that I agree with you about the other authors that you deem non-RS because you've shown me that you are biased on this topic by your persistence in naming authors like Taghon non-RS. I've been very clear in stating that I derive my judgements from examining the works themselves, but it seems that you are very quick to pronounce judgement without taking the time to fully examine the evidence. I think that you would do well to do the same thing to avoid unjustly tarring authors as unreliable when that's not the case. You also might want to examine the possibility that some of your own sources like Smelser might be biased themselves. Just because they're academics doesn't make them immune to bias.

I'm both pleased and dismayed that you've finally started editing the article in accordance with your standards, however much I might disagree with them. Pleased in that you're finally actually doing some of the work as opposed to just sniping from the sidelines and dismayed in that you've cut out a lot of material that I deem both relevant and pertinent. You seem to have a very narrow view of what's appropriate for a article where length is not a concern as I've commented before. Personally, I consider most incidents that happen to a unit relevant to a biography of that unit's commander as he's in command and responsible. Now I have to go back in and restore all that and I'm honestly not looking forward to the task as I'd rather be working on South African frigates and the like for the Africa De-stubathon. But you're welcome to come and examine my sources for any pro-apartheid biases!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are concerns about Smelser, then here's a page for more information: Ronald Smelser, as well as The Myth of the Eastern Front, which offers multiple reviews of the book. Have RS evaluated Taghon's work in a similar fashion? Are there reviews of the book that we could look at? So far we only have one editor's opinions that it's RS which I do not find sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Taghon's probably only been reviewed in German-language aviation history magazines and possibly on English-language fora that I'm sure that you'd find insufficiently academically rigorous. But, again, you don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted the last round of opinion-driven deletions. Dapi89 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me if I question the rationale behind this revert diff, as it comes form the editor who strenuously objected, across multiple fora, to the removal of Kurowski from the Otto Kittel page -- hence the 30,000-word Franz Kurowski article and the subsequent GAR. That article was delisted, with dubious content purged. (Here's the Kittel article prior to recent changes). So whose "opinions" are at play here is a matter of some debate.
The article is currently failing criterion #4: "It is not stable due to edit warring on the page" and should be delisted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
We're not going to have a drawn-out debate about what is, and what isn't, an opinion or who is giving them. The facts speak for themselves. Citing someone else's work is not an opinion. Removing them on the grounds of intricate detail and accusing them of bias, is.
If you'd like to cast your mind back, I'd asked you repeatedly to show sources on where, how and why Kurowski was unreliable on Kittel. You prevaricated for quite some time, and still haven't shown any direct evidence. I also find your comments on Hooton and Weal disturbing, and I would repeat the comments from Sturmvogel 66. Needless to say, Kittel will be revisited and your apparent desire to reduce that article to a few lines will be undone. The same goes for this article.
Further, I'm getting tired of the misleading edit summaries you leave on articles directing editors to check a discussion which you say gives you carte blanche to undertake deletions on an enormous scale. I come to them to find no such agreement was ever made. Opinions indeed! Dapi89 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you also seriously suggesting this article should be delisted on the grounds there is an apparent edit war, which you started!? You will really try anything and everything to get this article taken down won't you. Dapi89 (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I wish you hadn't rolled most of coffman's edits back as I wanted to keep the ones that were worthwhile. Oh, well, I'll work my way through it, once I get back from the Library of Congress on Monday to see what really happened on 15 August since I don't have Bergstrom to hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "I'd asked you repeatedly to show sources on where, how and why Kurowski was unreliable on Kittel" -- right, because it's not a completely impossible thing to do. Kurowski wrote over 400 books, including on such obscure subjects as Kittel, so it seems highly improbable that there would be another source that would discuss Kurowski's coverage of Kittel, right? Several editors attempted to clarify:
  • "Sorry, that's not how it works. A source is not considered reliable by default and only becomes unreliable with respect to particular statements explicitly refuted by other sources. On the contrary, the onus to show reliability is on whoever proposes the source. In this case, the source has been seriously criticised, so we would need a very strong argument indeed to accept it."
The response was "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding."
I would be curious to know if editor Dapi considers Kurowski a reliable source at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The misleading edit summaries continue. If Sturmvogel wants to specify what he wishes to keep then I have no issue with that. But Coffeman shouldn't assume it was the deletion of reliable sources. And if it is, then I've got a problem with it. I also have a problem with you attacking Bergstrom and attaching weasel word tags to his statements. Once again you're targeting good sources without justification.
Your response is evasive as usual. If you had evidence that Kurowski is unreliable on Kittel (and it IS just about Kittel) then you would have presented it. You haven't. Simple as that. These 400 books have nothing to do with the subject. And no, you claim he's unreliable, you prove it. He's innocent until proven otherwise. Do you understand? Else it is nothing more than your opinion. That's how it works. It's laughable to suggest otherwise Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I took the question whether Taghon is a RS to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources. As to former Nazi propaganda writer, youth literature and Landser-pulp author Kurowski, I do not think that this merits further discussion.--Assayer (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I've left some comments there. I'm not convinced why you're asking for opinions when there is no cause for it. If Taghon was unreliable, I'm certain we would have seen the critic's source already.
As for Kurwoski, the fact remains. Incidentally, the information on Kittel can be sourced from others. But of course, no matter who by or when, I'm sure Coffeman will object, as he has done to Austrian and German Archive–assessed sources. Dapi89 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Since we are still on the topic of Kurowski, I would be curious to know if editor Dapi considers him to have been a reliable source for the Kittel article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
None of the information given by Kurowski has been contradicted or proven false by other sources or you. I've collected information from a whole host of other sources that make your opinions on him (and mine) redundant. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
So it's a "Yes" then? And this version of the article Dec 2015 was built on reliable sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
You read the above, I assume you did so properly. It can be restored to that condition with other verifiable sources. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This whole thing is of a piece with an ongoing campaign by coffmann (with a supporting role by Assayer), to remove all sources they don't deem worthy from a large number of articles, using a ridiculously high bar, and never ever refusing to drop the stick regardless of the feedback they get from experienced editors. I'm frankly sick to death of it, and from the comments above, I'm clearly not on my own. It is wasting a lot of people's time that could be spent writing articles, and is detracting from the enjoyment of the volunteer editors who actually contribute to this encyclopaedia. What possible harm could come from using some of these sources for the bare facts they are being used to support? There isn't anything pro-Nazi being added to the articles by using these sources, even if koffmann's claims about the publishers were proven. The whole pattern of behaviour is tendentious, especially with the parallel discussions at RSN (which also go nowhere), and the complete lack of acceptance by coffmann that community norms rule on WP, not his personal views. Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Summing up[edit]

