This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 62)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 60) →

CobraNet

Natalie Portman

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

Result: Delisted—regardless of the article's current quality, it never received a proper GA review. Questions have been raised as to whether the article passes GACR#2. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP promoted to GA in May 8, 2006. However it seemingly didn't get a proper review back then with a one sentence pat on the back [[1]]. This is what it looked like back in May 2006 [[2]] with numerous issues including sourcing, comprehensiveness, trivia. It has substantially changed over the nine years since with a lot of improvement but I feel this current version should receive a proper up to date review to ensure it keeps its GA status. Cowlibob (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist while I've definitely seen articles in worse condition, there are issues with dead links, unreliable sources (e.g. Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, and New York Post), questionable sources (e.g. "Something Jewish", "Blushing Noir", "Salon"), and improperly formatted references (e.g. "cnn.com", "yahoo.com", "villagebanking.org"). It also isn't broad enough in coverage as it doesn't really go into how she became interested in acting, what her influences are/were, and hardly any commentary from Portman herself on her works or commentary from critics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist unless someone wants to address the deadlinks, I concur. The article is in decent shap othewise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago

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

Result: None of the comments below show that this article has enough problems to require delisting. I think there is consensus to maintain the article's status.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article no longer meet the criteria for being a "good article." Since it was listed as a good article, editors with conflict of interest, alumni, have added massive amount of non-neutral advertisement-like languages, puffery throughout the article. I believe keeping it listed as a "good article" will only tarnish Wikipedia's reputation, and question its ability to produce good articles.--Lydhia (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any examples of your claims. I just looked through it, and saw nothing that backs up your claims.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the world's leading and influential institutions of higher learning"= Puffery/Peacock
• "The University of Chicago has a record of producing successful business leaders and billionaires. Its position as one of the U.S. and the world's most prestigious and prominent institutions " = Puffery/Peacock --Lydhia (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Those aren't puffery statements; it is one of the world's leading and influential institutions. You needed to do a little research before proposing a reassessment. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at their talk page, the user has been asked to stop removing sourced content and stop engaging in edit wars. The supposed "puffery" statements provided above are poor examples, as these statements are actually true. This reassessment is completely unnecessary and I believe it should be concluded soon enough unless someone can actually see notable problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iwane Matsui

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

Result: Most users commenting believe that the article should be kept, and there doesn't appear to be a solid policy-based reason to delist in this case.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The recent failed FA review found significant sourcing problems with the article. In at least one case a source was cited as saying the opposite of what it said ("ultranationalist" became "pan-Asianist") and the Japanese-speaking users largely agreed that it looked like most of the article was sourced to revisionist works by Japanese right-wing ideologues rather than scholars. The original GA reviewer admitted they hadn't checked any of the sources. FAs need to be properly-sourced, but this applies just as much to GAs; we can't say the article contains only enough bad sourcing not to be promoted to FA, but for a GA these sourcing problems are acceptable. The original nominator and main author also has a somewhat notorious history of misquoting sources and nominating articles for GA and FA that aren't ready (see also Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture and Talk:History of Japan). Given what came to light about the article's sourcing later, I think a thorough source-check will be needed if this article is to remain on the GA list. The burden is of course on the party seeking to promote the article to GA status to demonstrate that the article is well-sourced, verifiable and NPOV. I was planning on doing such a source-check (hence my not posting this immediately after the FA review failed), but external factors prevented me from doing so and look set to continue doing so. I'll leave this for the community to discuss. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't believe that any sourcing problems were found. You were asked to provide "anything substantial" indicating that the sources were unreliable, but you still haven't provided any such evidence. You were told "If they're unacceptably biased, prove it; the burden is indeed on you", but again you never responded. As Dank pointed out, your argument was basically "there must be a source somewhere that contradicts these sources", which as he noted was not even a valid reason to oppose featured article promotion. Only two full-length biographies of Iwane Matsui have been written and I consulted both of them for use in this article. I know that all the citations are accurately represented, and naturally I can provide a specific spot check upon request to any particular citation. However, just saying that you suspect that the article needs a source-check, without specifying which citations could possibly be wrong, is not useful and not a valid reason for a good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC) The closer of this reassessment should note that all the above concerns were already addressed and refuted during the good article review by an experienced reviewer.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtisNaito: I just saw this by chance while leaving a message for TH1980. You left a notification that was not only not in its own section, but almost looks like part of an older notification. The notification itself looks a lot like a case of canvassing. On top of that, after just reading what's been posted here and having only a few details of this dispute, I see a striking similarity to the History of Japan dispute: an article failed an assessment due to bad sourcing and yet you deny it ever had sourcing problems. Are you serious? This can't be a coincidence. I'm going to read the FA assessment, then I'll check the sources and the article in general. I'll post my !vote after that. Oh and I'll be sure to bring in someone uninvolved in these disputes to help, probably from the 3O or DR noticeboard. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri notified a number of people involved in the featured article review, but it was a fairly arbitrary list. It made more sense to notify all those involved in the featured article review. Therefore, I notified all individuals who had not already been notified. At any rate, I don't believe the last good article review failed due to bad sourcing. If there are specific problems with sourcing, they should be identified, but the opening statement here was based on the same vague suspicions which were already presented and refuted during the initial good article review. As it stands, no evidence has been put forward of sourcing problems, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to reassess the article, let alone delist it.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not arbitrary. I notified the previous GA nominator, the previous GA reviewer, the closer on the FA review (which was a key part of my GAR rationale), the user who had done a "very thorough copy edit" (TH1980's wording), two relevant WikiProjects, and one other user who had provided noteworthy commentary on the article that I had not touched on in my above GAR rationale, but which might be worth taking into account as well. You, on the other hand, "notified" one user whose involvement in the FA review was part of an ongoing hounding campaign against me (ArbCom is close to imposing an IBAN), and two other users whose involvement in the FA review was peripheral at best but who seemed to kinda-sorta oppose my view on the matter.

In keeping with this, your first comment here was completely ad hominem, without even the slightest attempt to address the problems with the article. Please remain focused on article content, and whether or not this article still meets (or ever met) the GA criterion that it be "verifiable" and containing "no original research". (And also that it be neutrally-worded as well -- the above-mentioned concern I'm not really qualified to address.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the users on the featured article review provided commentary. There was no reason for you to only notify those who provided commentary which you thought was "noteworthy". I notified all remaining commentators in a neutral manner, not selectively as was done before. As I said, other users keep telling you that "the burden is indeed on you" to provide evidence that there are sourcing problems. The article passed good article review because you provided no evidence. If you find evidence, the reassessment might have merit, but so far you haven't provided any.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going down this rabbit hole again. Suffice to say the above comment completely misses my point that I didn't want to canvas (annoy) every user who provided a driveby comment -- I notified those users whom WP:GAR requires me to notify, and one other user who had made what looked like a valid comment on an area I am not qualified to comment on. CurtisNaito specifically notified several users who had not commented on sourcing concerns but thought the article's prose looked good, and one user with a history of harassing me. This will be my last direct reply here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notified all remaining users who commented on the featured article review. You notified a selective list, including users who only provided brief commentary and who never commented on sourcing at all. Either all or none of the commentators should have been notified, not just an arbitrary list of one user's preferred commentators.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't believe the last good article review failed due to bad sourcing This is beside the point -- the last good article review didn't fail -- it passed in spite of the bad sourcing. We are here to rectify that, either by doing a thorough source-check and fixing the article so it meets the GA criteria, or delisting it. If what was meant was "I don't believe the last featured article review failed due to bad sourcing", then that is blatant IDHT -- the coordinator specifically said "This seems to have more or less ground to a halt on the issue of sourcing". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified all the sources myself, so naturally I can spot check any of them. It's strange that you would accuse me of IDHT when so many other users have asked you to provide evidence for your assertions and yet you just ignore them. You yourself have repeatedly acknowledged that you have no access to the main sources used in the article and have never read them. Though it's unclear why you object to sources you have never read, even so I can spot check and provide relevant quotes from any specific source which you think needs to be spot checked. However, just saying that the whole article needs to be checked is not useful, because I've already done that. If you tell me which specific citation you need quotes from, then I can provide them.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtisNaito: you do realize what WP:IDHT means right? That something happens or someone says something and you pretend it didn't happen? Hijiri provided a diff of someone saying the article failed because of sourcing (and just for you here's another editor expressing concern about sources), but you responded by claiming he's never provided any evidence of it. You do realize that that's IDHT? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above diff only listed one specific concern, which was already dealt with. I provided quotes from several other users who told Hijiri that he had to provide evidence if he believed that there were problems with the sources. The reason why the article passed good article review is because no evidence was provided. Repeating the same claims over and over again without providing the evidence which was requested the first time is not really productive. However, as I said earlier, I can do specific spot checks on request if you want any certain citation verified.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same arguments as always. "There were no problems" *provides diffs* "Those were already delt with" So you admit that there were problems? "There were no problems"... As usual, this argument will go around in circles endlessly, albet with different wording each time, so there's not much point in continuing. We need outside consensus. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I quoted earlier, it's the same arguments three or four other users have already made, and every time no response is given about where the alleged sourcing problems actually are. Just tell me which sources or citations need spot checks and I'll do it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You understand what a conflict of interest is right? You added the faulty sourcing, and now you'll go back and double check it yourself? When you compare the source with the text, you'll naturally find nothing wrong with it since that was your interpretation, whether you misrepresented it or not. Then you'll report back that everything was fine and reassure us that you checked the sources. Unless someone else checks it, we have to assume you're not just pulling stuff out of the air, which would only leave the article still a mess. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never evidence for faulty sourcing in the first place, but at any rate, if you know of any sources which you need checked, just tell me which ones and I'll quote the relevant portions word for word so that you can verify them yourself.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never evidence for faulty sourcing in the first place Curtis, you changed the word "ultranationalist" to "pan-Asianist", and on FAN when questioned about why you did this you admitted to engaging in gross OR and second-guessing of your source. That was where the article cited a good source written by a scholar and published by a university: there is also the entirely separate problem that 90% of the citations are not to good sources but to right-wing revisionist books. On FAN, you admitted to interpreting your good sources in light of the bad ones. The FAN failed because of these two problems -- this is incontrovertible -- and you are now claiming, without evidence, that these two problems don't exist and never did exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You never presented any evidence that Toshiyuki Hayase is a revisionist writer. In fact, you were explicitly asked during the good article review by the reviewer to provide evidence justifying your opinion, and you didn't. You were asked by Dank during the featured article to state what sources were better, and again you just ignored him. You admitted during the good article review that you never read the books, and so in that case, what basis are you possibly claiming they are unreliable? As far as I can tell, the only evidence you ever presented was that the books contained the word "truth" in the title, but the article passed good article review in spite of that precisely because that can hardly be called sufficient evidence. I think bringing this article to good article reassessment based on claims which were already refuted during the good article review itself, about sources which you have never read, was fairly frivolous. You have been told many times that "the burden is indeed on you". Unless you present some actual evidence, then there is no reason whatsoever to continue this reassessment.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what basis are you possibly claiming they are unreliable? Hayase and Hayasaka are the article's two main sources. One is best-known for his books on golf; the other is no better in terms of historical credentials. Both books have titles (X no shinjitsu = "the truth about X") that clearly demarcate them as fringe revisionist works. You have claimed that they are "biographies" of Matsui, but both books' subtitles and chapter listings indicate they are primarily about the Nanjing Massacre and are interested in rehabilitating Matsui by putting the Sino-Japanese War and his involvement in it "in context". You have claimed that these are "the only" biographies of Matsui available, but this ignores the Wikipedia policy that material that can only be attributed to problematic sources doesn't belong here in the first place. Furthermore, the above-demonstrated OR (ultranationalist→"pan-Asianist") clearly indicates that the way you interpret events in Matsui's biography is not the way reputable scholars do -- where did you get this interpretation? Hayase and Hayasaka? How much of this article is based on their interpretation of history? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an expression, "Don't judge a book by its cover". It's surely rather superficial to make a sweeping judgment that Toshiyuki Hayase's book is an unreliable source just because it contains the word "truth" in the title. You can't take a book you've never read and conclude that you know it's a poor source just because you don't like one of the words used in the title. All the material in the article represents the basic facts about Matsui, and there is no evidence to believe that the information is not accurate. For one, you say that the books are primarily about the Nanking Massacre and not biographical works on Matsui, but that is completely not true and anyone who has read the books could tell you the same thing. In this vein, I think it's important that we not engage in original research, and that's why I strived to include the essential facts within each section of the biography, plus interpretations in the assessment section. Concluding that the information is unreliable based on one word in the title of a book that you have not read is the sort of original research that we should not be engaging in here. Why not tell me the name of another writer who has analyzed these books and concluded that they are unreliable, or at least another Wikipedia user or Internet commentator who has read Toshiyuki's Hayase's book and concluded that it is unreliable? You yourself can't give an informed opinion if you've never read the sources and know nothing about the subject.

Of course, many other users have pointed out these problems in your argument, and that's the reason why the good article review passed. If you have actual evidence to report, you should report it, but it is hardly useful to just repeat over and over such ridiculously false arguments as your claim that the works cited are not biographies of Matsui.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the material in the article represents the basic facts about Matsui No, that is not true, nor should it be. "Truth" is subjective, and so on Wikipedia we base our historical articles on what professional historians have written, rather than on the opinions of laymen with agendas. For example, I provided incontrovertible proof that you (and Hayase/Hayasaka?) changed your source's word "ultranationalist" to "pan-Asianist". The article still contains fourteen instances of "pan-Asianist" and related terms; how many of these should be rewritten as "ultranationalist" because that's what reliable historians say? We need a thorough source-check, and clearly neither of us is capable of this at this time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the basic facts about Matsui's life and work are not disputed by anyone. For instance, you have not cited even a single source contradicting the facts in this article. You yourself could do a source-check if you took the time to read the sources. If you really don't have time to actually read the sources which you are criticizing, then I am certainly capable of either a source-check, or alternatively providing you with the relevant quotes from the sources cited.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the basic facts about Matsui's life and work are not disputed by anyone. How many of this article's fourteen uses of the word "pan-Asian" are backed up by reliable source other than Hayase/Hayasaka? How many of them should be "ultranationalist"/"militarist"/"expansionist"? This is just one example of a "basic fact" that could be disputed ad nauseum based on historical interpretation. you have not cited even a single source contradicting the facts in this article I cited one in the FAN, and in OP here; it said "propaganda for an ultranationalist group" where our article said "promotion of pan-Asianism". You yourself could do a source-check if you took the time to read the sources And tracked down the obscure editions our article cites, or managed to match the page numbers to another edition, and paid for the book and for express shipping so it arrives before the TBAN you brought downon me... I am certainly capable of either a source-check Except that you want this article to stay a GA and stay in its present form, and if there is more misquoting of sources and use of problematic fringe sources, you are clearly unwilling to acknowledge this. Such a COI would be totally unacceptable for our purposes, even if the History of Japan GAR hadn't already demonstrated that you are incapable of doing such a source-check to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring a TBAN down on you. The arbs give rulings based on evidence of user conduct so users can only bring TBANs on themselves. At any rate, you brought up these alleged problems in June seven months ago. It shouldn't take seven months for you to just check the sources. If you had checked the sources seven months ago, you would be fully aware by now that the article does not have the problems that you believe it does. There is nothing wrong with describing the Greater Asian Association as being a pan-Asianist group, and for consistency I used pan-Asianism to describe it in all contexts. Historian Torsten Weber called the Greater Asian Association, "the single most influential organization to propagate pan-Asianism between 1933 and 1945". The Japanese language sources in question all use either pan-Asianism(汎アジア主義) or Greater Asianism(大亜細亜主義) to describe its ideology, which in English refer to the same thing. I have successfully nominated many articles for good article status and have demonstrated that I know how to use sources properly. Ultimately, what is necessary here is evidence to back up your claims, but it's hard to believe you'll come up with any evidence if you openly admit that you are not willing to look at the sources before judging them.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done talking to you. You're obviously not interested in fixing this article, or even acknowledging the obvious flaws that are already there. The article will be delisted as a GA if no one steps up to fix it. Good bye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, I can certainly post the necessary quotes here if you want to check any specific source. If not, we should accept the judgment of those users who actually have read the sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's nothing substantive in this reassessment. We will just be wasting our time.TH1980 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Any further commenters and/or closers should consider this and this before taking the above vote! into account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be supporting or opposing as I haven't examined the sources, but the closer should keep in mind that TH1980 has a history of supporting CurtisNaito regardless of the quality of the article in question or the validity of the issues raised. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walther von Brauchitsch

