Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article mainly fails criteria 2. Although it looks well-referenced, but when I used Internet Book Database and Worldcat to search the ISBN codes 9788873511847 and 9497910982 (used by the footnotes 31 and 38), no information was found. Those sources are distrustful. The main sections of this article completely depended on the books published by Ebner himself and his own website, their reliability were dubious. And, I feel the article was writen in an advertisement style, although not very evident. --Ice Sea (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After a second look ... maybe you should also question your databases or your verification procedure, at least partly: look what I found on Worldcat:

• La Catalana de Lletres 2004, include both ISBN

At least, the ISBN provided by the article was wrong.--Ice Sea (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, got it now. I will fix that. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This page on the Nosside/Centro Studio Bosio website (in English) mentions the publication of the anthology.
This file from the Nosside Award's web page lists the winners from the year 2007. Ebner is mentioned on page 4 (Menzioni, poesia scritta). Anyway, I would not like to change a book against a weblink; the book seems to me much more reliable in this context.
The ezine Calabrianotizie mentions the publication of the anthology.
This is the catalog of the publisher Città del Sole Edizioni, mentioning all relevant data, including the ISBN. You can buy the book there!
Another bookstore, universitarian, unilibro offering the book. You can also buy it here.
I don't know why the book couldn't be found in your databases but there are so many hints and vendors in the Internet that this source seems to me absolutely reliable. The questions concerning the Catalan anthology were already answered by Torsten I think. Cheers. --Helmut Bihy (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The detabases are not mine. But I agree with you that there are so many hints and vendors in the Internet. Maybe the list on Special:booksources were also writen by them, and not discovered by the wikipedia comunity for several years, maybe. But please remember there are always much more hints and vendors in the real world than internet. In my opinion, the anthology is not a third-party source, that's very clear.--Ice Sea (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me??? Why would this anthology not be a third-party source? There is an international Poetry Award in Italy (Ebner is Austrian). Every year they publish an anthology with the text of the winners. The members of the jury wrote intoducing texts in three or four languages. The publisher is the italian publishing house Città del Sole Edizioni. This is a classical third-party source.--Helmut Bihy (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The two databases mentioned do not list the Nosside 2007 book. But Google Books has it, and it is the second DB of the Online Databases of the page Book Sources. The same is true for anobii DB (which is the 5th in the list).--Irina Walter AT (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment to the ISBN numbers mentioned by Ice Sea

Footnote 38, ISBN 94-97910982:

• Book on the publisher's site
• Book on Google Books

Footnote 31, ISBN 978-8873511847:

• Italian online bookstore Bol.it (the book isn't available any more)

Note that the first book is from Spain and the second from Italy. Maybe the wordlcat catalog isn't firm here or publishers of these countries do not register all books. The Italian book is already out of print, maybe this is the reason why you couldn't find it.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the book la catalana de lletres 2004 was only a florilegium, I don't think it provided effective introduce about him. And I would not agree that website from bookstore was a realible source.--Ice Sea (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This book has not been mentioned as an "introduction" as you state. It is the outcome of this award, it contains a Catalan poem of Ebner (which you can even find on Google.books) and it is the proof of the "mentioning". Not more but not less. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the bookstore source: You wanted a proof that the book exists. Here is one. I know that Irina Walter from Austria is in possession of this book and the information comes right from there. I didn't know that book databases do not list it, and I have never had access to an Italian National Library - as an Italian book it will not show up in the German National Library I guess. My Italian is extremely basic so I am not able to search through Italian media; I know that this prize always causes echo in the Italian press, and there have even been presentations of the book in New York and Barcelona I believe. If there has been a press echo, the US colleagues should please research it and deliver the data. And by the way, I am astonished that it is so difficult to prove the existence of a book that someone has on the table (Irina in this case). In my opinion the information of this source should be sufficient. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Italian book. And I didn't know the word "florilegium" ... ;-)) --Irina Walter AT (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used the key word "Nosside 2007" to search that book at the website of National Central Library of Rome, but no result[1]. Maybe it did exist, but I strongly doubt its reliability.--Ice Sea (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice Sea, I don't understand your problem. This book is one of the sources that Ebner got this "menzione" - and in my opinion the best source for it because it has been edited by the organizers of the Poetry Award; it is the source for the short citation from the jury and the source for the poem which is printed in this book. What do you insinuate with your incredulity? Would you think that Ebner did not get this menzione? Would you think the award is a fake (although it is even listed in the UNESCO World Poetry Directory)? Would you think the poem is not printed there although you can look at it when you get the book? What is your intention? Please state your point because to me - and please excuse my openness - it sounds like "No, this apple is not an apple because I don't want that it be". And please keep in minde that I want to improve the article if this is required; but when you say that the book that I myself have on my table and of which I gave all available publishing information is "not valid" then I don't know what to do. --Irina Walter AT (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on "main sections ... completely dependent ..."