Summing up for any potential closer:

  • 1 editor (the nominator -- myself) iVoted for delisting: K.e.coffman
  • 3 editors mentioned delisting, although without submitting a formal iVote: Assayer; Roches; CCCVCCCC
  • 1 editor mentioned that the article is currently not at GAR, but could possibly be brought up back to the GAR level: AustralianRupert (quote: "I agree with you that in its current form it is not a GA; I disagree with you, though, about what needs to be done to bring it back up to GA.")
  • 8 editors commented on the discussion without expressing an opinion as to keeping / delistings: Sturmvogel, Kierzek, DeadMary, Auntieruth55, ÄDA - DÄP VA, Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Anotherclown
  • 1 editor advocated keeping the article as GA, although without submitting an iVote: Dapi89.

I think I captured everything. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments by Shearonink[edit]

I am going to deal with a completely different matter entirely than what all has been mentioned above - the sourcing/phraseology/possible POV etc It concerns me that the article does such an incredible leap in time in the 1943–45 career section. In one sentence he's surrendering to the Allies in 1945, in the next one he's working post-war in an unnamed civilian profession and in the last sentence he's dying 40 years later...
What did he do in the intervening years? This is a WP:BIO, it should tell the story of the man's entire life. So where are the details about those 4 decades? Even Bergstrom's Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict... mentions that he was the director of a brewery and also the name of the brewery. It's one of the largest breweries in Germany, I don't understand why his employment there isn't mentioned in the article. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: G'day, this is certainly a fair point, IMO. Do you have page numbers and the name of the brewery? In my opinion, this would be a fair addition to the article, but I do not have access to the source, otherwise I'd add it myself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have taken a look through the article history and see that some of this information (about the brewery) was actually removed from the article awhile ago: [4] I think it might have been removed due to concerns about the sourcing of the information. Anyway, I found a Google snippet view of Bergstrom p. 127, so I've added this to the article. This is my edit: [5]. That is probably all I can do, to help in this regard, though, sorry. I wonder if potentially the header "1943–45 career" shouldn't be changed. Potentially "Later military career and post war life"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::Yeah, if it is mentioned in the lead, then it should be given some more details in the main text. Helbig was the director of the Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei brewery, one of the largest in Germany. This is mentioned on Page 127 of Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited by Christer Bergstrom ("became director of the Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss brewery") and on Page 41 of Luftwaffe Aces: German Combat Pilots of World War II by Franz Kurowski ("manager of a well0known brewery in Berlin"). The German WP has an article on Helbig, in it is an unsourced statement that Helbig "...On 9 June 1945, Helbig fled and hid himself unrecognized in West Germany for years. Later, he was managing director of Schultheiss brewery in Berlin (West)." Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it is probably best not to reference Kurowski for this information in the article, given that this source has been the subject of earlier concerns in the review and elsewhere. I believe Bergstrom is probably ok for this information, but I will leave that to the other reviewers to comment. Some of the issues surrounding the lack of information about the remaining 40 years of the subject's life may stem from concerns about the sources that actually mention this information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I am somewhat aware of the issues that people have with Kurowski, but the man lived for 40 years after the war...somehow. But if the information doesn't appear in references, then oh well. Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei was formed as late as 2006, when Berliner Kindl teamed up with Schultheiss. Before that there was Schultheiss and, after a merger in 1972, the Dortmunder Union-Schultheiss Brauerei AG, renamed in 1988 to Brau und Brunnen. Schultheiss always remained a brand brewed in Berlin.--Assayer (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Assayer: G'day, would you suggest just saying "Schultheiss" and piping it to Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That's how it's been done in the German Wikipedia. Berliner-Kindl-Schultheiss-Brauerei is certainly anachronistic. Besided, it seems as if Helbig was managing the brewery plant in Berlin, and not the whole Schultheiss brewery business. Another question is, if there are really some valuable information to be gained by linking to that article, and if not a simple "brewery" would do.--Assayer (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. @Shearonink:: what are your thoughts on this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No worries, I made the following change: [6]. Please feel free to adjust if you think it needs further work. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sam Fuld[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I am nominating this article mainly because I feel it not neutral. The article portrays the subject, a baseball player with modest success in reality, with overwhelming positive comments and very little information about his struggles (negative stats or specific reasons why he was traded/cut). Some elements of the article are factual but presented in a biased manner - see Talk page: [7] and [8] There are also multiple quotes in the body of the article that are never truly built upon or discussed in substance. The information is also out of date and does not have any updates after 2014. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I started trimming some of the overly detailed and non-neutral stuff. There are probably still too many quotes and there is probably undue weight on some very routine regular-season play, but I didn't want to act too drastically until others weighed in. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Shearonink[edit]

  • Information in article is not completely up-to-date. Fuld elected for free agency in November and is no longer with the A's (per MLB.Com)
  • Lead seems excessively-detailed. For example, all those lead quotes are from one season, one source.
  • I don't understand that odd "quote" box connected to Ref 115.
  • Recognition and awards section is completely unsourced.
  • Images seem ok.
  • In 2007 section and in 2009 section, direct links to multiple videos within main text - against MOS.
  • Too many scarequotes in lead, see WP:SCAREQUOTES
  • Agree with others - too much quoted material. I applaud the editors zeal for attributing information to sources but, in my opinion, some of these quote have got to go.

In general, if this article were given a good going over for copy-editing issues (some of that content really needs to be trimmed) I think it would still be of GA quality. The subject is notable and, obviously, a lot of work has been put into referencing. I do not think it should be delisted, I think it just needs some work. Bob Lemon as a present GA and Lee Smith (baseball) as a Featured Article, would both be worthwhile templates to work from as this article is improved. Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I am a huge fan of this song (and the artist), and I was the Wikipedian that nominated it (which eventually received a GA approval), and potentially want to gain this article prospects as a Featured Artice. However, over time, I have noticed that there were a lot of elements and mistakes that were not identified in the review that was originally conducted to get it to GA standard; for example, there were prose/grammar issues, inconsistent value of citation templates, overuse of words, awkward tenses and placements of sub-articles and the inappropriate/discouraging use of blogs and other below A-class websites (little to my knowledge at the time). As a result, I am putting this up for re-assessment to see if this is of any right to make it inside the GA community. I have tided up the article severely to a good and appropriate standard, but need more advice in order to improve it and keep it at GA level, and I'll give it my all and determination to take your guys comments and criticisms in order to get this to a higher standard in any way possible. Any criticism or comments are welcomed. Best regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I do bear responsibility for this as it's my own missed mistakes that have partially caused this. I'll certainly give some advice about the references: Ref 41 says "Subscription based" which probably means people in general can't access the information its providing unless its in preliminary blurb. Also all references not yet archived need to be so either through Wayback Machine, WebCite or I think other editors are more suited to catching grammar errors. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    • No worries and thank you for the response; I'll get to archive the articles shortly! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
      • If you want to archive references, you certainly can, but archiving is not part of the GA criteria, so it should be irrelevant to this reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @CaliforniaDreamsFan: my main noticeable thing to be changed is the rationale for the nonfree images and samples. They are still adequate and does not explain in the file page as to how it passes wP:NFCC#8. Check the rationale for the images in "Nothing Really Matters" for example. —IB [ Poke ] 06:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @IndianBio: I was concerned with those at first. Those samples and shots (apart from the video still and the top two infobox images, which have been scaled down and changed) were already on the article as their current quality, which I have over viewed and indeterminately do not meet the standards of Wikipedia guidelines; I will render them immediately and ping you. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gowanus Canal[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I am nominating the article about Gowanus Canal for Good Article criteria again. The last time it was reviewed was in 2008, wherein it passed the criteria. The article has changed significantly since then. Thus, it should be updated to the 2017 Good Article standards, which is why I am requesting a community assessment. Just to clarify, I want this page's Good Article status to be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Has a copyvio with this site, whole paragraph copied: Kees08 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Also with this site:

I am placing the Good Article tools template here so I can more easily see what the possible issues with this article might be. Shearonink (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work - I'll have to create the tools another way. Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
They are mostly companies and a few government entities like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated side by side along the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually rolled into National Grid; Continental Oil; and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.
The paragraph did not appear in the Wikipedia Gowanus Canal article until after the New York Times published its piece in 2013. (and, yes I did go back and manually check by date) the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated alongside the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually became a part of National Grid, Continental Oil and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.
Since the source is clearly-given as the New York Times it would appear to me that the writer-editor neglected to put the New York Times story into their own words rather than running afoul of any copyright issues - I mean, they didn't try to conceal the text appearing in both articles. As Kees08 states above, there is also another issue with the gowanuscanal history website, but in my experience with these types of cases it is usually a case of the other site copying from WP without attribution. Someone who has more technical expertise than myself will have to see which came first, the WP article or the Gowanus Canal History site. In the case of the NY Times article, the apparently plagiarized text has got to go - adjusted, deleted or whatever. It cannot stay in this article - if it does, the article fails #2D of the WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I admit I am unfamiliar with the usage of the External media template, which places external links within the main article text. It does trouble me that the Lavender Lake link is to the full Alison Prete documentary (can we do that in WP? - link to a full movie?) and the 2 TEDxGowanus links are also to 2 full TED talks, while the other is to a proposed usage of the Canal. I am uncertain as to what exactly these links provide that is not already in the article. I am also concerned that directly linking to the 2 TEDx talks on YouTube - where outside ads appear - creates a somewhat iffy link to outside commercial interests, when the Links appear within the main article text. The Alison Prete documentary is hosted on Vimeo and contains no ads. I am not sure but I do not think it would be as much of an issue if the links were presented within the External links section at the end of the article. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I will need to fix the links and the copyvio tomorrow. Maybe that "copyvio" could be a failed paraphrase... but in any case, I need to reword. I'll also work on the external ted talks. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      My thanks also to Kees08. epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thanks for the question on the External Media template. This is one of those things that goes way, way back on Wikipedia, and IMHO is grossly underused. If Wikipedia is to use video, which is a pervasive modern form of communication, often the only alternative is to use this template. Some basics:

  • WP:External links specifically mentions the external media template (see footnote 2) and exempts it from the usual restriction that ex links have to be in the ex links section. The template itself says that it should be used in the body of the text, where the media would be used if there were not copyright restrictions keeping it off of Commons.
  • WP:EL also gives as What can normally be linked

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and length or other reasons.

  • WP:Video links (an explanatory supplement) also address this and the file size as well

"Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to YouTube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available. ... {{External media}} can be used within the body of an article when media is necessary but not available through free or fair-use rules."

The key restrictions that are on the use of this template are that

  • We're not linking to a video that is violating copyright laws
  • It's not an advert, promotional. It should be reasonably neutral.

I think these videos all qualify.

Last, we have to say "What does this add to the article?"

IMHO - a huge amount. Most of us don't see sites like this and a simple photo is sorely lacking when we can see the site from multiple angles, at different times of the day, with different affected people explaining their views. If a picture is worth a thousand words, any one of these videos is worth a million.

BTW TEDx talks are a pretty common use of this templet. Imagine seeing a simple photo, then add on a 1 minute voice recording. That tells you a lot about the person. Now compare that to a video showing them walk, talk, and maybe even chew gum for 15 minutes, propounding on a topic that they are passionate about, and which they a considered an expert on. No contest is there?