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

Result: Delist: 6 to 0 votes supporting delisting due to problematic sources and content K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During 2014, this article was expanded to about double its size, almost entirely by Jonas Vinther who is now under a TBAN for articles covering Nazi Germany. This is one of several problematic articles Jonas expanded. It was taken through GAN and then an unsuccessful FAC, after which the TBAN was put in place. One of the significant issues with this article is the quite heavy reliance on Hart, a book published in 1944 (the reliability of which is questionable given its age and that it was published during the war, and the inaccurate terminology used to describe von Brauchitsch's WWI service (indicating he was actively involved in battles when he was actually a staff officer). There are also a significant number of unaddressed issues raised during the unsuccessful FAC and the peer review before that. In essence, I believe that the article has significant issues with criteria 2b., 2c. and 4. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than provide an exposition of all the issues (which are extensive), I suggest interested editors have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1. Pinging those that participated in either review, as well as the original GAN reviewer. @TheQ Editor, MisterBee1966, AustralianRupert, Halibutt, and Hawkeye7:@Dapi89, ÄDA - DÄP, Parsecboy, and Auntieruth55: Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, from my perspective the reliance on Hart is a major concern (I think it would be ok to use this source very sparingly, though, potentially to compare and contrast varying assessments). I also think that the article's prose requires work. If these issues could be fixed, I would be happier to support the article keeping its GA assessment (I would reserve judgement to see the final outcome), but unless this occurs I think it should be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hart wasn't my preferred choice, but did not have other books about the field marshal at the time. The book covered many of the same topics online sources in the article said about Brauchitsch, so it did not strike me as outrageously unreliable. Still, I'm all in favor of replacing Hart with modern sources. I suggest someone check out this book: Loeffler, Juergen (2001). Walther von Brauchitsch (1881-1948): Eine politische Biographie. ISBN 978-3631377468. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist -- problematic content ("opposed Nazism") and sources. Besides over-reliance on an ancient 1944 source, the article also uses non WP:RS sources Islandfarm (website of dubious accuracy) and Jewish Virtual library (content farm). For a GA article, that is just sloppy. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation from the editor on why Hart was used (from the peer review):

"Well, there is a bio-book on Brauchitsch from 2001 I have access to. However, I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion). - JV"

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist for the reasons I've outlined. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Does Jonas's participation in this discussion constitute a violation of their topic ban? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is broadly construed, quite possibly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist due to certain sources used and possible content issues which someone will have to re-visit. I do believe the GA reviewer should be notified of actions taken and those involved in the prior peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1 in the past. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were back in December, but I will do it again: @TheQ Editor, MisterBee1966, AustralianRupert, Halibutt, and Hawkeye7:@Dapi89, ÄDA - DÄP, Parsecboy, and Auntieruth55: Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I find the extensive reliance on a 1944 source, not to mention the justification given for its use, to be quite problematic. Especially since it appears that modern sources are available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some strange wording throughout the article like " a German planner and strategist named Erich von Manstein" (???) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, the 1944 source is problematic, it's certainly not unbiased and definitely has a POV it's pushing being written during the nazi regime. Choosing that and ignoring subsequent sources who have the benefit of passage of time and information becoming common knowledge is problematic. If the 1944 source was presented to give several sides of the issue that may be okay, but that's not what's going on here.  MPJ-US  01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per my comment at the FAC along with others' here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Six editors support delisting, with zero opposing. Per WP:Snow, should I go ahead and delist? Or somebody else wants to do it? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear delist to me, more than four weeks have elapsed and more than five editors have commented. Go ahead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moberly–Jourdain incident

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

Result: After more than six months of consideration, a consensus has not emerged on whether or not the article's flaws are sufficient to merit delisting.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written about an "incident" which almost certainly did not occur. The claimants of the incident wrote a book on the topic and we currently have a suggestion to move the article to that book. However, the reason that the reassessment is in order here is that the article simply is not very good in terms of the high-standards we expect for articles relating to fringe theories. The article does not deal substantively enough with the fact that the events did not occur as described by the claimants and gives a false undue weight with an equal validity to ideas which are not verifiable facts. In short, the article fails GA criteria number 4 rather plainly and arguably criteria 2c as it pushes a particular narrative with respect to this story -- namely that the "incident" occurred and that the debunking of the alleged incident is just another person's opinion rather than the fact that we should simply assert -- that this is a fabulist claim. jps (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article is that it was first written based on credulist sources and was given a GA based on that (in my opinion unwisely). I rewrote it on the basis of more objective sources and in my opinion it is now better than it was when it got the GA. However, it is now a different article and I would have no objection to the GA being removed because of that, although I find the reasons that you give to be spurious. Of course the incident occured! The women went for a walk in the gardens at Versailles and wrote a book about their experience. That was the incident. There is no problem with Wikipedia having articles about fabulist claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

"Incident" in this context clearly leads the reader to believe that something eventful happened. The purported event is an "episode of time travel and haunting", not merely a walk in the garden. If their walk was the essential bit of importance, we would call this Moberly–Jourdain garden walk but it is not. If the title is to be accurate and relay what is essentially important about the subject, we could call this Moberly–Jourdain allegations or Moberly–Jourdain haunting and time travel allegations. Better yet, since this is a story from their book An Adventure, let's call it An Adventure (book). - Location (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be taking our cue from sensationalist and fringe sources that treat the topic as a paranormal Fortean "incident" when high quality scholarly sources rightly identify the book (and reaction to the book) as the primary basis for notability. Wikipedia as a serious mainstream encyclopedia should follow high quality sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a book has been published by Oxford University Press does not automatically render it higher quality source than a book from a different publisher. Terry Castle's critique is rightly quoted and referenced in the article as it stands but his critique is a critique of the ladies' claims, which happen to be contained in their book, "An Adventure". But it is the claims that have notability. Michael Coleman's analysis is at least as thorough but reaches a different, but equally sceptical, conclusion.Liverpres (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Castle is a literary scholar and Oxford University Press is the largest university press in the world. Who are Michael H. Coleman and Aquarian Press? Even so, that's not to say that Coleman cannot be used. The question is about how best to structure the article. - Location (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are at least three interlinked, but different, rational explanations of what the ladies said they experienced in the article. On the basis that the simplest explanation probably works best, Coleman's suggestion (on the basis of a close study of the original papers which are housed at the Bodleian Library, one of the world's greatest academic repositories - they wisely did not throw them away as credulous nonsense as some Wikipedians might) that they mostly made it up, having come to believe that something odd had happened to them on a hot thundery day after a long and tiring walk (though their original accounts differed both from each other and from the first published version), seems more likely than a lesbian folie a deux which is Castle's invention in the absence of any other evidence, or stumbling into a gay fancy dress party which may well not have happened on the day on question. I'm aware that that's a synthesis so can't go into the article, but the way it's presented here does need to take account of the fact that the reason the whole thing is still known about is because it was originally presented as a true account of a supernatural experience, not as a work of literary fiction.Liverpres (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Michael Coleman. Always more interesting, I feel, to have a possible "believer" coming to a sceptical conclusion, than someone who has already made up their mind http://weiserantiquarian.com/Dr.M.H.Coleman/ One of the things that makes Mike Dash's contributions to similar subjects so much more stimulating than some others Liverpres (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Coleman was a member of the Society for Psychical Research, which hurts rather than helps his credibility if we are attempting to build an article upon reliable sources. Even that bio states: "he contributed a volume of his own to the literature of Psychical Research: 'The Ghosts of Trianon,' a book length study of Moberly and Jourdain's 'An Adventure,' their famous account of a haunting or 'time-shift' said to have taken place in the grounds of the Petit Trianon near the Palace of Versailles in 1901." The emphasis is mine, drawing attention to the point that he wrote a book about a book. Stories, fiction and non-fiction, are part of books and we title our articles after the book. That is why we have The Catcher in the Rye and not Holden Caulfield's journey to New York. - Location (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wrote a book about their claims, which he examined and debunked. It's also the only single volume to contain both the published versions of "An Adventure" (in fact, it's the most recently-available paper version of the text), and simply being a member of the SPR does not make someone unreliable, I see that in the Enfield Poltergeist article, the views of SPR members who were sceptical are boosted as being better than those of members who weren't.Liverpres (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpres, no need to worry that structuring the article as An Adventure (book) will cast the book as a work of literary fiction. It will only help us clarify that Moberly and Jourdain wrote a book which purported to be a true account of a supernatural incident. Right now, the article structure has it backwards: i.e. a supernatural incident happened and Moberly and Jourdain wrote a true account of it. Also you need not worry that all the whimsical detail will be lost, a nice "Summary" section can house a neutral description of all the fanciful claims contained in their book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that "An Adventure (book) covers, as a title for the article, the way whatever happened is seen now, it is more easily found by the names of the protagonists. And that being the case, the possibility of English-speaking Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject finding the article must be reduced. It is difficult, but from my own interest in this, it appears that the names of the protagonists are more likely to be looked for than the name of their book. French Wikipedia goes with https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fant%C3%B4mes_du_Trianon the "Ghosts of the Trianon". Liverpres (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who come from GodlikeProductions.com, GhostTheory.com, or Doctor-who-is-real.tumblr.com searching for "Moberly-Jourdain incident" will be whisked to our article via a clever little thing called a redirect (similar to people who now search for Ghosts of Petit Trianon get redirected to the article). Any other concerns? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There does seem as I look around to be a small clique of Wikipedia editors who want all paranormal articles to be relocated to places where the paranormal element is removed, even though it may be the most important (not most believable) factor. The removal of Timeslip being a case in point.Liverpres (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no good reason to move the article from where it is, the suggestion it should be moved appears to be unfounded, when one reads the reasons originally advanced for a move, they are just one user's prejudices. Liverpres (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a few options to solicit feedback on whether the suggestion to move is unfounded (e.g. Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books). - Location (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this being a "Good Article", which is what this page is about, I'd compare and contrast with, for example Talk:Borley_Rectory/GA1/ - Moberly-Jourdain incident really doesn't require the scepticism that is being pushed by the original nominator, for example. Nor does it require a move to a less accessible title.Liverpres (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone straight to Borley Rectory to start pushing a sceptical view there.... Liverpres (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only view I'm pushing is that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not familiar with that article, so you must mean LuckyLouie. I don't see that the title of the article is an issue there. - Location (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin

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

Result: Concerns about the lead have been addressed. No other concerns were raised. Article retains Good Article status. 10:58, 17 March 2016 Kaldari

I believe this article does not fall under good article criteria as it strays from WP:LEAD, one of the manual of styles required in good articles. It states that a lead section serves as "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". This particular article is relatively large, but its lead section hardly summarises any of its contents, with only a few broad points and facts, such as a couple of books written by the article's subject, as well as some of the movements she followed. I believe once the lead section is fleshed out with more information from the article, the article will fall under good article criteria. BlookerG ^talk 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the lead discussed her work on rape and violence against women, not just pornography. Dworkin was one of the first people to discuss rape openly as a feminist issue, as previously it was a taboo subject even for feminists. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the lead could use some fleshing out, but it strikes me as rather counter-intuitive to open a GA reassessment on that basis alone. I'd recommend you open a thread about this on the talk page; you're much more likely to gain consensus and attention to the issue there than here. Or just WP:BEBOLD and add the content in yourself; I very much doubt anyone would oppose it in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead. But using that alone and in a rush (not waiting for response) for a reassessment of GA status increases other editors' workloads, because then we have to deal with both the lead and the reassessment, and is not helpful. Tagging the article was a good idea and editing yourself, since that would not have required research, would have been just as good an idea, perhaps depending on how much of your time was available. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlookerG: This has been pending for several months. Any additional thoughts or can we close this? Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got much more to add to this, so I think it would be best to close it. Sorry about inactivity. BlookerG ^talk 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of the SS

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

Result: The consensus has determined that the article should not be deleted, but given the neutrality issues raised on the talk page and instability which has occurred, it should be delisted as a GA article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions on the Talk page:

• Problematic content, and
• Sourcing.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support desisting immediately given the major concerns being raised on the talk page. The article could (and hopefully will) be redeveloped to GA status, but it doesn't deserve it at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article raises major concerns and definitely needs to be delisted at once. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be delisted. zzz (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the nominator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article needed further work, I said that before the atom bomb dropped and still agree with that fact. With that said, it should have been handled better. I agree it should be delisted from GA straight-away at this point. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the delisting, there are enough issues raised on the talk page to illustrate that this is not a stable, neutral article at the moment and thus should not be listed as such.  MPJ-US  04:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I do not agree with much of the critique voiced on the talk page, I do agree that the actions by several editors (most of which support the deletion of this article alltogether) have made the article so unstable that it can for the moment not be considered a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - however, there is absolutely no basis for deleting this article, the subject is clearly notable and there are numerous reliable academic sources available for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, it should not be deleted.  MPJ-US  06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it should be deleted. Right now, I don't believe it should be. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I can only agree with the other editors here, the neutrality issues on the talk page alone raise sufficient questions. But it at least feels like one that could potentially come back as a GA in the future if enough editors sit down and discuss how to take this one forward. Miyagawa (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask this be closed and for the article to be delisted per consensus. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a close

Would it be possible for the handlers of this page to reassess, per consensus? (Sorry, I thought I was posting to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hopefully, it will show up there.) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have "given it a go". I have not done one before. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sargun Mehta

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

Result: delisted 23:13, 13 April 2016 Protonk

Firstly it’s a shame to nominate a recent GA (passed on 7 June 2015) for reassessment and let me point out that the article hasn't been damaged since then, but was passed with these faults itself.

• This biographical article about an actor does not include a single criticism that talks about her "acting". It thus fails the 3a criteria of addressing the main aspects of the topic.

Well in that case you need to take a look here, and see if it has a single negative review about any of his films. The majority of stuff on many actors article that are GA or FA are positive things about the individual. Anyway the lead has the sentence ...but the 2010 show Apno Ke Liye Geeta Ka Dharmayudh met with negative reviews.

OSE! And show meeting negative reviews doesn't say anything about the acting of Mehta, unless it was a one-person show. Even that would be a bad synthesis because a show can go dull for numerous things not related to the acting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These sources are not WP:RS. They need to be replaced.

Bollywoodlife.com, Youtube.com, Realbollywood.com, Filmibeat.com, Tellychakkar.com, Dekhnews.com, Moviecitynews.com, Thelinkpaper.ca, Gr8mag.com, Pardaphash.com, Punjabupfilms.in,

Bollywoodlife.com has been used on many GA's, same for Filmibeat. They might not be suitable for featured standard article's but are okay for GA level. How come youtube is not a RS? As far as rest are concerned, i'll try to find replacable reliable sources Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OSE! Bollywoodlife is linked with Zee Network. Such publicity websites aren't independent. Filmibeat doesn't even have a "about us" section. Anyways, you would need to go to WP:RSN to prove their notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These are self-published primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources needs to be included.

zeetv.com,

Don't see your point here, its a well-known television channel owned and operated by Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That's why called its a "primary" source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't really well-written; will cite some example:

•  Done Why is she being called comedian in the lead sentence? She participated in one season of Comedy Circus where an actor was paired with a professional comedian to form a team and then contest in the show. Does one such venture make her a "comedian"?

One word "comedian" is a problem according to you? These puny things can be dealt easily, you shouldn't be mentioning them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one word doesn't make a problem, can I add one abusive word instead? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have known this- "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". Stop embarrassing yourself by saying such non-sense and telling me you like geometry. No one gives a fuck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Same for dancer and presenter.

Removed.

•  Done "Mehta began her acting debut". That sounds strange phrasing.

Rephrased.

•  Done "Alongside her acting career, Mehta started her anchoring career". So anchoring isn't acting?

Rephrased.

•  Done "Mehta also appeared in reality shows, include Nach Baliye". That sounds strange phrasing.

Removed.

•  Done "While at university, she studied acting under the mentorship of its theatre club." Two things here. If she studied in a college affiliated with the University it does not imply she studied at the university. So no WP:OR please. And who was the mentor here? Is that OR too? Because a club can be of just students interested in acting.

Removed.

•  Done "It also opening well at the U.S. box office grossing ₹20.90 million (US$320,000)". Grammar!

Reworded.

• Many more... Can't bother mentioning them all.

I have resolved issues regarding the prose, if there are any more, let me know. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On various occasions the article drifts to page 3 style of writing gossip columns and writes trivia. This fails 3b for not staying focused on topic

•  Done "On 28 March 2012, Mehta attended the launch party of the UTV Stars TV show Walk Of The Stars, along with Ravi Dubey, at Olive in Mumbai,[35] and also attended the Prestigious Television Awards function, where she was nominated and announced as the winner."

Removed and concised. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done "In 2013, Mehta appeared at film music launch party of Issaq at Mumbai, India, along with Dubey on 18 June 2013."

Removed.