I cannot see your point. This article is about a writer, so it seems to me natural that it talks about his books. On the other hand, a multitude of sources stems from Austrian, German and Catalan literary magazines and newspapers: die Rampe, Literaturhaus Wien, Literarisches Österreich, Avui, the IBM Redbook, the book Lyrik der Gegenwart and also the Italian book of which you couldn't verify the ISBN, Avui, Diari Maresme, the Austrian National Library, the German National Library, Lesezirkel, Sterz, Literatur und Kritik, Magazine of Catalan Studies, and that's not all. In my opinion there is only very little information which would be based only on the author's website (the info on his family is an example, which seems to me very natural). I would not agree that the reliability of the information given would be dubious. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But, in fact, some of his award-winning information was from his own website, no other sources. --Ice Sea (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. There is a good reason for the subsidies: the Austrian government does not publish the subsidies; I heard that some Austrian writers associations have requested this for years but without success so far. So at least for the subsidies, Ebners page (or indications in his books or in literary magazines - the primary source always remains the same) will remain the only (and the best) source. By the way, I don't think that anybody would pretend to having received such subsidies because he would risk to be sued (don't forget, these subsidies are give by the state's authorities!). If this source does not suffice or respect any Wiki rules, then we could delete the subsidy staff - in this case I want to see the opinion of other users and editors too! So please ... --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In case of the radio play award I will contact Irina Walter, maybe she knows another source. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternativa Source for Jewish and Muslim Topics

The Penedès Digital, a electronic magazine of Catalonia, published an interview with K.E. (which seems to be the same as in Diari Maresme), that also mentions that he writes on Jewish and Muslim/Islamist topics. You can use this source instead of the one that points to the homepage of the author. It says: Ha escrit obres sobre tradicions jueves i també un assaig sobre islamisme a Europa. Què el motiva a escriure sobre civilitzacions aparentment tan separades? Penso que ja no estan tan separades. Europa té una relació íntima amb la cultura jueva, i sobretot a Àustria on hem tingut un component jueu força important en la nostra cultura per molts segles i després hem desencadenat i viscut l’horror de la shoah. (...) --Svartvicks (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten to mention the link: http://www.penedesdigital.cat/2009/09/06/entrevista-a-klaus-ebner-la-majoria-dels-austriacs-coneixen-la-paraula-%C2%ABcatala%C2%BB-nomes-en-relacio-amb-els-exits-del-barca/ --Svartvicks (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that language, so I used the google translation, tried to get its synopsis. It's an interview, so it's also his own parlance. Is that right?--Ice Sea (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As before: What is your point, Ice Sea? Of course this is an interview. Where do you believe that all the information that we have about writers comes from? Why do we know about the writing process of Franz Kafka? Because he wrote it down. Why do we know about Goethes familiy? Because he wrote it down. Why do we know about Elfriede Jelineks psychic problems in public? Because she told us in interviews. If we would not have the authors themselves as a source, the world would know nothing about writers and literary studies would shrink to almost zero. When I contributed to this article, I first mentioned the Jewish topic, because the story published by the magazine Rampe is about a Jewish topic; other users told me that this would be personal research so I looked for respective statements; which I found on the author's website; now I hear that this would not be reliable; Svartvicks pointed us to an interview where exactly this question occurs and the author answers to it. And you refuse that too. I'd like to have other users involved in this discussion, I don't want to lead it alone. Thanks. --Irina Walter AT (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But Ebner is not Kafka or Goethe. He is a writer still alive and his notability is not so affirmatory as those people you mentioned. What's my point, that's not inessential. what's important is that whether this article pass the Good Article criteria. I apologise, I was impertinent about the authenticity of that interview. I'd also like to have other users involved in this discussion. And thanks, everybody.--Ice Sea (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think she didn't mean to compare Ebner to Kafka or Goethe. She mentioned examples she could be quite sure that you will know them. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on "advertisement style"

