Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Raymond D. Tarbuck/1

Raymond D. Tarbuck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged with relying on Primary sources. It seems like the banner was added shortly after the article was promoted in 2013. I don't think this article meets the criteria anymore. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe drive-by tag can be removed. No evidence of discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it could be removed, but what would be the point of that? It's indisputably correct—27 of the 41 individual citations in the article are to Tarbuck's own self-described "reminiscences", including everything on his life 1897–1942. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem is? There's nothing wrong with sourcing an entire article from primary sources, so long as you stick to the facts and avoid WP:SYNTH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly contradicted by WP policy, Hawkeye7. WP:PRIMARY (emphasis not mine): "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I didn't think I needed to point out that being non-independent, the source also fails WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not related to the sources used in an article. The subject has widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article using primary sources, even extensively, isn't in and itself a problem if the sources are reliable (though the chief source not being independent of the subject is a concern, this must be contrasted with WP:SELFSOURCE) and there is also coverage in secondary sources. I do see several independent and secondary sources cited in the article. In my opinion the addition of more secondary sources would be beneficial to the article, but as written the Good article criteria only require reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As used, the sources are not reliable: a memoir is perfectly good evidence for what someone said about themselves or what they claimed about an event, but distinctly dodgy for statements of autobiographical fact: people forget, exaggerate their successes, downplay their failures, protect their friends, denigrate their enemies and sometimes outright fabricate things (a recent FA was about someone who almost totally invented their own autobiography, and I've written one article myself where the subject's autobiography is both the main ur-source and extremely unreliable).

In particular, I would be very circumspect about using an autobiography for statements like Tarbuck observed the Russian Civil War first hand, The ability to speak "Army", and knowledge of the conduct of land, sea and air operations, would prove important in his selection for his next post, or Tarbuck met with Admiral Chester Nimitz, who told him in no uncertain terms that anti-Army and anti-MacArthur sentiments had no place in his command: these jumped out immediately as areas where there's a high risk of the narrative having been "padded", or indeed of Tarbuck simply not having known the truth (he could only have known at second hand, at best, why he was promoted, for example). I'm with User:AirshipJungleman29 that there's a reliability concern here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings and Hawkeye7: thoughts on the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional secondary sources, including a recent work detailing his meeting with Nimitz. I disagree about Tarbuck's knowledge of his promotion; at this time BuPers managed the careers of regular Navy officers carefully, and usually there was some discussion about possible assignments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but even if he was told outright "you're being promoted because you speak 'Army'", it's entirely possible that he was really (or also) being promoted because his new boss took a shine to him, that his current boss wanted rid of him, that the promotion board had some grievance with his competitors... The reason for an officer's promotion is by definition an analytical/evaluative statement, so is outside what we can reasonably draw from a primary source, though there's nothing wrong with us saying something like "Tarbuck later wrote that the main reason for his promotion was..." -- that's a mere statement of fact, presented in Tarbuck's voice, not Wikipedia's. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I have seen this but am very busy offwiki, I will look into thing further this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, I believe the addition of secondary sources has been a significant improvement to the article, to the point I'm leaning towards retention of GA status at this time. I think the initial GAR had very valid concerns, but they appear to have been successfully addressed to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.