•  Done "In August 2013, Mehta attended the launch party of Bindass' romantic drama programme Yeh Hai Aashiqui in Mumbai, India. On September 2013, she attended the South Africa India Film and Television Awards - SAIFTA award function in Durban, South Africa".
• "Mehta attended Star Plus's Holi festival special titled Masti Gulal Ki, along with Dubey on March 2014".
•  Done "In August of that year, she attended the launch event of Sony television's new Hindi entertainment channel Sony Pal."
•  Done "On 30 November 2014, she appeared at an award function of Zee TV's Zee Rishtey Awards, and in January 2015, Mehta attended the television stars cricket league of Sony television's Box Cricket League. She attended the semi-final match of the Delhi Dragons and the Ahmedabad Express, supporting their friends of the Ahmedabad Express team."
•  Done "On 14 December 2014, Mehta performed on the stage of Colors television's music show Mirchi Top 20, where she danced on a Punjabi song. The show hosted by Manish Paul and Bharti Singh, and presented by Vodafone Music."
•  Done "Mehta has maintained a Instagram account,[68] and a Twitter account since 2012."

I have removed all of the above. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I still haven't checked whether all the claims made are actually present in the linked references. But a few references are video links of TV shows or Youtube videos and such primary sources are not acceptable.

It's only "not acceptable", when the publisher is unknown.

See zee tv reply above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the content is coming from interviews of the subject and that’s absolutely non-neutral, failing criteria 4.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a website has a Wikipedia article, it should be considered reliable. In this case, Filmibeat redirects to Oneindia. So I think it passes WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Our article on Oneindia is merely a stub with no reliable sources whatsoever. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Kailash, Wikipedia in itself is not RS. James Tod is an FA but he is not really RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Because his works have factual errors or what? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contact User:Sitush for more info. Was just giving you example. Am sure Tod has nothing to do with Mehta and hence lets not drift. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a reviewer, its a linear insult. As you have a history of trying to delist GA's like you did here. You should have brought these issues to me instead of opening a GAR. I'll try to give this article a copy-edit and do what i can to save its good article status. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would do your job well, we wouldn't be here to make you feel offended. Geometry is my fav subject and on-wiki insulting is too, according to some. So thanks for the complement. And if you disagree with the comments you wouldn't remove 2kbs of chunk out immediately. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no "we", its "you" who started this. I agree there is a problem with the prose, but you should have told me about all this before reassessing it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I tell you? You passed the article, hopefully in all your senses. That was me assuming that you passed it to the best of your understandability of GA criteria and not just blindly gave a green badge. After that what is the point in tell you how it should have been done? Plus, a community GAR is for all people to access and help clean the article. Other editors can also make their additional points here. And btw, if the article really wants to keep the GA badge it has to mainly work on the first tree points, rest copyediting and trivia chopping can happen over time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • "she gave a special dance performance in Star Plus TV's dance reality show India's Dancing Superstar" - This line is not unnecessary. If yes?? then this one is too "she participated in a concert tour across North America, entitled "SLAM! The Tour", in which she performed alongside her co-stars from Happy New Year." in Deepika Padukone's article.Akshaytherock (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist There are too many ((Importance-inline)) tags, and deadlinks in awards section and non reliable sources (dekhnews, punjabupfilms, etc...). Akshaytherock (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Akshaytherock (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Akshaytherock has been blocked along with Hetika, the GA nominator of this article, as sockpuppets. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Its been months now that the article is at GAR and not a single word in the article has been written about this actress' "acting". This thus fails the 3a criteria of addressing the main aspects of the topic, as has been noted above in the every first point. I think this article should no longer GA since enough time has been given. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dharmadhyaksha: There's a lot of dones floating around. Could you give one concise statement about what you feel remains wrong with this article? Clearly, the article does contain information about her acting career. Are you saying that it's non-neutral by virtue of not criticizing her acting? ~ Rob^Talk 18:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: There is plenty of stuff about her "acting career" but not an iota about her "acting" itself. The prose is "in YYYY she signed [insert show name]. The show had [insert actors name] featuring with her. The show was [insert adjective about show]. The show ended in YYYY. Mehta said [insert some self-bloating quote]." Where does the whole article talk about her acting? Criticism or favourism would be an issue if at all the prose dealt with it. In short, the whole "Career" section is just prosification of the two tables given below. If what I expect is still not clear then I have summarized some bits present in current actresses GA articles; on which lines something should be mentioned. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit torn here. If this were a GA review for the article in the current state, I would consider the remaining request onerous. But it's clear that the article shouldn't have been passed in the first place either because the state it was in or because the nominator and reviewer were the same person. Rather than make the dispute more protracted, I'll demote delist the article. Protonk (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

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

Result: Delisted There is consensus that the various ^{[citation needed]} tags and use of questionable sources mean this article cannot be easily fixed to meet GA criteria #2. The prose and adherence to the MOS has also come under criticism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix this article up to be on par with GA standards, but it seems beyond repair at this point, so I am raising a community reassessment. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written?

• Prose quality: I've seen worse, but it needs work. There are grammar problems such as "In September 2007 Eminem called" and "In December 2008 the rapper" missing commas after the time frames. Things like "most successive" and "Eminem described the CD" right before a quote read rather awkwardly.
  • I agree the prose needs work. There is is some language that's a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia, and some ambiguities—for example: "ground-zero for the Detroit rap scene" mixes both issues. "Ground zero" is too informal, and I'm not sure if it's meant to mean "the active heart of the Detroit rap scene" or "where the the Detroit scene got its start". I have virtually zero knowledge on the subject, so I don't know how to fix it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More: "Struggling to succeed in a predominantly African-American industry, Eminem was appreciated by underground hip hop audiences."—does this imply these audiences were not African American? I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Detroit disc jockeys largely ignored Infinite"—given we're talking hip-hop, should this specify "radio disc jockeys" (which I assume is what's implied)? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the feedback Eminem did receive ("Why don't you go into rock and roll?")"—who gave him this advice? Where's the quote from? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Manual of style: Needs work. There are references with incorrect uses (or lack of) of italics (i.e. St. Petersburg Times and Billboard should be italicized while things like BBC News and "MediaResearch.org" shouldn't), and the only song mentioned in the lead is his Oscar-winning "Lose Yourself", which isn't enough by itself when he's had other highly successful songs like "Not Afraid", "Love the Way You Lie", and "Monster".

Verifiable?

• Reference layout: Lots of citations are malformatted (i.e. itunes.apple.com should be iTunes or iTunes Store while "Music.yahoo.com" should read Yahoo! Music), and there are also incorrect uses (or lack of) italics.
• Reliable sources: Quite worrisome; sources like "antiMusic.com", "Uproxx", Daily Mail, and Us Weekly are dubious at best.
• No original research: Problematic. Dead links make material hard to verify, and there should be no statements with ^{[citation needed]} tags. I've also found untagged statements missing citations such as "The Slim Shady LP has been certified quadruple platinum by the RIAA" and "The Marshall Mathers LP has been certified 11× platinum by the RIAA".
  • I've added WayBack archives for most of the problematic links, although a couple of them have been excleded from WB. Two or three already had WB links, but from the way the refs were formatted, the deadlinks checker didn't pick up on them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: While it mentions many song lyrics and themes, the article lacks detail on how his first album Infinite was a commercial failure and levels of song commercial success (or lack thereof) for many singles (mainly before his musical hiatus).
• Focused: The article lacks some aspects, but goes into too much detail on others. There's too much lyric and theme discussion (probably best to limit it to mainly overall album themes). The "personal life" section is also rather bloated (I'm not sure its subsection "Alleged homophobia" is even needed).

Neutral?: As far as I can tell, there isn't any bias within the article.

Stable?: Not sure. While I was in a content dispute (though not to the extent of an edit war) with another editor within the past month, they turned out to be a sockpuppet and there weren't very many edits while the discussion took place (which was basically void once I found the user was blocked for socking).

Illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Appropriate licensing: Seems OK.
• Relevance and captioning: File:Eminem-06-mika.jpg could use a more informative caption than "Eminem in Germany, 1999", and I'm not sure how beneficial the pic really is to begin with. File:Eminem Live.jpg is rather blurry and therefore not ideal while File:Eminem at DJ hero party with d12.jpg, File:Eminem Lollapalooza 2014 Chicago.jpg, and File:Eminem live at D.C. 2014.jpg don't provide a very good view of Mr. Mathers' face. Both he and Rihanna are too small to clearly see in File:Eminem and Rihanna in Love the Way You Lie1.jpg (despite the camera display screens).

This is not an exhaustive list of the problems I see, and there might be some even I haven't noticed yet. As much as I love Eminem, I cannot in good conscience let this go any longer without an article review, especially since it was promoted back in 2008. Opinions on article quality from others are quite welcome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given this article a detailed review, but think some of the points raised here–while certainly useul for article improvement–are not necessarily criteria for listing or delisting (if italics or minor punctuation errors need fixing, fix em!). Good Articles don't need to be as stellar or complete as Featured Articles (see WP:GVF). The Good Article criteria don't include citation format, just that content is cited. I see nothing wrong with highlighting "Lose Yourself" in the lead, as although Eminem has won many awards, only one of these is an Academy Award, the Grammys are already mentioned in the lead, and leads should err on the side of brevity rather than comprehensiveness. I do think the section on Legal problems can be condensed, and many quotes simply removed throughout, but personal preferences aren't the GA criteria, and Good Articles can of course always be improved. Whether sources like Us Weekly or Uproxx are acceptable is partly dependent on the claim they are supporting: if they are merely repackaging non-controversial information available from a variety of sources (i.e. daily news bites, wire feeds, etc.), they are probably harmless, although more reputable sources stating the same would be preferred. If these sources are the only ones reporting a certain fact, then skepticism should demand higher quality. antimusic.com should probably not be used as a source, as its parent company seems to lack strong or any editorial oversight. As for images, they seem acceptable to me, and quality is not a criterion; sometimes we have to work with what we have, and that's not usually not professional quality photographs from the most appropriate time period. My gut feeling is that the article could use some polishing (a ref here, a rewording there) but nothing jumps out as warranting de-listing. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that FA and GA standards are quite different. To clarify, I know that just a few misuses of italics isn't reason for concern, but the issue is MANY don't use them correctly. No personal preferences were invoked in my comments. I also never said "Lose Yourself" shouldn't be in the lead—it by all means should be there since it won him an Oscar—what I'm saying is that there should be more songs listed than only that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead comments

• I see there are some references that don't follow the formatting style of the others. I think this is when IP users add content but forget to properly format the refs, which is a common occurrence at high-profile artists such as Eminem.
• The awards section could at least make a bulleted list of the most important awards Eminem has won so far. I see this section also points some recognitions and accolades that aren't awards in the purest meaning of the term, such as the Rolling Stone list and few others.
• The life and career section, as far as I know about Eminem (which is not much), is well researched, and doesn't neglect important details. There are some weaknesses in the prose, clearly some ambiguous statements (which Curly Turkey pointed), but due to my knowledge on the subject, I'm neutral on whether to keep or delist the article.--Retrohead (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro's comments

• Unfortunately I don't have enough time to go over the entire article now as I also have an extensive GAN to review, but if I may comment on the italics issue, please see MOS:T. I still don't know how Wikipedia prefers to treat online websites, if they have to be italicized or not. And, if not, using the publisher parameter to refer to a website in cite web, for example, is wrong. Pedro u | t 19:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SSTflyer

• In my opinion, the MoS violations and reference styling issues with this article do not cause it to fail WP:WIAGA requirements. As far as I know, citation consistency is a WP:FA requirement, not a WP:GA requirement. The prose quality is an issue though, as pointed out by Curly Turkey. This article currently fails WP:WTW, part of the GA criteria. If these cannot be resolved in a timely manner, I would say delist. SSTflyer 05:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Council of Nicaea

Hisar (city)

Yahya bey Dukagjini

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

Result: Delisted by Cplakidas in April 2016 (diff) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-listing the article. The previous reviewer MorenaReka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a sock of the indeffed Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Socks do not get to participate in GA reviews or any other activity for that matter, per WP:BAN. Athenean (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:DENY deals with WP:Vandalism and does not mention anything on reassessment of good articles. You don't expect a "vandal" to perform a GA assessment, do you? User:MorenaReka was suspended for having multiple accounts, not for vandalism, and there is nothing conclusive that connected her to User:Sulmues.

The other users that might become part of this discussion should know that User:Athenean has a feud with me since I reported him to WP:AE for bad language and insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Athenean.

Beside that, User:Zoupan was involved in the assessment, MorenaReka was not alone. And of course, I welcome a reassessment from everyone. --Mondiad (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorenaReka was blocked as a sock of Sulmues. Sulmues is banned. Banned users don't get to promote review articles, promote them to GA or any such things, per WP:BAN. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that article contains POV such as "A brave soldier, Dukagjini is remembered as representative of a type which admirably combined the sword with the pen. His independence intertwined with frankness and courage was his most notable trait". Some review indeed. Athenean (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely as mentioned in the source. If you're interested, I provide the exact citations, only if interested. But of course you have no interest in the article, only grudge on me since I am the GA nominator.

As for MorenaReka, read the results that MikeV showed. Don't do your own interpretations.--Mondiad (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should use better sources. This is meant to be a 21st century encyclopedia, and should read as such. Not like something from the 19th century. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:COPYVIO, before it gets you into trouble. As for your friend, he was blocked as a sock. That's all that matters. Athenean (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are rock solid and for sure no Albanian, since that's your concern. There is nothing from 19th century and the oldest is Gibb of 1911, I suggest you dig a little more about him. He is still the most respected figure in Oriental studies and specialized in poetry. The article was also reformatted from scratch during the assessment to avoid COPYVIO. And who said that GA assessments by socks are not valid? --Mondiad (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says so, namely WP:BAN. You would do well to familiarize yourself with it. You and your friend had a nice little thing going, promoting each other's articles to GA, didn't you? Well it doesn't work like that.Athenean (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You and your friend"??? Are you insisting Athenean that something was going on between Mondiad and the editor of which you cite ? Or is this another accusation ? Do you care to qualify your comments with something substantive ? If not, concentrate on the issue at hand regarding the review of this article. What needs to be done, if anything (due to it having undergone a extensive review process already, as it has been relisted for GA status)?Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, relax, please. I'll undertake to make a reassessment, posting my comments below. Constantine ✍ 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• "fell out of favor with the perpetrator of the murder", what murder? At this point in the text, it comes out of the blue.

Main body

• Overall, referencing is inconsistently formatted, and mostly incomplete/inaccurate: for instance, when referencing the EI, the reference should read ((cite encyclopedia|editor=M. Th. Houtsma|encyclopedia=First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936|publisher=E.J. Brill|year=1987|title=Yaḥyā|author=W. Björkman|pages=1149–1150|url=https://books.google.at/books?id=ro--tXw_hxMC&pg=PA1149|isbn=9789004082656|oclc=15549162)), and websites should use the cite web template, including publisher info and accessdates.
• "An Albanian by birth, according to Elsie descendant of the Catholic Dukagjini tribe which lays in a mountainous region close to the Prokletije, or Dukagjini noble family according to Houtsma, his life took a different path when he was recruited as an Ottoman devşirme" too long and convoluted, needs breaking up.
• "recognized his skills and accredited him a lot of freedom, which he used to get access" "accredited" is probably the wrong word here. "get access to" is also not nice prose. Perhaps "which enabled him to associate himself with..." In general, this part is badly copied from the source: on the one hand, it strictly follows its structure, on the other, it leaves out some important qualifiers that make the text puzzling: what were the skilles recognized? martial or literary? And what exactly is meant by "freedom"?
• "Yahya stayed aware of his origin " no hardcoded paragraph breaks, please.
• "Nevertheless, for Yahya Bey, the cruel devşirme..." it is not exactly clear what the "nevertheless" refers to; the devşirme is mentioned for the first time here, the uninitiated won't know why it was cruel, or what it has to do with Yahya. It should be mentioned, linked, and given a brief explanation earlier, when his selection for the janissary corps is mentioned. Also, the emphasis put here is at odds with the source: Yahya certainly knew his origin, as did most of the devşirme members, but he considered it a stroke of luck, so the "cruel" bit is an editorial intervention by the article's author, not from the source. And at "whereas good luck and particularly tact with superiors mattered greatly", it is IMO better to simply quote the relevant phrase directly as it is the EI article author's considered opinion.
• "in Baghdad's expedition of 1535 under Sultan Suleiman. He earned the respect of powerful key people (between others the Sultan himself)" prose issues: in the Baghdad expedition, and "among others the Sultan"
• "Yahya spent most of his early years in Ottoman campaigns, which inspired him." from the text flow, this belongs to the beginning of the paragraph. An explanation of what exactly the inspiration was is also needed.
• "which he had first met" -> "whom he had first met"
• For K̲h̲ayālī Mehmed Bey, preferably don't use diacritics; write simply Khayali Mehmed Bey
• "several foundations" of what kind?
• "who was declared as "enemy of the poets"" is misinterpreting the source; EI says that the Grand Vizier was "the declared enemy of poets", i.e. that he intensely disliked poets. This does not mean that he was declared by someone as "enemy of the poets".
• overlinking of some names, like Suleiman the Magnificent
• Iran is the modern country; relink to Safavid dynasty
• "an elegy named ... upon the murder"; better "an elegy titled ... about the murder"
• "not happy at all" colloquialism; "very displeased", "furious", etc. are better alternatives

I will continue this later. Constantine ✍ 16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Continuing:[reply]

• " Gibb praised Dukagjini as ....." again, if the opinion of Gibb is reproduced almost verbatim, then it should be quoted. The attempt at paraphrasing it is not very good.
• "A brave soldier, Dukagjini is remembered as representative of a type which admirably combined the sword with the pen. His independence intertwined with frankness and courage was his most notable trait" same as above.