If you feel that the writing style is an advertisement style then please help to improve it. Basically I am wondering about your allegation because users Peregrine Fisher and Yllosubmarine did a thorough proofreading and I would not expect them to accept an advertise style. I already mentioned on other places that I am from Germany and since my native language is not English I am not able to recognize such linguistic subtlenesses. Only native speakers like you can help to have an encyclopedical neutral style.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the Internet Book DB

The Internet Book Database did not find the following books:

• "Die Klavierspielerin" by Elfriede Jelinek
• "Die Rättin" by Günter Grass
• "La Quarantaine" by Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio

All three are Nobel laureates for literatur! So if this DB doesn't even find the books of writers who have won the Nobel prize, how can you be serious on this DB? I would really like and expect you to choose reliable databases when verifying the reliability of sources. Thank you. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Internet BD was listed at Special:BookSources, so it could be trusted. And I do can find those books mentioned by Wittmann:[2],[3],[4], so I don't think his accusement of IDB was reasonable.--Ice Sea (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was too quick on that. I was enraged (because I have contributed a lot on this article) and I apologize. Anyway, I am still not sure about the reliability of this DB. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from María

I was asked by Torsten to help finesse the article's prose, which I've done before, but before I do, let me state that I believe this reassessment is unwarranted. It's certainly not fit for community reassessment; Ice Sea, if you read the instructions at WP:GAR, you will see that community reassessment is for when there was a disagreement regarding the article's past GA review. You should have initiated an individual reassessment on the article's talk page. Furthermore, as Torsten has pointed out above, I don't see any glaring issues with the article that could not have been easily fixed by editors after a note on the talk page. Usually main contributors will take the time to address concerns without involving the red tape of a process like WP:GAR. To me, the sources check out, and although there are more primary sources than I would prefer, they are used where applicable. I'll gladly have a look at the article to remove any hint of an "advertisement style", but this reassessment really shouldn't be listed here. María (habla conmigo) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I do not quite understand the rules here. If you think this debate is not legal, you may remove it from the list. And, like Torsten Wittmann, I'm not a native speaker of English.--Ice Sea (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's quite all right, I've redirected the previous page to this one, which is now an individual reassessment. However, I strongly suggest that you read the left-side column at WP:GAR so you know how you should be handling this process. I'll copy-edit the article in a day or so. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Other sources for awards added

Hi all. I replaced the source for the info on the radio play with the indication in the literary magazine Texte from 1984. However, to see this "live", you would have to come to the Austrian National Library in Vienna, because the magazine was issued only until 1988. The Library holds all issues in the archives, the same will probably be true for the Österreichisches Literaturarchiv, but I couldn't verify this.

I also replaced two of the sources for the subsidies, since they are also indicated on the biography page of the Literaturhaus Wien. I hope this source is more valuable to you. If not, I would suggest the same as Torsten already did, i.e. to take out the subsidies. For the newest subsidy, I could not find another source than the one indicated on the website of Ebner.