Hope this helps.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun365 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment. What exactly are your concerns User:Gamingforfun365?
At first glance it looks as if the WP article might be a copyvio but I think other sites are mirroring Wikipedia. The Youtube commentary/link I found - states it was written in October 2016 and the WP article was written before that. Here are the results of the Earwig's Copyvio tool. I'm giving it a readthrough and haven't found anything iffy yet... Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Plot is not a copyvio, there was an edit war over it that resulted in the current text (including a DRN). The primary contributor after that who took it through a Peer Review and then to GAN was @Cognissonance:. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. I have every confidence that Cognissonancehas fact checked and met WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Good to know the background. I didn't think anything was a copyvio either, other sites steal Wikipedia content all the time without the required attribution. Off-topic for this Reassessment but I admit I don't understand why the GAR Nominator is nominating so many articles for the Reassessment process... Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do, but the sources are good. Cognissonance (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said on one of the other nominations, it remains true that a substandard initial GA review was done by the nominator: that's what is said in the nomination here. In effect, the community needs to do the work that wasn't originally done: to check the facts in the article against the sources to confirm their accuracy. To simply assume that no errors were made, as ferret has recommended on all of these reassessment pages, is simply not appropriate. The article will remain a GA unless issues are found and not fixed; I very much doubt that will be the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Joss Whedon[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article does not meet the good article criteria demand for reliable sources and no original research. One example comes from the FAC nomination, where it was failed partly for not having sources fit for a biographical article, instead linking to "blogs, sketchy review sites, and sources like BuzzFeed". The reviewer was surprised it made it through to good article status in the first place. It still has a problem with prose in addition to the suspicious copyvio results, but I think poor verifiability is its chief offence. Cognissonance (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the header. I don't know how to fix it, it says "GA Reassessment" instead of linking to the Joss Whedon GAR like there other articles on the main WP:GAR page, but anyway...

  • Ref #98 is dead.
  • Ref #168 handshake failure
  • Ref #249 fails.
  • Ref #324 is dead.
  • Ref #314 is malformed.

Also, it seems to me that the article possibly fails WP:GA criteria #5 "Stable" - it seems to attract a fairly constant stream of a certain amount of vandalism/reverts/edits/well-meaning edits not up to WP standards etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Header fixed. Thanks kind stranger. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, Shearonink. It was my fault to begin with; the reassessment was started as an individual one but because the nominator was a major contributor, it had to be done as a community reassessment; unfortunately, I didn't quite get the conversion right. Thanks for pointing out the issue; I'll do it better if such a conversion is needed in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Pearson's Candy Company[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

I am troubled by the fact that the references seems to be in such bad shape:

  • Ref #1 is using outdated info from 2008.
  • Ref #2 is dead.

And both of the preceding sources are used to identify key people (President, CEO, etc.) in the infobox.

  • Ref #3 is dated from 2003 and therefore the information it is sourcing is outdated.
  • Ref #4 is using outdated info from 2007 - Pearson's was sold in 2011, they don't even have the same owners anymore.
  • Ref #6 is dead.
  • Ref #7 is dead.

That leaves a total of 3 references - #5, #8, #9 - that seem to be valid. If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time. The references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment consideration can take place. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm curt, but this is not particularly helpful. Good Articles are assessed based on the Good Article Criteria, not opinions from the ether ("If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.") Please identify with specificity (number and subsection, if applicable), as you have not done, which criterion/criteria you feel is/are no longer met. Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry that my comments were unhelpful, I did not intend to be unhelpful. I have struck through my GA Reviewing comments but am leaving them so the throughline of our responses will be maintained.
Specifically, the criteria which are not being met by this article in its present state are the following:
  • Criteria 2B: all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources.
  • Criteria 1B: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Fails this because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time.
  • Criteria 3A: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
Fails this criteria because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic.
I hope this is more helpful. I do stand by my conclusion above that the references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment can occur. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The above is, frankly, nonsense. In order:
    "The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources."
    WP:RS, and indeed criterion 2B, relates to the reliablity of the source, not to whether the information referenced is up to date. Shearonink provided no cite to the WP:RS section that prohibits "stale and/or outdated" sources, as, indeed, such a section does not exist. WP:CS, for example, says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content." (emphasis mine), which implicitly establishes that "reliability" and being "a dead link" are not mutually exclusive.
    "Fails this [criterion 1B] because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time."
    The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dated information and, conversely, do not require contemporaneous information. The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dead links. Again, that a link is dead does not mean it is not reliable per my cite above, WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK.
    "Fails this criteria (sic) because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic."
    Shearonink has not indicated which "main aspects" are uncited. Yet again, that a given reference may be dead 1) does not mean the article does not "addre[ss] the main aspects of the topic" and 2) as per above, is not prohibited.
Although I believe the concerns related to GA status are entirely without merit, I have updated the article in the interest of its improvement. There is now only a single dead link, which I understand to be perfectly acceptable, and other information is as contemporary as is available for a closely-held firm. Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a Reassessment, a chance for a GA article to be improved, I wasn't voting Delete in my previous comments and am sorry that they have been interpreted to be so. Per my referencing comments, I was thinking of the WP:IRS section regarding age matters. I am just glad that the article has now been updated, that is what is important to me. I like Pearson's Candy, saw the article had been listed as possibly needing a GAR since 2014 and thought it deserved a community Reassessment and some possible improvements - that's all. Thanks to User:elcobbola for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
"In 1985, the company was purchased by Larry Hassler and Judith Johnston, the current CEO and COO, respectively." I did adjust this sentence to reflect that Hassler & Johnston bought the company in 1985 but that they are not the current CEO & COO. (Michael Keller is the current CEO/President.) Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Rock music[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article deserves a GA Reassessment because:

  • of the number of maintenance templates the article now has - including citation needed, too long, too much detail, original research, malformed references/examples.
  • the sheer length of the article. I just did a print check on it and this thing clocks out at 49 pages...49. The Page size tool gives the following stats: File size: 642 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 199 kB, References (including all HTML code): 23 kB, Wiki text: 206 kB, Prose size (text only): 96 kB (15886 words) "readable prose size", and References (text only): 2647 B. WP:SIZERULE says that an article with a readable prose size of 100kB should almost always be split. Well, if this article is deemed to be too large then the descendant articles will have to be judged on their own merits as being GAs or not.
  • References have gone dead, including #82 & #202.
At the present time, this article seems to fail the following GA criteria:
  • 1B: Per MOS:LEAD Lead is too long and overly-detailed. It includes a "golden age' phrase that is never mentioned within the main text (and one "dubious-discuss" maintenance template).
  • 2B & C: References, no original research
  • 3B: Stays focussed on the topic without going into to much detail.

I think the article could definitely benefit from some community editing and reassessment. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: An article of 100KB+ is often okay in cases where there are a lot of tables or the article is heavy in references. This article, with 405 references, is definitely one of those cases. But there still is excessive, undue coverage in here - 210k indicates the problem is more than just reference coding. I would say that the article isn't totally fouled on 2b/c, since it's only two. 3B seems to be the biggest one here, and I seriously doubt that one can be fixed. I'm going to say delist. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Stefanie Rabatsch[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
  • I'm asking for a community re-assessment of this GA. The recent AfD revealed that this article does not cover most of the subject's life and is in fact focused on Hitler's infatuation with her. I posit that this article is not Broad in its coverage as required. Because I voted delete in that AfD I imagine my objectivity would be questioned so I'll leave it to the disinterested community. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a good article. It is a highly problematic article, based almost entirely on the late-life memoir of a childhood associate of Hitler with all the usual difficulty of the unreliability of childhood memory compounded by the complexity of a Hitler associate writing in a post-war world that disapproved of Hitler and Nazism. Almost all of the other sources are the work of writers basing their assessments on that unreliable memoir. As far as I can tell, no evidence that a relationship between Rabatsch exists, and even the memoir claims only that Hitler admired the girl form afar without ever speaking to her. I voted to redirect to the article on the memoirist at the AFD, to at least put this mountain of footnoted speculation in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no particular reason to reassess the article. It is indeed mainly about the young Hitler's infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch and scholarly opinions about the infatuation rather than about Stefanie herself, for whom biographical details are scanty. It is broad in its coverage of the infatuation, reflecting what a wide variety of sources have said without going into unnecessary detail. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but that would be silly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article fails significantly on a number of issues as regards the GA criteria.
It is not well-written. Clumsy , repetitive, including in the texts long lists of people who may have commented on the story without adding anything to our knowledge of the subject. It does not make absolutely clear that not a single aspect of the story has any supporting evidence apart from the unreliable memoirs of a third party written many years after the alleged events concerned. And more specifically, the article is entitled 'Stefanie Rabatsch' but contains startlingly little information about her which is reliably sourced. In fact on strict criteria, the subject of the article fails WP:NOTABLE.
Verifiability - the whole article is structured around a story (by Kubizek) which no one has ever been able to verify except by reference to Kubizek himself. Rabatsch is on record as saying that she had no knowledge of Hitler's supposed infatuation with her. Hitler is no evidenced as ever having mentioned Rabatsch (except by Kubizek). It seems agreed that Hitler and Rabatsch never even exchanged a single word.
Broad in its coverage - it is not. it is entirely concerned with one aspect of the subject's life, for which there is no objective evidence.
Neutral. No. By simply listing lots of people (some of whom of doubtful significance as reliable commentators) who advance Kubizek's story, it implies that it has some basis.
Stable - it has not been stable over the past few weeks as editors (including Aymatth2 and, I admit myself), seek to add or remove material which they believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. In any event it is now substantially different from its status when it was originally awarded GA.
Images. The images illustrating the article do not have appopriate copyright status and/or fair use rationales.
Therefore comprehensive fail as regards GA standards, and the article should be delisted as a GA. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is certainly not a comprehensive biography of Stefanie Rabatsch. Relatively little is known about her, and she did nothing of any particular significance. The article is about Kubizek's story of Hitler's infatuation and the interpretations of that story by historians. It makes it very clear that the only basis for the story is Kubizek, writing long after the event, and that some historians are skeptical about its accuracy or its relevance. The article does a good job of presenting the scanty biographical information on Stefanie, presenting a summary of Kubizek's story, and presenting a neutral sample of the diverse views of historians. Again, the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but a change of title should not change the quality assessment. The present short title, "Stefanie Rabatsch", is the most natural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • If you agree (as seems to be the case) that it is not a bio, then I would suggest that the material in the aeticle might have a place in an article such as Fantasies given circulation by August Kubizek. But in any case your concession indicates that it cannot qualify as a GA. Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
      • This article presents a notable subject, the alleged infatuation, which has been discussed by many reputable historians. It gives an excellent overview of the subject and the views of the many historians who have written about it. Yes, the biographical material on the supposed target is slim. Yes, Kubizek's story has been questioned. It does make the young Hitler seem a bit ridiculous. None of this means it is impossible to write a good article about the subject. "Flat Earth" could be made into a good article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Old-fashioned doughnut[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Original GA review didn't address the criteria appropriately. Specifically, I think this article fails GACR 3, as it is not sufficiently broad in its coverage and leaves out several main aspects of the topic.