In conclusion, the article has the ingredients needed for GA, but suffers from the author's obvious inexperience and problems with English prose. It needs a thorough polishing, as well as a meticulous reworking to avoid close paraphrasing of the sources. On comprehensiveness, judging from the EI article it looks quite complete, and the references as such seem solid. I'll be glad to give a hand, if someone wishes to take up the task of bringing this up to scratch. Constantine ✍ 21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the entry in the İslâm Ansiklopedisi by Mehmed Çavuşoğlu ([3]), which is frequently cited in the brief EI2 article, and which appears (from the little I can make out as I don't know Turkish) to be a bit more up-to-date and complete than the old EI article. Constantine ✍ 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:. I wouldn't mind working on this article and assisting you to bringing it up to the standard needed. A lot of work was done to iron out complications in the previous assessment so some things got overlooked such as prose etc. Though i was not involved in the previous assessment, I will have the time to do so this time around from early next week onward. Best regards Constantine and thank you for your interest and scholarly interest.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: Hi, just a reminder. Constantine ✍ 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: there has been no significant action to address the issues raised by Constantine in seven weeks, not even a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. Given that close paraphrasing has been identified in the article, it should not retain the GA icon any longer, and if the close paraphrasing is significant, the article should be tagged. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just tagged the article based on Constantine's comments above, and strongly believe that the article should be delisted as soon as possible, given the continuing lack of action. Constantine, can you please give this a retain GA/delist GA assessment? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unfortunately, due to prose and close paraphrasing issues. As it stands, the article fails Good Article criteria 1, 2a, and 2d and is in need of considerable work. Constantine ✍ 16:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bottlenose dolphin

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

Result: There is clear consensus to keep this. Any remaining flaws can be discussed on the talk page, but they don't appear to justify delisting at this point in time.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in need of major renovation if it is to remain GA. A request was placed on January 27, 2016, and it's really needed since the article was promoted 5 years ago.

• There are [citation needed]s all over the place, some dating as far as 2009. "Description", "reproduction",

I replaced all the citation needed tags.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Senses" - sentence beginning "When under water, the eyeball's lens serves to focus light," i s uncited.

Cited   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nearly every section has one or two sentence paragraphs that break the flow. "Interaction" and "cultural influence" in particular are jumbled messes.

I don't see it, could you explain a bit more?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: Under "Taxonomy", the "Some recent genetic evidence..." line; under "Description", the "Bottlenose dolphins can live for more than 40 years..." line; under "Anatomy", the "Bottlenose dolphins have 18 to 28 conical teeth..." line. "Interaction" and "Cultural influence" also read choppily, with lines like "Therapies for handicapped children can include interactions with bottlenose dolphins" and "The Miami Dolphins NFL franchise uses the bottlenose dolphin as its mascot and team logo." standing alone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with stand-alone sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many citations are incomplete, particularly #6, #15, #18, and #70, in tthis revision.

I fixed the ones mentioned above. I'll look through the rest of article for more later, I'm a bit busy right now.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes list25 a reliable source?

Replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy this week. Could this wait until the weekend? I'll try to fix what I can throughout the week.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dunkleosteus77 I noticed the following few issues. I believe these can be fixed easily and the article need not be delisted. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that citations not be used in the lead. The facts in the lead must all be mentioned in the main text as well - the citations should thus go to the main text.

removed

• There are a plenty of duplinks:

• Hybrids: Atlantic spotted dolphin
• Description: dorsal fin
• Anatomy: rostrum, dorsal fin
• Cognition: artificial language
• Tool use and culture: rostrum
• Reproduction: Shark Bay
• Social interaction: Sarasota, Sardinia
• Relations with other species: False killer whale, Risso's dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin
• Predators: sharks
• Interaction: great white shark, Brazil, Mauritania
• Threats: Immune system

Fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations should have a proper and similar format, preferably using cite templates. Ref. no.s 5 and 52, for instance, could be formatted better. In places we have sources like wiu.edu- it is better to say Western Illinois University. Check for such cases.

fixed

• There are some unsourced parts in Anatomy, Predators, Cultural influence and Conservation.

fixed

• The image of the head under Anatomy could be shifted to the right; it looks clumsy.

moved from the left side to the right side   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the exact same reason as SainsF. I also see two other very simple issues:

• "Interaction" section is in too many paragraphs

fixed

• Fix the who tags

fixed

-Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delisting - there is honestly not a lot to fix if I was doing the GA review today, but there are some source issues and minor stuff. Notes below  MPJ-US  04:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• use   between measurements and their units.

template ((convert)) is used

• Spell out "ml" the first time ml is used

done

• Source problems, Dead sources

• 64, 69, 35, 59, 108

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Subscription Required

• 97

added

• I agree with the "interaction" section, it's too many short disjointed paragraphs to really be easy to read.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delist - the GA toolbox tool revealed a major copyright violation as far as I can tell. if this had been a GA candidate it would be a quick fail.  MPJ-US  04:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the copyright violation?

@MPJ-DK: Yes, could you please point out the copyvio? Which tool are you referring to? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What tool? The one that's in the GA Tool box, DYK Toolbox - Earwig's copyvio detector - Result here. It is showing that large parts of the text matches this article from 2013. It is showing large blocks of text as being identical, not just specific terms or names or titles either.  MPJ-US  12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that have been taken from the Wikipedia article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how we would be able to tell who copied who? it' not a wiki type site but it's definitly possible. MPJ-US  01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)`[reply]

@MPJ-DK:, according to WikiBlame, some of the "plagiarized" passages were present in a 2012 revision, a year before the indicated published date of the website. The website copied information already present on the wikipedia article.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, our article should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yep I jumped the gun, since there are improvements being made etc. I change my vote to keep then.  MPJ-US  11:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if identical text on another website was taken from here, delist if our article is a copyvio. Also, I think the citations in the intro are unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further point, I think the species should be listed in the taxobox. Just saying "see text" is almost an insult to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added

It seems you have added subspecies of a particular species instead of the three full species mentioned in the intro. Likewise, "Species: Tursiops truncatus" should be removed form the taxobox, as this article is a bout a genus, not that particular species, which is covered at Common bottlenose dolphin. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done

• Keep Had I come along and seen this when it was originally listed for re-assessment then I too would have supported delisting. But some really excellent work has taken place during this process. Based on the information in the article appearing prior to the other website (which should be detailed on the talk page of the article in case any reader has the same query) then I can support keep. The very, very minor issue I have is the size of the paragraphs for Taxonomy section appear unbalanced and I'm never a fan of sandwiching text between two images. But that's me, not the GA criteria. So keep. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @TenPoundHammer: Do you have any more comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dunkleosteus77: The one-sentence paragraphs still bother me a bit because they break up the flow and make it read choppily. Other than removing a non-notable cultural reference (it was redlinked and cited only to a primary source), I felt nothing else needed a change now. Good job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep: Another example of minor problems that could be = fixed in a single editing session being used as the basis for delisting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Lüth

Otto Kittel

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

Result: Article has been delisted. While there was a suggestion that alternate sources be found for the Kurowski ones, the fact remains that it was been three weeks and no updates have been made to the article, which has an "unreliable sources" template on it. The "delist" arguments are cogent and sufficient to justify delisting; should alternative sources be found for the Kurowski half, the article can be submitted anew at GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled upon Otto Kittel which appears to be a GA from 2010. Good articles are supposed to be "well written" and using "reliable sources". The majority of the article is sourced by Franz Kurowski, apparently a rather hagiographic, unreliable author about Germany in WW2. Furthermore, passages such as "Several Russian women and children saw the crash from two houses nearby and came running out. No men were in sight. When Kittel got to the forest he found he had left his emergency rations behind, having only chocolate bar with him," or "Risking himself for a single victory was not Kittel's way," or "During his training he was considered a good comrade on account of his unshakeable calm, presence of mind and sense of duty. Owing to his attributes, his superior officers treated him with respect," strike me as rather un-encyclopedic and either unsourced or – if the entire paragraph is sourced by the inline citation at its end – we are back to square one with this information sourced by Kurowski alone. There's a bunch of minor things like not capitalizing staffel but capitalizing it later, and whether it's really necessary to use the German word for squadron (though I don't know what the consensus is for that). I'm not an expert and judging by the article talk page, there seem to have been issues between contributing editors in the past, hence the request for community input. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to highlight Keith-264's very quick contributions [4], already the article is starting to read much better. Although I dare say the reliance on that single source author an issue, as he comprises a half of the inline citations. Especially since most of the other references seem to be used to source rather dry statistics, e.g. dates, numbers, promotions, while for the "meaty" prose it's all Kurowski. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: As a contributor to the Franz Kurowski article, I recommend delisting this article. The Kurowski source is non-encyclopedic and is not suitable to serve as a basis for a GA, or any article. I recommend limiting its use as much as possible. The acceptable use of this source may be for militaria details (I.e. details of uniforms, medals, vehicles, etc); the RS commenting on Kurowski's body of work list it to be passable for those, but not much else. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: At first I was more worried about the flowery prose which was fixed in part, but after reading up more on the author in question I am for delisting, not a RS for a GA. Also I absolutely second what K.e.coffman said about the source in general, if there are other articles relying solely (or in large part) on it then they deserve attention as well. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Best to see if it can be salvaged, first, IMO. Can the info be sourced to a higher quality source than Kurowski?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Kurowski wrote over 400 books, including on such obscure subjects as Kittel. It's unlikely that there would be an RS covering Kittel's career in such level of detail. The only option (IMO) is to prune the article, which would not leave enough content for it to sustain a GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CCCVCCCC: I've followed your advice and nominated Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1 for community reassessment. Also, I think this discussion can be closed as "Delist" as it's been over a week since the last comment. I don't see a particular timeframe for keeping a GAR open at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; but in addition to comments here, several editors edited the article following the nomination, and no objects to delisting have been raised. It seems reasonable to assume that the commenting period has been sufficient.
    • Edit: found this in instructions for "Guidelines for community reassessment discussion": "When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators)". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always Mine (Selena song)

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

Result: Delisted per community consensus, and because the article does not currently attain the GA criteria in some areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion I made earlier, I would like to redirect this article to the parent album but it would need the consensus from the community to delist this article from GA status first. Best – jona ✉ 14:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I see no mention of a record in Selena's album discography by the name of Dulce Amor; no offense to the writer, the nominator, or whoever contributed to this article, but from a quick look at it, it seems to be nothing more than a fandom... Plus, some of the links on the page lead to disambiguation pages, plus there is a mention of it being on a record called Anthology, yet it still it says it comes from the album Dulce Amor. Also, where would this article redirect to? Carbrera (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: The album was omitted from her albums discography because it was part of her career as "Selena y Los Dinos". But yes, the song did came from that album and it would be appropriate to redirect it to either Anthology or to Selena. – jona ✉ 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I agree with you; Delist as a GA and Redirect to the parent album if applicable. Carbrera (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nominator's concern. Erick (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nominator. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Georgian War

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

Result: The majority favor keeping on the grounds that the article is sufficiently well cited and neutrally written. The neutrality tag on the article was removed a long time ago, and any remaining issues can likely be resolved without delisting.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article used to be a hotbed of tendentious editing from pro-Russian and anti-Russian POV perspectives for years. During 2014 and 2015 it was heavily edited mostly by UA Victory (talk · contribs), clearly with the anti-Russian POV dominating. It was passed as GA twice by the same person, Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs), first in December 2014 and then again in July 2015, after it had in the meantime been demoted by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) because of copyvio concerns. While the copyvio concerns may have been fixed during the process, there appear to be still heavy concerns regarding the POV slant, which J.V.'s review didn't address, as currently documented in several threads on the article talkpage (see [5] and previous postings). Jonas Vinther was himself topic-banned from certain political-historical topic areas because of heavy concerns of tendentious editing later in 2015, which indicates that his judgment of NPOV writing on matters of military history must be unreliable (the topic area he was banned from, Nazi Germany and WWII, is at least indirectly related to the present topic, insofar as both involve matters of warfare against Russia). There has also been substantial edit-warring by the main author, UA Victory, pushing some even more overtly tendentiuos wording into the article [6], [7][8][9].

In view of the concerns that have been raised on the talkpage recently, I believe the article is in need of a thorough NPOV check, including checking for subtle skewed POV messages through tendentious choice of language, but also choice of sources, correctness of representation of sourced claims, and overall balance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have a question for you: If some antisemits or Neo-Nazis don't like some Wikipedia article on the Third Reich or Holocaust because it describes some facts they dislike, and express their frustrations on the article talk page, does that make the said article POV?

I'm all ready for the article to be checked and all issues to be fixed. I don't have an anti-Russian POV, perhaps I'm a bit critical of the Russian government, but all I care about is historical accuracy. Did it occur to you that perhaps I studied the war extensively and I know more facts than any other average Wikipedian? This was expected since this is a relatively unknown war and not many people understand its origins. Please remember WP:AGF. Also remember that I may not have enough free time to respond quickly.--UA Victory (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I'm not going to participate much in this reassessment, I completely dismiss any claims or accusations of having willingly overlooked POV statements in this article during both of my GA-reviews. I actually received quite a few compliments on my reviews. It's possible, however, that some POV edits were made after my last review (which was back in July by the way). My topic-ban, also, have nothing to do with this. And I agree with UA Victory that you should assume good faith in this case: not all of my 20,400 edits on Wikipedia have been part of a conspiracy to destroy the world. Keep that in mind. On another note, Merry Christmas. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I always thought that Wikipedia administrators were supposed to be neutral, but, oh boy, was I wrong! After reading all about this drama, the choice of language by F.P.a.S. such as – warfare against Russia – caught my eye. The comment reveals that this particular administrator is not neutral, since he believes Putin’s line that it was Georgia that unleashed an unprovoked war on peaceful South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers at the instigation of NATO, forcing Putin to heroically defend his country and his citizens. Hint: Russia waged a war on Georgia, not Georgia against Russia!

F.P.a.S. objects to anti-Russian POV with a straight face as if Russia didn't do nuffin wrong. It's just laughable! His talk page comment [10] on the wording regarding the activities of the two main parties in the lead and his objection to the portrayal of Russia’s aggressive intent also reek of shrewd tendentiousness as though it was not Russia that armed South Ossetian insurgency to the teeth. South Ossetian insurgency then escalated fight against Georgia instead of reaching a negotiated settlement agreement with Georgia’s central government. Russia’s leadership had all their accusations of genocide ready for when the Georgian government retaliated after Ossetian attack. Georgian troops had never crossed the international border between Georgia and Russia. It was the latter that launched a full-scale invasion of the former. It’s unconceivable that a Wikipedia administrator lashed out like a raving lunatic in vitriolic defense of the so-called Russian peacekeepers who robbed civilians and banks in Georgia [11].

Someone has claimed on the talk page that article was biased against Georgia in the past. One is inevitably left wondering what F.P.a.S. did back then to eliminate anti-Georgian and anti-American POV. He only picks up on when the trolls from Olgino, Russian nationalists and conspiracy theorists throw bitch fits since current article indeed exposes the narrative of Russia’s advocates [12] as outright lies [13].

Check out his pals on the talk page. F.P.a.S. is enabling incredibly dishonest and biased editors to get their own way! This guy calls himself Perfect, however his incompetence, sheer bias and actions cast serious doubts on his perfection. I strongly recommend that F.P.a.S. be checked for neutrality. The existence of such impartial administrators might be an indication of Wikipedia’s anti-American bias! DeeplyConcernedDeer (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead gave an unbiased and factual account of events a while ago such as Georgian civilians being defended from Ossetian shelling and Georgia being invaded on made up pretext. I concur that administrators who are actively lobbying Russian interests should be held personally responsible and stripped of their duties.--188.109.4.146 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a thinly veiled attempt at furthering pro-Russian POV is appalling.

First, I'd like to thank UA victory for a huge amount of work he did and all the sources he added to the article. Nevertheless, I believe that the nomination is warranted since there are few issues with the article. This is one of my areas of interest on Wikipedia, so I'm not claiming to be a neutral third party, my goal is to provide context for others to examine, given that many issues are indeed subtle. Below are a few problematic passages from the intro and the beginning of the article.