Hope this helps. --Irina Walter AT (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources replaced by more reliable ones

I also replaced the link to the press text of "Hominide" on Ebner's website with a link to a critical review by Karin Gayer which has been published by the Vorarlberg online magazine Kultur-Online. --Irina Walter AT (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I added an explanation how to use the link to the catalog of the National Library because it is not possible to put in a stable link to the catalog entry; very quickly (i.e. at once or some days later) the link displays only the search page. However, when you type in the first words of the title, the entry will be displayed at once. In addition, I fixed a broken link (to the authors website). --Irina Walter AT (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this explanation. I've already wondered how to put that right. --Helmut Bihy (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

no advertisement style

Just learned about this reassessment. I do not agree with the alleged advertisement style. Don't forget that the wording which you might take as appraisal is always quotations and the original (German) statements are given and sourced as footnotes. Why don't you point out the parts you feel might be advertisement style? --Livia Plurabelle (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, third party sources

I was asked, as both a senior editor and a previous reviewer of this article, to have a look at the reassessment concerns. I understand that both the reviewer and main contributors may be new to this process, but I want to remind you all that this article should be assessed against the Good Article criteria. The main issue here seems to be with the article's sources, and their reliability. According to criteria 2b, the article must provide "in-line citations from reliable sources 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". Reliable sources are defined as "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."

Note how the above quote says nothing about accessibility; one need not only provide sources that everyone can have access to, as some material may be rare in nature, or localized to a specific area. I've used microfilm a couple times for sources, and that's obviously not readily available elsewhere. It has been proven that the Nosside anthology is a credible source, despite the fact that it may be illusive from a simple web search, and the prize itself is certainly a notable mention for Ebner's career. As for concerns over what constitutes a third party source, they differ than a primary source, such as Ebner's works or anthologies that simply include reprints of his works; however, anthologies may also include biographies, articles, and even interviews with the authors, which would be considered third-party or secondary sources. This sort of text is ideal for use in an article, as long as it is from a reputable/credible source. In the case of this particular article, when an anthology is citing the explanation of those who decided to anthologize the author in the first place, that is perfectly acceptable. Likewise, interviews, if reported by a notable third-party media outlet, such as well known newspapers, magazines, organizations, etc., are indeed third party sources. Just because they are the words of the author himself does not make them a primary source; the secondary nature of the source relates to its publication, not its "speakers".

I believe that the concerns of the reviewer should have been adequately addressed by now. If they have further issues, I suggest they begin a new section with explicit reasons as to why they don't feel the article fulfills the GA criteria. I find it useful to actually list the criteria on the page and go through it point by point. Concerns as to the article's prose, and it's supposed "advertisement style", would help greatly as well. María (habla conmigo) 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that one need not only provide sources that everyone can have, but if someone provided a source that anyone can not find except himslef, how can you confirm its authenticity? If we can not even find the Nosside anthology even at the largest library of Italia, there's no reason for us to be so sure about its facticity. (I was told the worldcat and the Internet Book Database were not reliable, maybe it can be proved that the National Central Library was a very small library?)

Yes, I do know that if an anthologies also include biographies and interviews with the authors, it could be trusted, but I did not find effective information in la catalana de lletres 2004, it only contained some of his works.

Yes, you say it. This is the proof. This anthology has one poem of Ebner. Since this anthology is the result of the Poetry competition of the Catalan radio, it is the proof that Ebner got this mention. If not, the poem wouldn't be there. And I found this poem (=the entire text) even on Google. So this is totally lucid. And the book has been used as source only for this fact in this article. Nothing more. Therefore the source is perfectly valid. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is also interesting to know that the Catalan article on Ebner does not quote the Nosside poem but this poem from la catalana de lletres 2004, obviously because it has been written in Catalan. They do not cite a poem from the poetry book Vermels, presumably due to copyright questions.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And, there was still information about his Subsidy, can not be proved by third-party source. His website was published by himself, that's distinctly a primary source. Maybe it's true, but that's not important, the linchpin is whether it can be proved by third-party sources. --Ice Sea (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Worldcat is not reliable? Who says? I use it every day, and although it is certainly not all inclusive, it is the world's largest online bibliographic database. If a work can be found there, I would take its listing to mean that the work is authentic and not a figment of one editor's imagination. Whether or not it can be trusted as a reliable source is less clear, but seeing as how the publisher is noteworthy, I would say so. It may not be a universally popular work or publisher, but it obviously is reliable.

