- Article is no longer a featured article
An incident over a quote (see Talk:Erich von Manstein#Quotes) has led me to scrutinize this article closer for the first time since its promotion to featured status on November 25, 2004. I think it no longer satisfies the criteria for a featured article:
- it lacks inline references,
- has three (out of four!) unsourced images (the fourth is claimed "fair use", but has no rationale), despite my having bugged the main author GeneralPatton repeatedly about this at the time,
- has some very small sections (Barbarossa, Crimea),
- contains needless discussions of "might have beens" (Stalingrad, Citadel),
- is POV in some places (for instance, in "Kharkhov Operation", Soviet casualties and losses are numbered, in the following "Citadel" section, German losses are glossed over by just stating "despite losses")
- needs a fact check (which I cannot do all by myself; I have marked a (very) few places with ((fact)), but there's way more),
- needs a grammar workover (for instance, there are run-on sentences), or even a complete rewrite, as one editor suggested on the talk page.
I also think this article should have more on-line references; surely there are trustworthy web sites with information on this important General of the Third Reich. Lupo 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsourced images need a source, but the sourced one doesn't appear to require a rationale to me; I expect it would be obvious. Perhaps ((Non-free fair use in)) might be appropriate, but that's minor. The rest of the complaints (except for inline references, which I would not really expect, although they are to be encouraged) appear to be serious enough to warrant a remove, however. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All "fair use" images must have a rationale (and, of course, a source); see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Fair_use_policy, item 10. The rationale may be only omitted if the image is covered by one of the specialized "fair use" tags such as e.g. ((bookcover)), which have an implied generic rationale, but which also apply only in very specific uses. For book covers for instance, the "fair use" would be in an article on the book, not in an article on the event the book is about or that happens to be depicted on the cover. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use for more on this. Lupo 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that, but as the image clearly depicts von Manstein and wasn't used in a book cover or anything of the sort, I think the rationale is implicit - this image is fair use in Erich von Manstein because it depicts him and is being used for educational purposes. Johnleemk | Talk 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On inline references: I'm certainly not one of these people who want to see every single sentence referenced. It's fine to write an article as a summary of a few main references and give those summarily as "main sources" at the bottom. However, some topics need more scrupulous referencing than others, and I believe articles on Third Reich personalities fall into this category, if only to be able to easily detect falsifications and apologia inserted by sympathizers, as this happens often on such articles. If one writes that some Russian General praised Manstein, it needs a precise (and preferrably on-line, backed by a print publication) reference. In this sense I find this article seriously lacking. I might add another weakness of this article: it sometimes uses weasel words (e.g. "presented by some" in the Stalingrad section). Lupo 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is still an FA. Though the nomination brings up legitimate concerns, they are relatively minor, and can potentially be addressed quickly. Especially since the defending editor already seems to be hashing out the problems, I would favor keeping this article.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs) 18:51, January 19, 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Who's the "defending editor"? If you mean me, no, I'm not really "hashing out the problems". I'm trying to avoid that it gets even worse, but I just do not have the time resources and energy to do a thorough verification and constant rebuttal of the POV inserts. I must admit that after the discovery that the article's main author had slipped in a completely fabricated quote (see the talk page; in all fairness, he may just have misremembered, but it's a sign of sloppy source work at the very least), my trust in the article's veracity has plummeted. Lupo 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]