• Intro, paragraph 2. Different words are chosen to describe Georgia's separation from USSR and contemporary South Ossetia's separation from Georgia: "declared independence" vs "left under internationally unrecognised separatist de facto control".
• History. "The separatists were aided by former Soviet military units now under Russian command" - no source provided (and the situation was much more nuanced actually)
• History. "Abkhaz minority seceded from Georgia during the early 1990s." - the words "minority seceded" sound awkward but it's also not correct - it wasn't only ethnic Abkhaz who seceded. And I'm not sure it's relevant to this article at all.
• Russian interests and involvement. "Eduard Kokoity, an alleged member of organised crime" - no source given for that (I checked pp 233-235 of Van Herpen's book). But it's not only a question of supporting claims with reference - I myself know about these allegatiosn - but also about using information selectively. For example, the criminal background of Georgian fighters in the first war is never mentioned in this article (see 1991–92_South_Ossetia_War#Combatants for references). Alæxis_¿question? 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is nothing wrong with this article, as it provides a factual, well-referenced overview of all relevant items. Now, whether those facts are to the liking of select users is irrelevant. It's clear that Alaexis attempted, time and again, to introduce signature Russian biases and cherry-picked items into the text just to make a point. The neutrality tag, which has been placed there single-handedly last year, has not produced any compelling reasons to be there as long as it has remained. In fact, in this instance I think the tagging is just an attempt to hold the article Hostage and is a bad faith attempt to use it as a Badge of shame - having failed to taint the content in terms of substance, select users now attempt to taint it in appearance if nothing else.--Damianmx (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Damiamx. The article's only flaw is the "Neutrality" tag, which seems to only be placed there for... well, no reason at all. The so-called bias attempts have only been brought in single-handedly by one user who shall not be named, which questions why the "Neutrality" tag is still even there, as of today. Not only do I vote to keep the article listed, but I also vote to remove the "Neutrality" tag as there is no good concern for its existence. Carbrera (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead and remove a tag yourself? The tag has been placed there by Future Perfect at Sunrise who is hands down the most controversial admin on enwiki. The nominator has been stalking Balkan-related subjects for years and their persistent POV pushing in this topic area has been very tiresome. It should not come as complete surprise that a WP:COI has been already suggested as possible motive behind the nominator’s attempt to whitewash the image of Russia.

This futile reassessment seems to be a personal attack on a well-meaning editor who had commendable courage to vastly improve the quality of an article which in its pre-2014 state was an exemplary POV. Comments and actions of the nominator smell suspiciously like WP:TOOLMISUSE.

It's bothersome that Alaexis has so far managed to get away with making false statements. Contrary to their claims, the sources actually support the material.213.66.162.203 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've listed 4 specific problems with the article, and in response I've only seen personal attacks against Fut Perfect and myself. It would be nice to hear something of substance. Alæxis_¿question? 07:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The users who question the neutrality of the article are known for their pro-Russian POV (no offend, that's just their POV). @Alaexis:, we know each other for quite a while. Be honest, don't you think your list of "specific problems" is nothing but mere nitpicking?

1. Georgia's separation from the USSR and SO's secession from Georgia cannot be compared to each other. Despite the fact that Georgia was forcibly sovietized, its separation from the Soviet Union was the right envisaged by the Soviet constitution. South Ossetia was a Soviet-era creation with no constitutionally guaranteed right to secede. Furthermore, Georgia declared independence on the basis of a nationwide referendum which was internationally observed and monitored, while SO's wannabe referendum in 1992 asked question on independence retrospectively, with the exclusion of its Georgian population; the fighting was ongoing and there were no observers and monitors.

2. "The separatists were aided by former Soviet military units now under Russian command". Nuanced or not, the separatists were aided by the Russian troops. You cannot deny this. When the South Ossetian militia was about to collapse, a telephone call from Russian vice-president Rutskoy to Tbilisi threatened to level the Georgian capital to the ground if the pressure on Tskhinvali was not relieved.

3. Yes, it was exactly the Abkhaz minority who initiated the secession movement; there is nothing "awkward" about the statement. Georgians, the single largest ethnic group in the region, were, naturally, Georgian loyalists, while other ethnic minorities were either indifferent or vacillated in the course of the conflict.

4. Alleged "criminal background of Georgian fighters" is not relevant here. Kokoity was not supposed to be a fighter, but he claimed to have been a democratically elected national leader. And allegations of his being part of the mafia came primarily not from Tbilisi, but from his estranged insiders and the common people in Tskhinvali. --Kober^Talk 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll initiate a separate discussion at the talk about the first issue. And regarding the 2 and 4, the problem was not only POV but also lack of sources - after all it's supposed to be a good article. Alæxis_¿question? 17:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Malaysian Grand Prix

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

Result: Article kept as GA following changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through this article, I noticed that large sections of prose (specifically in the qualifying and race reports) are currently not attributed to any sources. I feel that this at odds with the "verifiable" good article criterium. This lack of references makes me wondered whether the article should have received GA status in the first place and what the community's stance on this is, hence why I decided to request community reassessment. Tvx1 16:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not quite follow. Yes, unlike in later articles when I was more adapt to Wikipedia, the references are at the end of each section rather than the same reference repeated after each paragraph. But every statement is referenced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the position, it is also the quantity. You've put the bar really high regarding number of refs for 2015 Formula One season and then here you're satisfied with just one ref each for the qualifying and race reports. I'd say there should be at the very least one different ref per paragraph. But even more would be preferable. There are more than enough sites out their which report on each Grand Prix. Some even run specific stories on the performances of the individual teams each race. Tvx1 15:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: I have added more sources. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96 (formerly Z105space)

First bunch

• There should be something about the points standings heading into the race and after the event.

 Done

• I don't think the post-qualifying sub-section should exist since it only has one sentence. It could easily be placed in the qualifying section.

 Done Will address the rest tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that article has two uses of the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper, and three times sources from planetf1.com are in the entry. These two sites are unreliable, and should be replaced.

 Done I have replaced the PlanetF1 references, as well as one of the Daily Mail ones. However, the second one sources a direct opinion voiced by the commentator of the Daily Mail. While we might not use the Daily Mail as a reliable source for many facts, I am sure we can trust on them being a reliable source for their own opinions.

That is what I have for now. i am surprised how the reviewer did not notice these issues. MWright96 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reevaluate. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: I made edits to reduce slang in the article, and will have probably have another look tomorrow. MWright96 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Progress has been made through this reassessment review and I am satisfied that the status of GA can be kept. MWright96 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Tvx1, what is your opinion of the article in its current state. Has enough work been done so that you are satisfied as to the article's verifiability? Or is more needed? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still a bit meagre I feel. Just look at how many different sources there are in the report section of 2015 Formula One season. Moreover, I'm not sure the WikiProject is still in favor of using Motorsport.com as a source. Tvx1 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tvx1: Motorsport.com has by now introduced credit to work they use from Wikipedia. I therefore think that there is no more reason to boycott them. If you have specific suggestions on how the article can be improved, feel free to leave them here and I'll fix them. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• However, a source using Wikipedia as a source means that their reliability is compromised. I still some wikiproject members replacing Motorsport.com as a source from time to time. That being said, I still feel like that the qualifying and race reports can still do with some additional inline citations. Some source specifically run stories on the different teams' performances during a grand prix. Tvx1 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tvx1: I hear you, it's a fair point. However, are those two concerns really enough to strip the article of GA status? For FA, I'd agree. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I just took a look at the article's lead while looking at the sourcing in general, and wondered at the unusually large number of inline source citations. It seems to be because the bulk of the lead's information does not appear in the body of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD. This really needs to be fixed; only the first sentence of the second paragraph and the second sentence of the final paragraph seem to be in the article proper. Not even the common and actual names of the race appear in the body. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Zwerg Nase, I'm just applying the same standards you applied to 2015 Formula One season before supporting it being promoted to GA. Tvx1 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed the necessary information from the lead into the body and made some more work towards references, giving a bigger variety. However, I still do not quite understand Tvx1's reservations about inline citations. Both qualifying and race are sourced from numerous different media outlets. Yes, there are websites that give team-per-team previews and reviews of the race. But a) is a team-per-team preview/review not in the scope of a GA and b) is it probably not in the scope of a general encyclopedia to begin with. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, the new paragraph is a good start, and I've added the race date to it, but there are still several facts in the lead that I don't see in the article, and they need to be there:

• thirty-fifth race overall
• Hamilton's 40th career pole position
• Vettel's 40th career victory
• Ferrari's first victory since 2013 Spanish Grand Prix

As for the additional inline citations, perhaps Tvx1 could add a couple of "citation needed" templates where he believes the current sources are inadequate to support the material preceding it. The only place I noticed that should probably gain a cite is the end of the first paragraph under Free practice. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll have a look. Tvx1 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add the necessary infos BlueMoonset mentioned later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I have now added the infos from the lead into the article body. All except the 53rd running of the GP overall since I was unable to find a reliable source for that. I have taken that piece out of the lead accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Tvx1: Can we close the reassessement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, the issues I raised have all been addressed, so it's up to Tvx1 to take that look and let us know where he'd like those additional inline citations, assuming he still does. It would be nice to get this reassessment finished, but the article remains a GA, and since this is a community reassessment, it would require consensus for it to be delisted. Practically, this means Tvx1 would need to convince others that the article should be delisted, which in my estimation will require more specific evidence than has been provided thus far. There is already one "keep" recommendation on record, and if Tvx1 doesn't give some cogent examples soon, I'm likely to make that assessment myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you would be a little less threatening. Anyway I've had a look and added templates where more inline citations are warranted. Additionally I would added another source to the second paragraph of the race section to make the referencing a bit broader. Tvx1 17:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Everything should be alright now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1 and BlueMoonset: Can I count both of you as keep now? Since we seem to be the only people in this discussion, I would close this reassessment if that is the case. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg Nase, there still is a citation needed tag in the race section. Tvx1 14:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: How could I oversee that? Resolved. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not exactly I'm afraid. The source you used doesn't mention anything about Button having a turbo failure. Tvx1 19:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Sorry, I thought I only had to do Maldonado. I added another source for Button. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. That should have the issues resolves. Looks much better now with a number of inline citations instead of just one ref at the end of each entire section. Tvx1 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: issues where the nomination was felt to fall short of the GA criteria have been addressed. We now need to find, according to number 7 of the guidelines for community reassessments, an uninvolved editor to close this, which means none of us here. Perhaps you know someone from one of the WikiProjects who participates in the GA space and can make the decision? I'm happy to help anyone with the mechanics of closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (mind game)

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

Result: Delisted per the consensus that the article is not of GA quality, specifically in the quality of the prose and the sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GA assessment didn't seem to examine the sources. They are basically not reliable sources. Most of them are not independent, but dependent centrally on one person, Jonty Haywood, the perpetrator of the Porthemmet Beach hoax, who was also a contributor to the page under the name, Kernow, including taking the picture of the toilet!

The following are the sources used in the article. 1. Daily Nebraskan: a student newspaper. 2. De Pers: based on an interview with Haywood. 3. Metro (1): a short snippet that refers to Haywood's website. 4. Rutland Herald: an article that refers to Haywood's website. 5. Canadian Press: quotes Haywood. 6. LA Loyolan: a student newspaper. Refers to Haywood's website. 7. xkcd: a comic. 8. Cory Antiel: Apparently a student essay. Apparently Antiel is a puppeteer. Hosted by Haywood's website. 9. Metro (2): quotes Haywood. 10. KC Star: refers to Haywood's website. 11. Petition: signed by Haywood and no one else!!! 12. Kevin Rudd email. Hosted by Haywood's website. A non-notable prank. 13. Daily Globe: refers to Haywood's website. 14. "The Game (I lost!)": a blog on a site called arseburgers.co.uk. 15. Tolstoy: no direct connection. 16. Dostoyevsky: no direct connection. 17. Wikinews: an interview with Haywood. 18. SBMC: a comic. 19. RealLife Comics: a comic. 20. Youtube. 21. Youtube. 22. Twitter. 23. Facebook. 24. TechCrunch: report of 4chan prank. Doesn't explain what "the game" is. 25. ABC News: blog, page unavailable.

The reviewer of the GA review indicated that they were "playing" the Game, and hence were not independent, as did contributors in the recent AfD. The whole article shows a lack of independence from the topic. Many of the claims made in the article are nonsensical. Considering what some article struggle through it is bizarre that this is named a good article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the person who nominated the article for GA and rewrote almost all of it, so I do not feel like I'm entitled to a vote on whether the article should remain a GA or not, but I would like to point out several things, especially since I was invited to comment here:
  • Despite Upland's apparent assertion that many of the sources are unreliable because they mention Haywood, this is not the case. Haywood has created a site based on The Game and attempted to popularise it; this would be the equivalent of claiming a source on rock-paper-scissors is unreliable because it contains a quote from someone who wrote a book on the subject. Everyone except Upland at this recent AfD voted "Keep" because the subject passed GNG and had reliable sources (except one user who declined to provide a reason for voting Keep)—essentially, that it met WP:GACR#2 (albeit perhaps not that rigorously, because AfD has lower standards than GAN).
  • The picture of the toilet is mostly decorative and Kernow has not edited the page since 2010, twice to revert vandalism, once to fix a reference title and once to remove unsourced information.
  • Reference #25 has now been archived; again, it's a report of the 4chan prank and only used to source the fact that "also the game" appeared at the end of the prank.
  • The idea that someone has a "lack of independence from the topic" because they "were "playing the Game" is like saying a human cannot review Homo sapiens or a professional statistician cannot review Normal distribution, and no-one who has ever played the game could review Snakes and Ladders.
  • "Many of the claims made in the article are nonsensical" is an unsubstantiated assertion here, but Upland has written similar claims here, which may explain what he (I assume Jack is male) is trying to say. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those analogies are relevant. Even if you ignore the linkage with Haywood, most of the sources are far from reliable sources. And the heavy involvement of Haywood is relevant because reliable sources are supposed to be independent and non-promotional. This also raises the issue of verifiability, because all the sources verify is that Haywood has made these claims. To take one extreme example, the article says: "More unusual strategies involve legislation: petitions in Britain trying to pass laws involving The Game have been created." Really??? No. Not really. The source is one petition by one person (Haywood) that was immediately rejected.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken if you think Haywood invented this or is hoaxing, despite his previous form. A journalist at The Next Web wrote that he first learned of The Game in the late 90s at school and the first known web mention in 2004 pre-dates Haywood's interest. Although losethegame dot com has been blacklisted from Wikipedia due to Haywood's own initial behaviour and others trying to paste it into random articles to make people lose, his FAQ is a good guide to the origins. I find the game intriguing as an example of a game that breaks the rules of game theory and so I helped him research some of the history (by email, I don't know him), e.g. Conway's Endgame in which a player agreeing to play automatically loses, as I knew this kind of original research wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. This said, I am surprised this passed a GA review even though the topic is clearly notable as the writing is patchy and the sourcing could be improved - I say this having contributed myself. People seem to hate this subject as it is frivolous and the game oftens involves tricking people, but we also cover many other frivolous topics. Fences&Windows 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being honest about that. I believe you are telling the truth, but actually there is no way for me or any other editor to know that. You might even be Haywood, or Haywood might be continuing to edit under another name. That's one of the problems with the article. It isn't genuinely verifiable. And it's not independent. Regardless of whether Haywood originated the game or is still editing this page, he is fundamentally bound up with the game and this article. Paul Taylor who is cited as the earliest known source for the game also edited it. And what you say only confirms to me my opinion that this article (in its current form) is a hoax. When you say Haywood is not hoaxing, do you think his petition was genuine? It would be different if the game was mentioned in the context of game theory. Arguing the game is a real game is like arguing that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion. But this article has passed the AfD. This is about the GA status. As you say, it is surprising. This leads me to be concerned that some editors are promoting this as an in-joke ("in-joke" is even one of the article's categories).--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You might even be Haywood". You might even be paranoid - a near-decade old account, an admin, and you think I'm a sockpuppet? Of course people play this, was The Next Web journalist lying when he claimed to have played this since the late 90s? There's no point discussing this topic with you, you have an irrational hatred of it. Fences&Windows 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I accepted you were being honest. My point is hypothetical, and I apologise if you didn't understand that. There is no way to ascertain the truth of almost all the assertions made in the article. We need to take it on trust. As I said before, I don't think anyone actually plays the game. If they did, the best strategy would be to forget about it. Certainly they wouldn't write an article about (or comment here). The fact that people continually say they are playing the game when this is manifestly not true, just indicates the slippery grasp on truth that is a central tenet of this article. You didn't answer my question about Haywood's petition. Do you think it was genuine?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the petition sentence because it was utter garbage and it looks like something I only wrote because I thought the article was a bit on the short side (although ~16K bytes is by no means the shortest GA I've seen). And while I was there I removed the Kevin Rudd letter, which I still believe is genuine but no longer think is of particular significance.