To reiterate the purpose of primary vs. secondary sources and their respective uses in an article, la catalana de lletres 2004 is used to prove that Ebner's contribution to said anthology exists. This is like citing a fictional work, whether it be a novel or a film itself, to prove that the plot goes a certain way. It is self evident and does not need a critic or third-party writer stating the obvious. All of the refs listed under the "Awards and literary prizes" section are used to prove that Ebner received various mentions and/or publications in anthologies or received various accolades; the article therefore only needs to prove that it was so, the result being that no secondary source is required. I agree that his website looks less authoritative than a third-party reporting the same fact, but it is not unheard of to use facts from an individual's website. Many GAs and FAs use the same practice. Do you consider the fact that he received such subsidies as contentious? To me, as an editor and a reader, it is extremely minor, and does not require such stringent sourcing. Please refer back to WP:RS to see what requires sourcing, and reconsider what these sources are used for. María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Bihy and Torsten Wittmann, they accused those databases of dubious reliability, maybe just because I can not use them to find the so-called "third-party" sources. I wonder why this article could pass GA only according to the opinions of a few major contributers of it, and just have a look on how someone added machine translations on Hebrew, Chinese and some other wikipedias, that's really spamming. He or she do not respect those languages at all, only care of whether the article will have more inter-wiki links. Maybe a lot of people will be misleaded, think Ebner is more famous than Friedrich Schiller, Bertolt Brecht and Hermann Hesse. I for one don't like this kind of action. And my first question was still not answered, if someone provided a source that anyone can not find except himslef, how can you confirm its authenticity?--Ice Sea (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice Sea, I feel directly attacked by your words. I would say that I am driving this project to have articles on Austrian writers translated to as many languages as possible, and the article on Ebner is a kind of a pilot because I've heard the author at several presentations, I've talked to him and I know all his books and many texts that have been published in magazines (On the German Wikipedia you could see that I've written articles on a multitude of writers and other literary topics, but Ebner is my first "translation project"). I've seen many projects around that do the same (i.e. spreading the information to many Wiki languages) and I really don't understand why especially this one is attacked as "spamming". I cannot follow your argument that people might believe that Ebner would be more known that Schiller or Hesse because in many Wikipedias there are articles on many people, especially in a cultural context, while articles on many others (e.g. most of the Nobel prizes) are still missing. I would not believe that anyone would deduce a kind of "celebrity order" based on the fact which articles are showing up in Wikipedia. Then you say that machine translations have been added to several wikipedias. Some days ago it was only the Chinese one, now you mention the Hebrew one (why should this be a machine translation? Who says so?) and "several others" - which ones? Please indicate them. Of course, I have to admit that in the past I've also worked sometimes with machine translations - but they have been used to be a base for editors from the respective countries who took this base translation and then put it right - so they have ceased to be machine translations several days after their creation. While in the meantime I have stopped to do so (yes, because of protesters, you are not the first one), I would not see a problem with that if there is a team of editors. However, while I am writing this I think that we could have done this using user sub pages; yes, I didn't think about this before, I'm sorry. Anyway, if you know specific Wikipedia articles which are machine translated, then please tell me which ones. If they are bad they will be deleted anyway (as a normal procedure) but I will also try to find editors of that Wiki who would be willing to put the article into a correct language. And nobody ever told me that this would be forbidden.--Irina Walter AT (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now to your question about the sources that "anyone cannot find except himself": Which sources should that be? Please be precise. I think we proved very well that all the sources can be found - but not in all databases or search engines, this is true. I think we delivered several sources for all items you had mentioned, we usually delivered not only one source but more than one. The Italian book was a good example: It is true that it is not in Worldcat as you said - I cannot change it and I have no idea how books are entered in this catalog. But we provided you with several other sources: the book is listed with Google, it is listed with another catalog, we provided you the catalog of the publisher where it is still available. So it is simply not true that only one person would be able to find it. I don't know of which other items you are talking. In my opinion there is no source that only one person would find. If you do not agree then please state them in plain English; in case you are right, me and other editors will try to fix this.--Irina Walter AT (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice Sea, are you in fact questioning this article's GA-status because you find fault with its (sometimes tenuous) presence on other Wikis? If that's the case, you should excuse yourself from this reassessment. That the article has been translated into many different languages, for no other reason than to spread the subject's obvious notability in Austrian literature, then you are not in fact checking this article against the GA criteria. Nowhere does such a rule exist. In fact, partnerships with other Wikis is seen as beneficial to the entire project. Yes, articles should be manually, rather than automatically, translated, but that sort of issue should have been brought up personally to the editor in question. There is no reason to air such concerns here, since there are no issues with this particular article's translation. I am not a major contributor to Ebner's article -- I stumbled upon it during its first nomination to GAC, reviewed it, and then was asked to copy-edit several times. I have no stake in this article's success, and yet I believe your concerns to be incredibly minor in regards to the GA criteria. As Irina states, if you have further concerns other than the sources we've already proven to be adequate, please state them. If not, I suggest we close this reassessment. María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noted this article when I found its presence on other Wikis, but that do not mean I questioned this article's GA-status because of that reason. The Chinese version was not the only machine-translated one, just have a look at this page. (Yes, that's no relation with whether this article should pass GA, I point out that only to answer Irina Walter's question.) Although I only mentioned two, there did exist other sources of doubtful reliability, this book (footnote8) and this book(footnote 17) can not be found even at the largest internet database of the world. The book "Nosside 2007" can only proved by Walter herself, it was not collected even by the largest library of Italy. And if you google that name "Klaus Ebner", all the effective introduce were from Wikis. Why are you so sure about its (so-called) obvious notability??