I came to this article because I was interested in finding out why they are called "old-fashioned", but there is almost nothing about etymology, history, cultural impact etc. The article is also very Americocentric: I grew up in Ireland, where I don't recall ever seeing such a doughnut (even in imported media), and so I got the impression it was a Japanese invention. I don't doubt that it actually originates in America, but that kind of information should definitely be in the article. The only proper names I see are the names of several American cities and corporations in the "Variations" section. Who invented the old-fashioned doughnut? Where? When? The article currently provides none of this information, but it really should have done so before being promoted to GA.

An article being woefully incomplete like this is to be expected, but GAs are supposed to be better.

I don't know how much work would be required to bring this article to legitimate GA status, but it's obvious that the article should not have passed the original GA review last year, so reverting the bad listing seems appropriate. Following the source-searching and hard work of Northamerica1000 to improve the article to address some of my concerns, it's clear that the amount of work needed to find sources that may or may not be able to address my concerns would be quite significant, if not impossible. I still think the "broad coverage" requirement means that it should address these issues in more detail than it currently does, and if the sources don't exist or can't be located then it may not be the kind of article that should be a GA. If this is a difference in interpretation and I'm being to subjective, then I'll agree to disagree and the article will not be delisted.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (Edited 07:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC) )

  • Article updated. Added a History section to explain the doughnut's origin in the United States. There is almost nothing available in online searches about the origin of the old-fashioned doughnut, but I will continue to search further. The article is "Americocentric" because the doughnut originated in the U.S. and almost all sources cover the topic from this perspective. It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention; particularly since you state that the article is "Americocentric". There is no mention of Japan in the article at all. There is also no particular source coverage about this variety of doughnut's "cultural impact" or etymology, (as stated above). Wikipedia articles are based upon what sources state, but sources haven't covered its cultural impact or etymology. North America1000 08:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's unclear how one woujld surmise this as a Japanese invention If one grew up in a country where, if old-fashioned doughnuts even existed, they were extremely obscure, and never saw them mentioned in American films or TV shows, then moved to Japan where they are ubiquitous, that is a very easy thing to surmise. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: I have further expanded the History section. North America1000 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have edited the article to address your concerns. A matter is that aspects of the topic you mention atop have received very little to no coverage in reliable sources. My goal is to improve the article to convince you to withdraw the nomination, but when sources are literally not available concerning the points you bring up, these points actually should not be included in the article, as per WP:V and WP:NOR. North America1000 09:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... the article as it stands is very short (easily the shortest GA I've seen) and I kind of suspect that if the kind of information I requested above can be written about it then ... well, I don't know. It's not a stub article at present, but I'm pretty sure WP:PERMASTUBs can't be GAs -- can PERMASHORTs be GAs? For me the title of the article begs the question "what is old-fashioned about them?" and I find it pretty hard to believe that no RSes have answered that question.
I'd rather you didn't pester me to "withdraw my nomination", though: I'm not going to change my opinion just because you say that you can't find reliable sources that provide the information that I think should be in the article, then this article can still be a GA if it turns out the community disagree with my opinion about what constitutes "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic".Rw
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I stated during the GA nomination discussion, "Note that there is not a great deal of extensive coverage about this topic", and really, there is not. Some is available, but it is limited; there's only so much. Try out the search options I have provided below. The article was fleshed out from all available sources at the time that were available in online searches. That's just the way it goes for some topics. While I agree that inclusion of the history of the topic is appropriate, there actually isn't anything available in online searches about the history of the old-fashioned doughnut itself, and I searched extensively. The only information available is about the history of cake doughnuts, which the old-fashioned variety is a type of.