I think your Pastafarianism comparison is reasonable, but while adherents of serious religions like Islam or Sikhism would have a right to complain if Pastafarianism was treated like a normal religion, a game (according to our article on the subject) is just "structured form of play, usually undertaken for enjoyment". And that's all The Game is—a form of entertainment with a coherent if bizarre set of rules. It doesn't need to be sold as a product, have an official organisation in charge of it or follow any other rigorous conditions to be called a game. No chess player or advocate of solitaire will be offended if we use the term "game" to describe The Game; games are accepted as being almost by definition trivial and unimportant. The idea that the fact this article exists contradicts the premise that people play The Game makes no sense to me and the article does say "Strategies focus on making others lose The Game." (As I was told so often when I was younger, the aim of a game is not to win but to have fun. I might have a game with chess on a friend and go easy on them, but that doesn't mean I'm not still playing a game of chess. I might lose The Game on purpose while describing it to someone but that doesn't mean I'm not playing it.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and your thoughtful comments. I think I will let you have the last word in that argument. On reflection, I think we are straying off the topic in this discussion. The article has passed a AfD. This is supposed to be a GA review. Fences and windows above has agreed with me that the GA status is surprising. I think we need input from uninvolved editors at this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the talk page of the article after seeing the GA icon specifically to see if there were talks of a reassessment. Just using the eye-test, the fact this is a GA seems pretty ridiculous and devalues actual good articles. How did this ever pass? Lizard (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: This article will take heavily rewording and overall editing to fall under into the GA criteria, specifically 1a, 2b and 3b. The reception is disjointed and the "Several celebrities know about The Game" paragraph is worded horribly. Many of the references all over the article come from unreliable sources, such as Twitter, YouTube, Wikinews, etc. (It easily passes WP:GNG, though). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titus

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

Result: Delisted Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very surprising GA. Out of more than a hundred inline citations, all but nineteen are from first- and second-century sources.

• Are we taking the extant textual traditions Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus at their words?
• Are we interpreting them critically?
• Or is all the information in the article actually gleaned from the small number of modern critical works that are listed as "sources" but are only cited inline a few times each?

If the answer to either of the first two, especially the second, is "yes", then the article as it stands is an OR nightmare.

If the answer to the third is "yes", then the article, while not necessarily containing OR, is very poorly formatted and is not easily verifiable, as in order to check it against its sources one would need to make a detailed list of the factual claims in the article and then read two books from start to finish, checking the points off one by one.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the use of sources appears problematic. The prose mostly looks fine (though e.g. the introductory paragraphs to "Adult life" could stand to be improved). I'm also not hugely keen on the list of "Titus in later arts", especially because I'm not convinced by the blurbs given here that Titus actually even appears in some of the works (e.g. Ecce Romani and The Roman Mysteries). Even if they were cut out, however, it's still essentially a list of artworks and books where Titus is depicted: it would be much preferable, to my way of thinking, if it were a couple of paragraphs talking about how e.g. the story of his relationship with Berenice inspired later writers of romances, while the visual arts were more influenced by the sacking of the temple at Jerusalem and Titus' subsequent triumph for his successes in the Jewish wars. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would be partial to a distinction being made between "fictional" modern works and "legendary" works from late antiquity and the middle ages. Up until I added it yesterday the article made no reference to the fact that apparently at least some medieval Christian antisemites believed Titus was a Roman client king, in the kingdom of Libya, north of Judah (LOL!). This is relevant historiographic information, but as the article is currently structured I could think of nowhere to put it except the shopping list of fictional representations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I don't have a problem with using primary sources in an article. There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to. But in the case of this article, Titus lived during one of the better-documented (& analyzed) periods of Roman history. There are an abundance of good secondary sources that I'm amazed weren't used: for instance, there are three solid books in English on the Year of Four Emperors alone, which was an important event Titus played a role in. Ronald Syme has written an authoritative study of the works of Tacitus, & F. Millar has written another valuable study on Cassius Dio -- neither of which were cited for this article. Okay, the relevant articles on Titus' father Vespasian & his brother Domitian don't use these works either (although they'd be better articles if they did), but they do rely more on secondary sources than this one does. My guess about how this achieved GA status is based on the date it occurred -- July 2007. Standards were still evolving, & I doubt anyone would expect a GA class article to use secondary sources more extensively 9 years ago. I'd try to fix some of these issues, were it not that my available time is tied up with trying to fix problems in another set of articles about ancient Rome. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but There are many significant historical topics where an editor needs to rely more on primary sources than she/he prefer to actually doesn't make much sense -- if a topic has not been covered in any modern reliable sources, then it doesn't meet GNG and should be deleted. It is theoretically acceptable to use ancient primary sources, but ideally those should be replaced when better (modern, critical) sources are found, and if no such sources exist, then the article should be deleted or merged. Obviously this is completely irrelevant for the topic at hand, though; I'm just talking about theory here. An article on a topic where modern reliable sources probably do exist should not be deleted, but it also shouldn't be listed as a GA as long as those sources are not cited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples that come immediately to my mind are from Ethiopian history. For example, the general history books mention several important battles -- Battle of Shimbra Kure, Three battles of Sarbakusa, much of the recent Ethiopian Civil War -- yet there are no easily accessible secondary sources about these battles that supply any detail. And I know this because I looked -- hard. It's a result of systemic bias in Anglo-European academia & news media; they don't consider it important, so the secondary sources aren't there, & those that exist often aren't collected into libraries -- both academic & public -- because that group doesn't consider it important. (No, I can't read Amharic, Oromo, or similar Ethiopian languages, so I'm unable to access modern secondary sources in those languages.) And in the case of Greco-Roman history, most consuls -- who are notable individuals due to being chief executives of the Roman state -- aren't the subject of studies in the secondary literature, so anyone writing about them will be forced to rely on Livy, Diodorus Siculus, & other primary sources exclusively to write articles about them. So either one simply repeats with minimal interpretation what the primary sources say about the subject, or leave the subject little more than a stub article -- which is what I have had to do in those cases. I'm not interested in fighting a futile battle with mindsets that can't accept that handicaps of structural biases in Western secondary sources exist & thus justify WP:Ignore all rules, so I've moved on to easier topics to research & write about. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, modern secondary sources written in other languages are just as good as modern secondary sources written in English, and should not be replaced with English-language sources unless those English sources are of the same or superior quality. Modern secondary sources written in other languages are therefore preferred to English translations of ancient and medieval primary sources. There is no rule here that needs to be ignored: if you wrote an article based on English translations of ancient sources, that's ... okay, I guess ... but ideally they should be replaced with modern reliable sources -- regardless of the language of those sources. The article as you wrote it, though, should not be listed as a GA, because it is essentially an OR nightmare. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting off into the weeds here. You may disagree with me about the needs sometimes to rely heavily on primary sources. However, were you to agree with me about that exception, I believe we'd both agree there is no reason for this article to fall into that exception: there are sufficient secondary sources about the life & career of Titus that they should be used here more extensively than they have been. -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I thought it unnecessary to respond directly until now, as I thought my agreement with you as relates to this article was obvious, but I've seen some pretty shitty GAR closes recently, and someone might come along and interpret what you wrote above as a "don't unlist" !vote, when it clearly isn't, and close this as a 2-1 "no consensus to delist", so clarifying that we're all in agreement that this article does not meet the sourcing criterion for GA (and apparently never did) seemed like a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contigo Quiero Estar

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

Result: Article clearly fails the broadness criterion (only a single critical mention and little else); as noted by both commenters, the article is quite short, and although this is not strictly a GA criterion, the notability is frankly dubious (it clearly fails WP:NSONGS). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad

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

Result: kept Wizardman 02:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page has fallen far from the original GA version from 2012. One problem is that it's not currently stable with repeated attempts to restore some old version (including hard number citations like [4][5][39]). The infobox is a mess and the introduction before was a full page long and extensively repetitive of the content below. It's also not using reliable sources as there's overly extensive citations to this page (careful, music plays) which is basically a blog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Firstly the three line lead hits you in the face like a sack of bricks that something odd is going on here. For a 46k article, three lines doesn't even remotely cut it. The reverting that was going on back in December seems to have calmed down and hasn't taken place since, so hopefully that can now be ruled out. Bengal section is uncited as are the ends of paragraphs of a couple of other sections. The tables are actually completely uncited. The reliability of some of the citations are questionable or are just incomplete, and cite #22 has the details for Google Books rather than the actual book. Miyagawa (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant improvements from the first listing means that I'm happy for this to be kept. I haven't given it a line by line read through, but the issues I previously had have all been recitified. Miyagawa (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: as Miyagawa notes, the lead clearly fails GA requirements per WP:LEAD: an article this size should have at least two and probably three paragraphs in the lead section, and should summarize the whole article. The Bengal section has prose issues in addition to being uncited. Stability has not been an issue in 2016 (four non-bot edits over the course of two and a half months), but there are plenty of other problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: The April 2016 version is nowhere even close to the August 2012 version. A lot of work had gone in to make the article a GA but since 2012 the quality of the article has steadily fallen. In the current version most of the content of the 2012 version has either been altered or removed, thus making it a repulsive mix of some randomly inserted content (by badly trimming and cutting and altering the GA class article) and few bits and pieces of the original August 2012 GA class article (which remain). I have not been actively involved in editing for quite a long time now, because I have been tremendously busy with my real life. And I will be able to work on this article only after the first week of May 2016. So for now, I would rather want to see this article delisted from the GA list, 'cause the current version does not meet most of the requirements of a GA class Wiki article. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 06:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm neutral when it comes to this article. @Vinegarymass911: has done a lot to improve this article since its listing here, and the article has also increased in size since the aforementioned "August 2012 version", but the "Bengal" section is a bit too short in contrast to the sources in that section, and could very well be expanded even more. That's my two cents. Carbrera (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep: Looks like the issues have been addressed by a handful of edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There have been significant improvements in the past 2-3 months, WP:LEAD is no longer an issue. The Bengal section, while it could use some expansion, has solid cites now. The only issue I'm having is some formatting issues with regards to the List of the Nawabs of Bengal section, which I would fix but I am unsure as to how. UiLego (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd say that the big issues have been resolved sufficiently to keep the GA status. The citations look good and the article is well organized and written clearly.StoryKai (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There have been major improvements since I commented in March, but the table still has no cites for the last five Nawabs of Bengal or the first three Nawabs of Murshidabad. Those really need to be reliably sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources were recently added for those remaining eight Nawabs, so I have struck my original "delist" from last March. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upanishads

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

Result: Kept. Issues raised were all dealt with to the nominator's satisfaction even before being blocked; I see no benefit in leaving this open any longer even though the standard time for community reassessments is seven days. This would have been better settled on the article's talk page without dragging the GAR process into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Heart (song)

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

Result: Delist Wizardman 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion I made earlier, I would like to redirect this article to the parent album but it would need the consensus from the community to delist this article from GA status first. Best – jona ✉ 14:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the song passed WP:NSONGS, and it charted on two significant record charts, my opinion says Keep for now. However, the article does contain some misleading information that needs to be fixed. What I'm talking about pertains to the Canadian Hot 100, which did not exist during the time "Captive Heart" was eligible chart, yet it lists that it charted on the Hot 100 twice over a span of two years. I assume either yourself or the creator of the article was mistaken, and confused the current Canadian Hot 100 with the similarly active RPM that was Canada's chart from 1964 to 2000. (The Canadian Singles Chart took over from 2000 to 2007, while the Canadian Hot 100 has continued its efforts since 2007.) Considering the song was nominated for "Tejano Crossover Song of the Year" and "Song of the Year" at the Tejano Music Awards, this is a definite keeper. @AJona1992:, can you further clarify on why you want to redirect this article? I read your explanation on the other talk page, but I still don't think I'm getting the gist of the situation. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The song never impacted any music charts and I can't verify if it was ever nominated for a TMA. I tried searching and even the source request page couldn't locate any source that said it was nominated while I was working on a similar category for the TMAs. Best – jona ✉ 11:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it on there? Carbrera (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it after I replied. – jona ✉ 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. But I can't help but notice that it still passes WP:NSONGS and it was released as a CD single. Carbrera (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all singles released are notable though, but I'll see what others have to say. Thanks for responding – jona ✉ 20:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since notability is not a GA criterion, I don't understand why NSONGS is relevant to this discussion, Carbrera. The question is whether the article itself meets the six GA criteria. I realize that AJona1992 is looking to not only delist the article but ultimately to redirect it, but we're just concerned with GA status here. Given that a significant amount of information has been removed, and the article was not that big to begin with, it may well fail to meet one or more of the criteria. Carbrera, you haven't addressed that at all, and a GA reassessment should. (If this applies to either of the other two articles in AJona1992's requests, please take another look at those as well.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree @BlueMoonset: that NSONGS is not relevant to this discussion, but what part of the "six GA criteria" does the article not meet? It is well written, it is now verifiable with no original research, it's broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated by images if possible. Carbrera (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Carbrera, that was my question to you: whether it met the criteria. You now say it does, but a quick look through it finds sentences like Recording sessions had taken nearly less than a week to complete the song, plus While, according to the Chicago Tribune, "Captive Heart" was destined for urban-contemporary radio, and The Daily Vault instated that it was a one-way ticket to voice destruction, among others equally problematic. There are also errors of punctuation and grammar, including odd tense shifts, and information in the lead that's nowhere else. It clearly doesn't meet the varied "well written" criteria at the moment, though a thorough copyedit plus attention to WP:LEAD would fix the issues. I do also wonder whether the article remains broad enough in its coverage given what's left. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but I would suggest to Ajona1992 that a copyedit be performed, much like you suggested. Carbrera (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: It has been about two months since the above discussion, and the prose issues remain. The article is not well written, and should not be listed as a GA in its present form. If I were rating it for a WikiProject, I'd probably make it C class. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - no improvements made; not broad in its coverage. I don't think that there's a problem with the way that it's written, I just don't think that there's enough there since all the unsourced stuff was removed. Spiderone 14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Lizzy

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

Result: Article kept as GA after improvements AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, guys, but there is an alarming number of "page needed" templates (a total count of 54) in here which have remained unaddressed for two months. They are relevant, and the original nominator may be able to fix these easily, but if that can't happen, this article should be delisted. There are also five dead links in the article. I'm open to what the rest of the community thinks. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links have all been replaced or now have archive links. The page details I have to leave to others. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can deal with the 'page needed' tags; I was discussing it with the guy who put them there but he hasn't got back to me for a while. Should get it done today. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with all the 'page numbers needed' tags. There might be a few more page numbers I can add that aren't tagged; I'll look at that when I can. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: Sorry, seem to have forgotten about this. Thank god we still have you around after five more years, Breton. It'd have been difficult to fix without you. I know the tags were only two months old as opposed to something like six, but they were so many in number that I immediately brought it to GAR; I would never let an article with 54 tags stand as a GA, especially Thin Lizzy. I will now gladly keep this article. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush

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

Result: Delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the high profile nature of this article, I figured it'd be best to bring it to the community. All in all, it isn't in completely terrible shape, but there are uncited portions of paragraphs and a incomplete list tag that has snuck into it. In addition, one of the later sections is effectively formatted as a list of trivia and another just has a link to Bush's electoral history without a general summary. I wouldn't have been drawn to bringing this here, but it has had a GAR request tag on it since 2014 and no-one has picked up on the issues present to prevent this. Miyagawa (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick problem I have noticed with this article is that there are a lot of dead sources. Using the article's checklinks page shows a lot of dead sources. Will211 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through and corrected nearly all of these (those categorized as dead/marked in red).  GRKO³  03:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came with the thought of closing this if the issues mentioned by Miyagawa had been dealt with, but I see some issues with a number of the criteria. A few examples:

• In the Well-written criteria, there are a couple of problems with the lead section: first (and less important to my mind), it exceeds the maximum recommended length of four paragraphs. More important, there is the passage in the fourth paragraph, starting "In the wake of", that has a couple of issues to my mind. There is an implied cause and effect that I don't believe is necessarily true with the Clarence Thomas appointment, and even if it is, the appointment and its controversy is not mentioned at all in the article beyond giving Thomas's name the year appointed. Thomas should be mentioned in the lead—the appointment was quite controversial and Thomas is still on the Supreme Court 35 years later—but the body of the article needs more on the Thomas appointment, and either needs to substantiate the implication that it helped cost Bush his re-election, or that sentence needs reconstructing.
• I would recommend pulling the Honorary degrees and Awards and honors sections out of the Presidency section (most of the degrees were granted either before or after his presidency), and perhaps have a section that is not chronologically based where this could go, since it also doesn't necessarily fit post-presidency.
• The Post-presidency section has a number of short squibs—a line or two each—that make the flow very choppy. Some revision and/or reorganization would seem to be in order here.