Ice Sea, you already proved that you usually don't believe what you read, so I don't understand why you believe the statement on the Norwegian Wikipedia. The Norwegian version was NOT an automatic translation - it was MY translation, I did it. I learned several Skandinavian languages in my youth but my proficiency is very moderate. I had no problem with the Swedish version because I have friends in Sweden whom I could ask. My Danish article had also more errors than I thought but they were fixed quite quickly. The Norwegians threw the article out. But once again: it was not an automated translation, it only had too many mistakes because it seems that I don't know the language good enough. What I learned was: if people don't like what they read in "their" Wiki they declare it as machine translation and delete the article. This was a bitter experience for me but once again I am learning that there are many proponents of this behavior. I am currently preparing a new Norwegian article with the support of colleages I have in Norway; they will ensure a correct language and will store the article from there. And when after this people like you come again and claim a machine translation in order to have an excuse to delete it, then I will kindly ask them to fuck off. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, partnerships with other Wikis is seen as beneficial to the entire project. But that kind of prepense spreading of the subject's notability made this tool completely disabled, in fact, the suggest article will be not really priority for most wikipedia communities. I don't think it's beneficial to the wikipedias, it's only beneficial to the writer himself. .--Ice Sea (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "prepense" (?), but I will reiterate that your concerns regarding the other Wikis' translations of Ebner's articles do not belong on this article's reassessment. Bring it up with the contributors responsible, or on the respective articles. Now, back to your legitimate concerns: as I stated earlier, Worldcat is not all inclusive. That the works you have pointed out above cannot be found there does not mean that they do not exist, or are not notable. Do a Google search and see what you come up with. I found this at Eurobuch, which gives full bibliographic information and proves that it is a primary source by Ebner himself, and the second link (for ISBN 3853206794) does result in the correct text at Worldcat. There is also this result from a German search engine. Since the Nosside prize is still proving difficult, perhaps we can substitute one of the citations for the anthology itself with this pdf, which explicitly states that Ebner won a prize in 2007. Again, we must check what the sources are in fact proving. Re-read my above explanation about the purpose of primary vs. secondary sources. María (habla conmigo) 17:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were some results about that ISBN:3853206794, but the name of those books were Zeitbezuge : Texte des Autorenkreises Linz and Wendepunkte : Texte der Grazer Autorenversammlung Oberosterreich, not die Rampe which mentioned in this article. Why are you so sure about the legitimacy of that ISBN only according to a single website from Eurobuch? I can not find this book even use this German website mentioned by you. Maybe it's not all inclusive, but at least you can't make certain its reliability. Yes, my concerns regarding the other Wikis' translations of Ebner's articles do not belong on this article's reassessment, but it's not me who first brought out the words do not belong on the reassessment. Why didn't you dissuade them first?--Ice Sea (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Die Rampe is a literary magazine and not a book. The ISBN is printed on the issues. The entries in the search engines are definitely wrong. Maybe these books mentioned (Grazer Autorenversammlung) mention the respective issues of die Rampe because the magazine is also issued in Upper Austria (Oberösterreich, Linz) - this is what I can imagine. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