On Wikipedia, it's typically not possible to address some particular aspects about a topic when no reliable sources exist that cover those particular aspects. It would be great to expand the article as such, but without sources, or only unreliable sources, it would only be speculation, rather than entirely fact-based. North America1000 10:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, if the article is a "QUASIPERMASTUB" (for want of a better term) for which sufficient sources can't be found even to explain where the name comes from, or to explain why they don't exist in some developed countries wih significant American cultural influence but are everywhere in others, I don't think the topic is GA-material. We'll see if others disagree with me, but you're not going to change my mind by saying that sufficient sources can't be found. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't view this article as a stub at all. For an example of what constitutes an actual stub, see this article. You seem to have made up your mind, but you come across as not liking the article because it doesn't have content in it that you would like to be there, but sources don't cover. Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, rather than conjecture. North America1000 23:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Hijiri88, you brought up some good points that would fit fabulously within the article, but we simply cannot add them to the article without the proper sources. I wouldn't agree that this is the shortest GA ever; yeah, it's on the short side, but it is broad in its coverage. I know you disagree with both Northamerica1000 and myself on this, but if the sources don't exist, it can't be included. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
That's fine. I opened this as a community reassessment because I wasn't sure if I was right or not. If I was absolutely certain that my opinion would be shared by others, this would be an individual reassessment. I should correct you on one point, though: I said it is easily the shortest GA I've seen (emphasis added). I don't doubt that there are other GAs that are shorter and have held up under reassessment and that an experienced GA reviewer would have seen such, but this is about 2/3 the length of the second-shortest GA I personally happen to have read. I still think this article lacks the kind of information I would expect from a Wikipedia article on this topic, and I think if sources can't be found for said information then it's a "PERMASHORT" or a "NEARPERMASTUB" or whatever one might call such an article and is likely to raise a question for readers that there are insufficient sources to answer. I wrote a few similar articles for WP Asian Month last November (they meet GNG but there's really not all that much that could be written about them, even if they can't be called WP:PERMASTUBs). So I certainly don't think that the page should be deleted or merged or anything, just that it might not be the type of article that should be a GA. Anyway, I suspect the longer this gets the less likely it is editors other than the original nominator, the original reviewer, and the one who opened the GAR will comment. If it winds up being 2-1 then it will be no consensus to delist and I'd be cool with that, but it would still be nice if some others chimed in as well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I am concerned that the term "old-fashioned doughnut" does not appear specifically cited in conjunction with the stated 1829 date in References 1 & 2. Yes, I can know that the original use of the term probably happened after commercial leavening agents were available but so far as I can tell this is not stated in these references. It seems to me that a better title for this article would possibly be "Cake doughnut". Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: If this makes any sense, a cake doughnut is more of a variety/style of doughnut while "old fashioned" is a specific type of a doughnut. Carbrera (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC).
To me the question remains...are old-fashioned doughnuts a type of cake doughnuts or is it the other way around. The references certainly seem to imply that old-fashioneds are a type of cake. I still think the cited references don't seem to quite verify that "old-fashioned doughnuts" were an invented/created things of a certain date & time. The references all refer to the invention of pearlash and commercial doughnuts but there isn't really anything specific in them about the old-fashioned. Maybe I missed that, am always willing to learn. Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)