Overall, the article needs some work to be back at a GA level, but it's not insurmountable, and it could survive this reassessment if the necessary work gets done. If someone volunteers, and someone else is willing to give the article a closer look for a more comprehensive and detailed list of issues, this can end happily. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, Miyagawa, Will211, and Grko3: From what I can tell, the large majority of the concerns above remain. As such, I propose this review (which is now almost nine months old) be closed and the article be delisted. Does anyone have any objections to this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, delisting would be fine with me. The issues I raised have not been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur. Miyagawa (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries, I will delist it now as it seems that there is a consensus amongst the main reviewers to delist. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

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

Result: No consensus. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 GA review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz

The article has several problematic areas:

Sources

The article relies largely on one source for the article copy, containing about 160 citations to Röll:

• Röll, Hans-Joachim (2011). Generalleutnant der Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: Vom Kavallerieoffizier zum Führer gepanzerter Verbände [Lieutenant General of the Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: From a Cavalry Officer to a Leader of Armoured Units] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig. ISBN 978-3-8035-0015-1.

Judging by the book cover, this appears to be a laudatory, non-peer reviewed narrative along the lines authored by other similar militaria literature writers, such as Franz Kurowski or his colleague from Der Landser writer Günter Fraschka [de]. WP:Biased may apply. Fraschka is used in the article for a couple of what look like POV, laudatory statements (please see Neutrality section below).

Judging by the book cover? Really? When we challenge a source for reliability, on en WP we use WP:RS. You are trying to use WP:OTHERSTUFF to challenge this text "appears to be", "what look like", "may apply", and make references to authors who have no demonstrated link to this book or author with a view to undermining it. I can't speak for it, but you'll want to do better than that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bright line is verifiability, not a subjective measure of quality. Better sources are better, of course, but this meets V. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source is fine. Most biographical articles rely heavily for details on one or two sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not question the validity of a source when you are personally unfamiliar with it and do not have other sources which criticize it and/or contradict it. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." In this case it is unclear what kind of reputation Röll's work has and there is no indication of extremism. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick: The problem is that this article is essentially single-sourced to a work that is physically and linguistically inaccessible to English-language editors, and the reliability of which cannot be confirmed. The RS policy states that the articles should be based on "multiple sources" so that the information can be cross-checked. I believe this especially applies to GA articles, as they represent Wikipedia's best work.

I recently became aware of an English-language source The Devil's General: The Life of Hyazinth Strachwitz by Raymond Bagdonas. But I'm not sure if it would be helpful either. It's written by a non-notable author of unknown credentials, and the author himself states in the intro:

"[Strachwitz's] records of service in the 16th Panzer Division were destroyed along with the division in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943. After a period of distinguished service with the elite Grossdeutschland Division, he served as commander of several ad-hoc units, some bearing his name, in a period when records, if kept at all, were scanty, or lost.

"It all makes for a rather threadbare paper trail. His comrades-in-arms have now all passed away, so there are no witnesses to his many battles and exploits."

Please see Casemate's blog.

Separately, please see WP:Overcite and Extraordinary claims sections for additional discussion on sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a much better reliability concern. If Strachwitz's records of service are essentially lost works, military historians may not have reliable data for a considerable part of his service. Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted by K.e.coffman, The article relies largely on one source for the article copy, containing about 160 citations to Röll. (My emphasis). I looked up the publisher for Röll's book, Flechsig, and it's a nothing publisher. Is it a real company? I'm not convinced. From what I can find online, it might just be some guy in his basement. It's not carried by universities, libraries or otherwise reputable places, only things like amazon, so my jaw dropped when I looked back at the citation list with that in mind. This source does not appear to be appropriate for any BLP, especially to give that much weight to a single source for material not covered elsewhere. According to google scholar, it's only been cited two times by others. BLP's require a higher standard of sourcing than a regular article and this source seems to be the bottom of the barrel. It has no reputation, we know nothing about the editorial oversight or fact-checking, it's not referenced by experts, yet it's used to source WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims that multiple editors have now commented sound far fetched. Per WP:V: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." (WP's emphasis). All of the arguments in favor of this source contradict WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I haven't heard any single convincing reason why this source is at all appropriate. Given WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", I feel like it's a waste of my time to keep looking for seemingly nonexistent information about this publisher. I'm open to the possibility that other editors might be able to verify for us that this actually a reliable source, but for now it doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria. —PermStrump(talk) 20:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is overly long and complex, making it difficult to read. It provides extraneous detail which would not normally be notable for a military figure for inclusion in the lead, such as:

• As an officer in the reserves, he participated in various military exercises during the 1930s.
• At the outbreak of World War II, Strachwitz was appointed ordnance officer in his unit.

What is in the lead depends upon what is in the article. I have seen you removing completely relevant information from articles because you don't think they are "notable". WP:NOTABILITY refers to article subjects, not to information within an article. I think you may be confusing what makes a person notable and thus an appropriate subject for an article with what is relevant detail to include in an article. His military service is the main reason for the article, so information about the whole of it should be in the lead. The fact that he was a reservist between the wars is relevant to his later service and ranks he was promoted to, and the fact that he worked in ordnance is relevant to his career. As a veteran I am personally intrigued by the fact that he was an ordnance officer but ended up commanding a panzer regiment. I am sure I am not alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Same here. To me these are important points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede is excellent, but I tend to use four-para ledes of about this length in my own articles -AI Mk. IV radar for example- so I'm biased in that respect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead looks fine to me. It summarises the article quite well. Length falls within the guidelines. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." A relatively long lead might be better at managing these requirements, and Wikipedia has a long list of articles with leads which are too short. See how many articles are tagged with Template:Lead too short. The one reliability concern I have for the lead, is that his activities in the 1930s are summarized to "he participated in various military exercises during the 1930s." The relevant section National Socialism states that he actually served in both the Allgemeine SS and the Military reserve force during the 1930s, and through a series of quick promotions achieved the dual ranks of Sturmbannführer and Rittmeister. Career-wise it seems more important than his participation on a largely irrelevant military exercise. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed

The article contains excessive intricate detail, such as

• a non-notable Reich sports badge,

• Again, you are confused about the application of WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, my understanding is that qualification for this badge was some sort of expectation during probation in the Allgemeine-SS, so it may be a little esoteric. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strachwitz's self-designed physical therapy protocol and

• this seems excessive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• discussion of Germany's WWI strategy, on which Strachwitz had no impact. For example:
  • The German strategy for war at the time was manifested in the Schlieffen Plan. The plan, created by Count Alfred von Schlieffen, for victory in a possible war in which the German Empire might find itself fighting on two fronts: France to the west and Russia to the east... (this appears to be unnecessary exposition).

Here I agree, there is significant amounts of what could only be described as OT filler. The discussion of the Schlieffen Plan, for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. There are certainly places one can include such information as a background for explaining the contents of that article (as in the radar example above, one really does need to know about chain home to know how you get there) the materials in this case bear no explanatory power. But casting my gaze wider, I don't find that many instances of this, perhaps 10% of the article body at the most. I would argue that removing these would improve the article, but it certainly isn't a "bad article" as it is.

• • • It has been impressed on me again and again that the readers don't want to interrupt their reading to click on the blue links in order to understand what they are being told. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally, a biographical article should be comprehensive and,when needed, provide some context for the info provided. Details about the Schlieffen Plan may be out-of-topic here. The article on the topic points that the Plan guided some German strategic movements up to 1914, but was largely irrelevant to the way World War I was fought following the Battle of the Frontiers and Germany's failure to achieve the objectives of the Plan. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

The section on childhood unnecessarily long for an article on a military man, especially at this level of detail:

• Strachwitz was born on 30 July 1893 in Groß Stein, in the district of Groß Strehlitz in Silesia, a province in the Kingdom of Prussia. Today it is Kamień Śląski, in Gogolin, Opole Voivodeship, Poland. Strachwitz was the second child of Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz (1864–1942) and his wife Aloysia (1872–1940),^{[Note 1]} née Gräfin von Matuschka Freiin von Toppolczan und Spaetgen.^{[2][Note 2]} He had an older sister, Aloysia (1892–1972), followed by his younger brother Johannes (1896–1917) nicknamed "Ceslaus", his sister Elisabeth (1897–1992), his brother Manfred (1899–1972), his brother Mariano (1902–22), and his youngest sister Margarethe (1905–1989).^[3]. His family were members of the old Silesian nobility (Uradel), and held large estates in Upper Silesia, including the family Schloss (Palace) at Groß Stein. As the first-born son he was the heir to the title Graf (Count) Strachwitz, and following family tradition he was christened Hyacinth, after the 12th century saint. Some clothing belonging to the saint were in the family's possession until 1945.^[4].
• Strachwitz attended the Volksschule (primary school) and the Gymnasium (advanced secondary school) in Oppeln—present-day Opole. He received further schooling and paramilitary training at the Königlich Preußischen Kadettenkorps (Royal Prussian cadet corps) in Wahlstatt—present-day Legnickie Pole—before he transferred to the Hauptkadettenanstalt (Main Military Academy) in Berlin-Lichterfelde....

• There is a requirement that articles be comprehensive. While I wouldn't personally include all the detail in the first dot point, for example I think his position in the family and the number of children would be sufficient detail on his family structure, the second one is completely legitimate and standard for any detailed biographical article where the information is available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more detail the better. For many of the topics we write about on the Wiki, the article in question becomes the canonical worldwide reference. As such I generally argue in favour of any on-topic detail.

• As a reader and an editor in Wikipedia, I rather prefer articles that go in depth into family background and in some cases social background of a subject. I may be biased, but I think the information on the family and its estates should stay. The translation of "Schloss" to "palace" seems to be inaccurate, since the article on the subject indicates that the term is partly equivalent to both "castle" and "country house". The information on education is not exactly helpful, since Volksschule and Gymnasium (school) are generic terms for primary and secondary schools in several countries. The information would be equivalent to writing "he attended kindergarten, elementary school, and high school" on the article of a an American general. It might be factual but hardly unusual. When discussing the historical name of a modern location, long sentences are unneeded. "Oppeln—present-day Opole" could be written as "Oppeln (Opole)" and let the blue link provide additional information on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low-level unit actions

Military operations of low-level units are described in excessive detail, for example:

• His patrol ran into many obstacles and they were constantly on the verge of being detected by either British or French forces. Their objective was the Paris–Limoges–Bordeaux train track. Strachwitz dispatched a messenger, who broke through to the German lines and delivered the intelligence they had gathered. The patrol blew up the signal box at the Fontainebleau railway station,^[5]....
  • The objective and result of a military operation at any level, are important. The "ran into obstacles" sentence seems uninformative and being located by the enemy comes with leading a patrol in an enemy area. The sentence could be shortened with no real loss of information. Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• His regiment also crossed the border that day at Grunsruh and reached the river Lisswarthe at noon. They took Klobutzko that evening without much resistance. On 2 September they proceeded on towards Biała Górna, where they suffered the first casualties of the war. They then crossed the Warthe at Gidle and Plauno heading for Radomsko. Suffering further losses, they conquered Petrikau on 5 September. The regiment reached Góra Kalwaria at the Vistula via Wolbórz and Zawada on 8 September. Here the regiment was allowed to rest until 10 September. On this day, Keltsch informed him that Strachwitz had been nominated for the Clasp to the Iron Cross ([Spange zum Eisernen Kreuz] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help))....
  • The information on the military operation, its progress, and the casualties seems relevant here. That Strachwitz was nominated for a military decoration for his actions may be kept, but who informed him about his nomination and on what day seems rather trivial to me. Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Kirchner received the order for Fall Gelb at 13:15, during lunch, on 9 May 1940. (is it important that the subject was at lunch when the order came in?)

• Obviously not. The time and meal could be deleted without detracting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hardly relevant. Detailed information on the exact timing on an event within a day is useful when it actually has some relevance to the topic. For example, in Jack the Ripper-related articles, the time of day is given for when were the victims last seen alive and when were their corpses discovered. The timing has actually been discussed in multiple sources to help determine a timeline for the investigation. I doubt that this topic has similar relevance. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strachwitz's I. Battalion received the order to prepare for the attack on 6 April 1941 at 09:00. (is exact timing important?)

• The time isn't important unless later events on that day depend on an understanding of when the orders were received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It depends on the context. A sentence that goes "orders received at 9:00 AM", "the operation began at 11:00 A.M", and the "operation was completed by 3:00 P.M" might be necessary to establish the order and duration of events. If the receiving of the order does not relate to other events of the same day, the detail is extraneous. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wounds/leaves

Various wounds are described in excessive detail:

• During the Battle of Uman (15 July – 8 August 1941) Strachwitz received injuries to the head on 29 July and was hit again by shrapnel in the arm the next day. He received first aid in the field and stayed with his men.^[6] (It appears that the subject only needed first aid; this material is superfluous. In general, military men are generally not notable for having been wounded.)

• Again, you misunderstand notability. The fact that he was wounded but remained with his command would be included in any military biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This has nothing to do with notability. Combat injuries and what kind of medical aid was available seem essential to a military biography, they were not extraneous detail. Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From 1 December 1941 – 9 January 1942 he stayed at hospitals in Opplen and Breslau. He then went on an extended leave, staying in Groß Stein and Alt Siedel. He returned to the Eastern Front in mid-March 1942. Here he received the 1939 version of the Wound Badge in Silver on 17 March 1942.^[7] (same)

• I assume you think it is relevant that he wasn't with his unit during that period. An explanation of why is appropriate. The award is relevant, particularly given the number of times he was wounded during the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• That he was on military leave for nearly 4 months to recuperate from injuries seems relevant. In what hospitals and houses he spend this period seems too much of a detail. That he received an award for multiple injuries received while in service seems relevant, but the exact date may not be. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strachwitz and his driver, Feldwebel Haase, were severely wounded on 13 October 1942, requiring immediate treatment in a field hospital. A direct hit on their command Panzer caused severe burns... (same)

• Are you kidding? Of course this information is relevant to his biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Severe injuries in combat service and nearly dying on the field seem essential here. The link to "burn" might be too generic. The relevant medical article points that the term is used for anything from 1st-degree burns (which take up to 10 days to heal and are not life-threatening) to 4th-degree burns (which require amputation, result in significant functional impairment, and can be lethal). Dimadick (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strachwitz was directing the attack from his command Panzer and had ordered his gunner to hold fire. Strachwitz was carelessly resting his left arm on the gun-breech. The gunner, without orders, fired the gun, causing the recoiling gun to smash his left arm. Strachwitz was immediately evacuated to a field hospital.^[8]... (same)

• the circumstances of his wounding is relevant to his biography. I don't have the foggiest idea why you think it should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. This is important. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Accidental injuries seem relevant, particularly when they result to hospital evacuation. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-battlefield actions

Non-battlefield actions are described in excessive detail:

• Following a brief vacation back home in Silesia, Strachwitz was back with the 1st Panzer Division at the training grounds at Königsbrück near Dresden. During the preparations for the fall manoeuvres the General der Kavallerie (General of the Cavalry) von Weichs was dismissed. On 18 September Panzer-Regiment 2 was relocated from Königsbrück to Fürstenberg and then to Neustrelitz. Here, under the watchful eyes of Hitler and Benito Mussolini from the Schmooksberg near Laage, the 1st and 3rd Panzer-Brigade, supported by Kampfgeschwader (Bomber Wings), practiced a large scale tank attack. The regiment returned to Eisenach on 30 September. Strachwitz returned home to his estate but was called back shortly before the Anschluß, the annexation of Austria by Germany, in March 1938.^[9]....

  No, this is important. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Königsbrück near Dresden? The relevant article points to a distance of 27 km (16.78 miles) between the two cities. I assume the dismissed "von Weichs" is Maximilian von Weichs, though I do not see the relevance of this dismissal to an article on Strachwitz. Much of the material here actually seems to be about Strachwitz's unit and not about Strachwitz himself. Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Against orders, his jubilant adjutant, Unteroffizier Rosenstock, woke him up on the early morning to share the news.^[10]

• This is, of course, referring to his award of the Diamonds to his RK. I would have thought it was fine to include, especially given the high level of award involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The military award is important, the jubilation of an adjutant may not be, and that Strachwitz had given orders to his underlings to not disturb his sleep seems to give a ridiculous level of detail. The mentioned rank Unteroffizier seems to be a German equivalent to Sergeant, which should probably be explained here. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-military matters

Non-military matters are also described in excessive detail, for example:

• Annual production at Groß Stein was 92,894 litres (24,540 US gal) and 116,386 litres (30,746 US gal) at Alt Siedel. Of his 4,109-hectare (10,150-acre) property, 1,182.6 hectares (2,922 acres) were farmland, 69.9 hectares (173 acres) meadows, 26.3 hectares (65 acres) pastures, 6.1 hectares (15 acres) water, 2,737.3 hectares (6,764 acres) forest, 10 hectares (25 acres) parks, and 6.6 hectares (16 acres) gardens, 35 hectares (86 acres) wasteland and 19.4 hectares (48 acres) buildings and farms, as well as 16 roads. His agricultural production included forest seeds, rye, barley, corn, potatoes, lupins and malt. In animal husbandry he had feral, cattle, horse breeding, Deutsches Edelschwein (German pig), merinos and fish.^[11].
  Strachwitz also owned the manor in Alt Siedel with a property size of 583 hectares (1,440 acres). 278 hectares (690 acres) were farmland, 13.5 hectares (33 acres) pastures, 3.5 hectares (8.6 acres) gardens, 279 hectares (690 acres) forest, 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres) water, and 5 hectares (12 acres) were buildings. The manor in Einsiedel, in Freudenthal—present-day Bruntál in the Czech Republic—Upper Silesia, with its oak forests and farmland, belonged to him as well.^[12].