María, I added the pdf link to the article. I did not replace anything because I don't know what to take out: from the Nosside there is only one referral to the statement of the jury and of course the poem. I would appreciate if you could have a look if it's fine. Thank you for your endeavors. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One should read carefully before acting ... I just understood what you meant to replace. Yes, that's a good idea. I re-edited: I left the additional source within the text, where it first mentiones Nosside, and I put in the same reference to the listing of awards. Thus the direct verification is possible. --Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Verification of cataloging?

My understanding is that editors can take sources from printed books, university papers, newspapers or magazines. They will indicate the title, the authors, the pages, the ISBN or ISSN if available, and, if the language is different from English, the original text they are quoting. This is how I have done it so many times. Now, reading and being envolved in this discussion, I would like to know if there is really a rule or an obligation for editors to verify or even to ensure that the sources they have personally or from libraries, are also included in Internet search engines or in specific libraries. Maybe María can answer this question because I am sure she knows much more about the Wikipedia rules than the rest of us.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule anywhere that states sources must be readily accessible. However, some editors seem to misinterpret WP:RS to find exactly this meaning; they may think that a reliable source is one with widespread, easily verified notability. This is easy enough with article subjects that are widely known; in the case of Ebner, however, that is largely impossible. He is known mainly in Austria, so of course the majority of the sources used in the article will be Austrian. The most suitable works to use as sources may not be readily available, whether they be localized magazines, newspapers, or what have you, but that does not detract from their reliability. María (habla conmigo) 16:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A question

Where's the first time Good article nomination's (in 2008) archive of this article??--Ice Sea (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has in fact been through two GA reviews; one by myself and one by another editor. The first is not archived, because it was conducted before that particular process began, but you can find it here. The second is located on the page talk:Klaus Ebner/GA1. María (habla conmigo) 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Ice Sea (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Passing Good Article criteria

My humble opinion: Yes, perfect pass. Even more now with the minor improvements during this reassessment. --Svartvicks (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Pass. --Livia Plurabelle (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As María already pointed out, the article should be measured against the Good Article criteria. In my opinion all criteria are met. Thus I vote for keeping the GA status of this article. --Livia Plurabelle (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To remember: A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

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

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

These are the criteria against which we have to decide, and we are talking about this English article and not of an article in any other language. I believe that all criteria are met. This reassessment questioned item 2, but the reliability of each source has been proved, often with multiple links. In cases of doubts the article has been improved by the editors. Hence I think that the initiator should close this reassessment. --Anne-Claudine (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Hi. I am not a main contributor and I am using Wikipedia primarily as a user and only randomly as editor. I want to comment on the suggestion to replace one of the citations from Nosside with the pdf file stating the mention. I would prefer to add it. Why? The pdf is only a file on the Internet. Above you very long discussed about reliability. A file on the Internet is always less reliable than something printed. So I would not remove the citations and the information of the Nosside anthology (ISBN etc.). Because one day an Internet file may disappear, but the book is there - even when one person denies its existance. And another comment concerning the Italian library: Learn to know Italy, its society, its history and the mentality of its people. Then you will understand why their libraries do not list all the books they might have to list. Greetings from Austria (yes, same country as this writer, sorry for that). --D. Bogdan V. (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, D. Bogdan, thanks for weighing in. Regarding the .pdf that I suggested above, I believe you're interpreting WP:RS incorrectly. Using websites as sources is highly common, and not frowned upon in the least. In fact, some users prefer them, since it's much easier to confirm facts. Yes, websites may not be permanent like printed material, but the .pdf is housed on Nosside's own website, which points to its reliability as a trusted source. A source's reliability has nothing to do with its ease of accessibility, as already been proven above. My suggestion to replace one of the citations to Nosside (ref 37?) with the .pdf, other than using the anthology itself, was because it would readily prove that Ebner was awarded the prize; that is precisely what the .pdf states, and that seems to be what's being contested. Hope this makes sense, María (habla conmigo) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen such a weird discussion. It seems that an entire group of editors brings one proof after the other to document sources, which have already been documented well as I see it, but one (?) user does not recognize them and continues chasing them around. I find it even interesting that this user does not respond any more when some proof is brought up but suddenly comes up with a new questioning. I will not comment on the prizes - this has been done sufficiently - but on the subsidies and literary magazines like Die Rampe ([5]) and Literatur und Kritik ([6]). Subsidies for literature are given by the Austrian government or by the governments of Austrian provinces like Vienna or Upper Austria. Die Rampe is edited by the Stifterhaus in Linz, which is maybe the most reputated center of literature in Upper Austria, and financed by the Upper Austrian government. Literatur und Kritik is edited by the Otto Müller Verlag in Salzburg and co-financed by the government of Salzburg. To question any of these magazines or sources is absolutely ridiculous. Literatur und Kritik and, to a certainly lesser extent, Die Rampe (as well as Sterz, Manuskripte, Lichtungen) are so important not only for Austrian literature but in general for literature in the German language, that I am sure that even the philologists of communist China know about them. My conclusion: I expect the user who initiated (and drives) this reassessment, to question in the same way all sources of the remaining articles (or at least the good and featured articles) of this Wikipedia - if this does not happen, I strongly suspect a personal reason for this argy-bargy. BTW, I cannot find any lapses in this article. --Kaiser Josef (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining wikipedia just to make that statement, and thanks for your hard work! I have already known there were German articles about those awords before, yes ,those articles did exist since 2008. I don't care about whether the information were true, whether it could be porved is more important. There's always lapses even in the FAs, and no article was perfect. To trust any of those magazines or sources which can not be proved is absolutely ridiculous.--Ice Sea (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have joined Wikipedia in February of this year. This is an interwiki account (don't know if this is the correct name for it), initiated in France. If you do not accept any proof then it is logical that nothing can be proved. --Kaiser Josef (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Die Rampe, edited by Stifterhaus Linz, History of Die Rampe
• Portrait of Die Rampe. Die freie Bibliothek
• Museums of Upper Austria. Literary magazines Die Rampe.
• German Archive of Literature Marbach. Die Rampe is listed as regularly utilized medium.
• Literatur und Kritik at the publisher's site.
• Entry at the Austrian Archive of Literature Österreichisches Literaturarchiv
• Österreich-Lexikon AEIOU, entry about Literatur und Kritik
• --Irina Walter AT (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the links.--Ice Sea (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the entry of the exact issue of Rampe 2/94, of the National Library of Austria (I hope it displays correctly; the Library uses to change the link addresses constantly and then you would have to search again.)
• Google Link for Islamischer Fundamentalismus in der EU - it seems that the entire book can be read there.
• Same book, which is a university paper, exactly as the article says, at publisher GRIN
• As a curiosity I just stumbled over: the Japanese Amazon offers the German book/university paper about Islamism in Europe. (grinning ...) By the way, dozens of online bookshops are offering this essay.
• --Irina Walter AT (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ice Sea, have your concerns been sufficiently addressed by the above links and explanations? If we continue to disagree as to the meaning of WP:RS, I may ask others to comment on the situation. María (habla conmigo) 16:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please close

Ice Sea, please close this reassessment. This task is up to you as initiator. I think there are no questions left open.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have closed this as "keep" (without prejudice). Please open a fresh community reassessment if any disagreement remains. See also this thread. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)