• this could be cut down to the production, size of the estate in total and agricultural produce. Same for the manor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The level of wealth of a biographical subject seems relevant. I am less certain of the accuracy of the numbers given, and "annual production" is by its nature not a fixed number. Dimadick (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The influential man behind Husni al-Za'im was Adib Shishakli, who wanted a Pan-Arabian revolution and was trying to run the state from behind the scenes. Seeing himself as a state-maker, the Otto von Bismarck of the Arabian peoples, Shishakli's goal was to transform Syria into a kind of "Prussian Arabia". He owned a Mercedes car which had once belonged to Adolf Hitler... (the latter sentence also appears to be trivia).^[13]

• Seems a bit off-topic unless it is relevant to Strachwitz's involvement with him (which isn't apparent). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sourced or not, the language here is POV. Adib Shishakli is compared to Otto von Bismarck, Syria to the Kingdom of Prussia, and Röll seems to not be an expert or reliable source in Syrian political history. That Shishakli had a passion for vintage cars might be relevant to his biographical article, not that of Strachwitz. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of junior ranks

• 17 February 1914: || Leutnant (Second Lieutenant)^[1]
• 1921: || Oberleutnant (First Lieutenant), effective as 1916^[2]
• 9 August 1933: || SS-Mann^[3]
• 15 September 1933: || SS-Scharführer^[4]
• 9 December 1933: || SS-Truppführer (Troop Leader)^[5]
• 10 March 1934: || SS-Obertruppführer^[6]
• 28 April 1934: || SS-Untersturmführer^[7]
• 9 November 1934: || SS-Obersturmführer^[8]

Most of these are junior ranks and non-notable. This could just as easily be conveyed by stating that the subject finished World War as an Oberleutnant, and World War II as Generalleutnant. The section appears to be reproducing verbatim the subject's service record, which seems to belong in the archives, and not on an encyclopedia article, especially for a mid-level officer. Otherwise, the article looks like an indiscriminate collection of primary material.

Sorry, this is arrant nonsense. The career of the subject is relevant information. Promotions/demotions are all relevant, and are included in all quality military biographies. I suggest you have a look at some other military biographical articles and educate yourself, because you are way off base with this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the sort of information that we like to include in every military biography if we possibly can. And at a glance I can see important points, like the fact that he spent twelve years as an Oberleutnant. I am constantly referring to articles to verify ranks at particular times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with the notability of the rank. The advancement of a career and series of promotions is relevant to any article on members of hierarchical systems, such as the military. Note however that Obersturmführer seems to be the rank used for a large number of low-level officers with duties ranging from simple staff aids to commanders of their own platoon, so the rank alone may not explain the significance of a promotion. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Overcite

• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds
  • Knight's Cross on 25 August 1941 as Major of the Reserves and commander of the I./Panzer-Regiment 2^[1][2][3]
  • 144th Oak Leaves on 13 November 1942 as Oberstleutnant of the Reserves and commander of the I./Panzer-Regiment 2^[1][4][5]
  • 27th Swords on 28 March 1943 as Oberst of the Reserves and commander of the Panzer-Regiment "Großdeutschland"^[1][6][7]
  • 11th Diamonds on 15 April 1944 as Oberst of the Reserves and commander of a Panzer-Gruppe with the Heeresgruppe Nord^[1][8][9]

Three citations for material that's unlikely to be controversial do not appear to be needed.

The reason for the three citations is that there are several "authorities" on awards the Knight's Cross, and they can vary (generally in detail) on the specifics of the awards. Given that, having all three isn't excessive in my view. Where they agree, it reinforces the authority regarding the specifics. I've used five citations regarding the contentious award of a lowly EKII, sometimes it is necessary for that reason, but in this case, three is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidently, I found a relevant discussion from 2013 on Scherzer, Fellgiebel et al. in the MilHist archives. The passage (from editor ÄDA - DÄP VA) directly related is:

1. Scherzer and Busch & Röll have been properly researched and have found critical acclaim from scholars. In most articles they are rightly the major source.
2. Fellgiebel represents the current view of the [Knight's Cross Holders Association], although biased, I can live with it, if accompanied by one of the works mentioned above.
3. Range and von Seemen come from the same place, but have been superseded by Fellgiebel's work and are thus dated. Same apllies to Kurowski, who has been criticized for ignoring scholarly studies since 1957. One wonders what information can be found there that is not in one of the more reliable sources.
4. Schaulen, Fraschka, and Alman are heavily NPOV, incidentally Alman is a pseudonym for Kuroswki which he used not to taint the reputation for his more serious work.
5. Last, Williamson does not give footnotes nor does he provide a bibliography in his works concerned here, while obviously drawing on some of the sources already mentioned. In some cases I left his works in the list, if only because there were no other English-language publications listed.

As noted in the Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's article, he was a long-term president of the Knight's Cross Holders Association. So Scherzer would be preferred where available, in not then Fellgiebel is okay. Seemen is redundant as well. The minute differences between Fellgiebel and Scherzer appear immaterial to warrant inclusion of both sources.

Please also see for a local consensus on this WP:Overcite topic at Talk:Erich von Manstein, which is a GA article. Here's the related diff1 and diff2 that resulted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That a source is dated may be relevant to areas where there has been additional research and/or a shift in the POV of sources. For example, a source from the Red Scare may support wide-scale persecution of communists, but a more recent source may criticize or condemn. In the case of who received what award in the 1940s, I doubt there will be much new information uncovered. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Extraordinary claims

This is an extraordinary claim and requires verification by multiple sources.

• At Kalach on the Don his regiment destroyed more than 270 Soviet tanks within 48 hours.^[1]

I would not consider Gordon Williamson (writer) to be an RS for this claim, judging by the linked article.

You would need to establish that Williamson is not reliable. Per WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The military historian S.P. MacKenzie describes Williamson as a writer who attempts "to restore the tarnished reputation [of the Waffen-SS] and reiterate its superb fighting qualities" by relying on veterans' narratives, with "predictably positive results"." Yup, he's definitely a reliable source! But in all due seriousness, this is just a claim. Unless we have any form of reliable proof that it wasn't simple propaganda like many other kill claims, we should describe it as a claim, as opposed to how it's worded now. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "destruction of more than 270 Soviet tanks and artillery pieces within 48 hours" from the lead becomes: "his regiment destroyed more than 270 Soviet tanks within 48 hours". So were these only tanks, or including artillery pieces, or perhaps mortar tubes as well?

Although not in the article, according to Williamson, on another occasion (in 1943), the subject "destroyed 105 Soviet tanks in 30 minutes, with just four Panzers of his own. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I feel attribution in the body would be the best way to deal with this. It is a claim, so we should call it such and state who claims it (policy link: WP:BIASED). Equally, if you have a source that says otherwise, it could easily be contrasted in the text of the article. Please remember we are here to report what is written on something (i.e. "verified"), not the "truth", per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Regarding your point about artillery pieces and tanks (the discrepancy between lead and the body), you raise a fair point. It is my understanding that the German military potentially included self propelled artillery under the encompassing term "tank". I could be wrong, though. Potentially, the best way to resolve it is to add a short verbatim quote in the body (with attribution, e.g. 'according to Smith, "blah blah blah"...', and then come up with something less detailed for the lead. Perhaps something like this in the lead would be an improvement: "For his service on the Eastern Front, specifically during the tank battle of Kalach, he received several high awards such as the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" (or something similar). It would reduce the detail a little in the lead, and resolve the discrepancy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that WP:QS is more applicable vs WP:BIASED, as Williamson and similar authors have been indeed questioned by reputable historians in published works, as for example noted by MaxRavenclaw above. Please see more at Waffen-SS in popular culture.

As far reflecting the sources, I believe this applies to what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES states: "articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians". I do not believe that Williamson can be described as a reputable historian and statistics that he provides are questionable, while we are not even sure whether these were tanks, or tanks + artillery, or tanks + artillery + mortars, or equipment simply abandoned in an encirclement battle which did occur at Kalach in that timeframe. However, Williamson does not state a date. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I am mistaken, the mentioned battle on Kalach-na-Donu is the Battle of Kalach (1942), a German military victory. According to that article, the German forces overestimated the number of enemy tanks that they managed to destroy. "XIV Panzer Corps alone claimed to have knocked out 482 Soviet tanks in the last eight days of the month, and the total Sixth Army claimed was well over 600. Soviet accounts confirm that strong tank forces were in the Kalach bridgehead, but not as many tanks as the Germans claimed." A source that is itself using only German accounts for this battle may indeed produce inflated numbers. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the conclusion. Williamson is biased? Do we keep him as a source? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential synthesis

The article appears to contain unnecessary speculation which may be construed as original research/synthesis and is only tangentially related to the subject of the article:

• Peter Hoffmann, a Canadian historian of German descent, published a book in 1969 with the title "Widerstand, Staatsstreich, Attentat. Der Kampf der Opposition gegen Hitler" [Resistance, Coup d'etat, Assassination — The Battle of the Opposition against Hitler]. This work lists Strachwitz as being part of the German military resistance to Nazism. With generals Hubert Lanz, Hans Speidel and Paul Loehning [de] he is shown as being associated with "Plan Lanz". But the only person to have testified that a "Plan Lanz" ever existed was general Hubert Lanz. According to Lanz, the plan was to arrest or kill Hitler in early February 1943 during Hitler's scheduled visit to the Army Detachment Lanz. In his account, the role of Strachwitz was to surround Hitler and his escorts shortly after Hitler's arrival with his tanks. Lanz stated that he would have then arrested Hitler, and in the event of resistance, Strachwitz's tanks would have shot and killed the entire delegation. Hitler cancelled the visit and the plan was dropped.^[1] Author Röll casts doubt on this account. Strachwitz's cousin, Rudolf von Gersdorff, who attempted to assassinate Hitler in 1943, stated that Strachwitz had expressed the belief to him several times that killing Hitler would have constituted murder. Röll concludes that Strachwitz was too much a Prussian officer to consider murdering Hitler.^[2]

Quoting from Otto Carius appears to be undue and/or speculation, to try to make light of the subject's unsuccessful battlefield performance:

• Alternatively tension between him and the division's commander Hörnlein is thought by many veterans to be the true reason for Strachwitz's departure.^[3] Otto Carius stated that:

Gossip mongers maintained that the Großdeutschland Panzer-Regiment was taken away from Strachwitz because he had too many losses. I had justifiable doubts concerning this claim. Graf Strachwitz and his staff were always employed at hot spots on the front, where they had to carry out extremely pressing operations, for which every form of support was provided to them. Painful losses couldn't always be avoided during those types of operations. But it was through these losses that the lives of many soldiers from other units were saved."^[4]

• This is not WP:SYNTH. He is quoting notable writers on their opinions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If it has sources and accurately reflects them, it is not original research. Per Wikipedia:No original research: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. " I thing you misunderstand the policy. On the other hand, the lengthy quotation of Otto Carius seems to be a bit too much. Per the current policy on Quotations: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editor's own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement. Consider minimizing the use of quotations by paraphrasing, as quotations should not replace free text (including one that the editor writes)," Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-verifiable by independent sources

Potentially unverifiable information is presented in Wikipedia's voice:

• Strachwitz took the opportunity and reported to Hube, volunteering for service in the Stalingrad pocket. Hube rejected this request, stating that Strachwitz would be better deployed somewhere else.^[1]

• It's not "potentially unverifiable", it is verifiable from the source given. It could be in-line attributed to Roll, but I don't think it is necessary, unless you have a source that challenges the assertion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would rather in-line attribute the act of volunteering to the source that includes it. Be careful of stating in Wikipedia's voice something which only a minority of sources supports. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

Translations

Unneeded foreign language translations for the terms already linked. Interested readers can click on the related links.

• Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (German: Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten)
• ... was second only to the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross ([Großkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help)), which was...
• ...surpassed on 29 December 1944 by the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds ([Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help))...
• ...while imprisoned by the French he was awarded the Iron Cross ([Eisernes Kreuz] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help)) Second and First Class.^[1].... Etc.
• ...nominated for the Clasp to the Iron Cross ([Spange zum Eisernen Kreuz] Error: ((Lang)): text has italic markup (help)) 2nd Class for his organizational achievements,.^[1].

• This approach to translations is quite common on en WP, and is a matter for the main editor(s). It has been accepted by consensus of the Milhist A-Class reviewers, so I wouldn't touch it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This approach to translations is more often used to cover how a name or term is used or spelled in its native language. For example Greek terms or Greek-derived terms such as Catholic (term), Kyrios, Demon do have them. It does not help readability to include the German names of each military award in a bio article, and the Iron Cross is probably sufficiently familiar to non-German readers to not need a translation at all. We even have articles on American comic book characters who are named after the award. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It's superfluous on en.wiki to provide the German equivalent of the English name of every award received by the biographical article subject, especially since they're linked to articles on the awards that provide the German names. If we provided the German (or whatever) original for every military and other term, article length would bloat dramatically. Imagine if every military title, division name, etc., were given in multiple languages at an article like World War II; it would be practically unreadable. When to provide a translation/transliteration and original at the same time is a judgement call. If this article were to retain both, it would probably be in German first, as the proper name, then an English gloss, and done on the basis that the RS (in English) about these medals usually use the German. If that's not the case, just use the English. Including both in the lead, in particular, is kind of beyond the pale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclusion doesn't make these articles unreadable at all - unless people can't actually read. They're instantly informative. Dapi89 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language terms

Excessive foreign-language spelling of unit names and piping, when English language articles for this topics are available, for example:

• The 16th Panzer Division was subordinated to ''[[Army Group South|Heeresgruppe Süd]]'' (Army Group South) under the command of ''Generalfeldmarschall'' Von Rundstedt. The goal, together with the [[6th Army (Wehrmacht)|6. Armee]] and [[17th Army (Wehrmacht)|17. Armee]] as well as ''Panzergruppe'' I... Etc.
• ''[[Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross|Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten]]''
• I strongly disagree. I personally prefer the German version. And I can spot a subtlety in one of these examples that reminds me of why. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Hawkeye7. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually agree with K.e.coffman here. For readers which can not read German, the names used are simply obscuring the meaning of the terms. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with K.e.coffman. And the "subtlety" matter is resolved by wording and linking a little differently. This is really the same issue as the medal-naming redundancy above. If we have an article on the topic at an English title, because RS on the subject in English regularly use the English version not the German original, use the English version. It produces cleaner, shorter prose that is less "we're going to make you learn some German-language trivia whether you want to or not" brow-beating. Throwing all the unnecessary German in is simply going to make many readers' eyes glaze over. The treatment quoted above isn't even consistent; don't bounce around from "Panzer Division" to "Panzergruppe".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Peacemaker67 and Hawkeye7. Dapi89 (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Overlinking to common terms (lung cancer, eulogy):

• Strachwitz lived out his final years quietly and died on 25 April 1968 of lung cancer in hospital in Trostberg.^[1] The Bundeswehr provided an honour guard as a mark of respect. Heinz-Georg Lemm delivered the eulogy.^[2]
  • Lung cancer is not a common term. The blue link leads to a medical article which more fully explains the cause of death. On the other hand, I am not certain whether the link to eulogy provides any additional information. Dimadick (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...he participated in various military exercises during the 1930s.
• ... were questioned by a French captain and accused of being spies and saboteurs.^[3]
• A direct hit (...) caused severe burns...

well, lung cancer, ok. It certainly appears to be unnecessarily linked, but not everyone knows what a eulogy is. Be careful in assuming that everyone has your own level of education and experience with language. Obviously Bundeswehr and Trostberg should remain linked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the towns too. I would leave eulogy linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course lung cancer is a common term, in both senses (it's the vernacular version of a less familiar medical term, and it's one of the leading causes of death). However, I would still link it in this case, because we should link causes of death as pertinent and helpful to the reader in the context, not drive-by overlinking.

  We do not need to link "eulogy", "military exercises", "burns", etc. It's DICDEF behavior. "Spies" and "saboteur" are judgment calls, and I think I would link them (though I would link spy to espionage, what he was actually accused of, and bypassing the redirect), again because they're pertinent avenues for readers getting more contextually important information. We link to help the reader understand the material.

  Think it through as a reader: I learn that he was accused of things; I've heard these terms before (maybe, these days, more in the context of commercial espionage and hacker sabotage), and I wonder just what such an accusation would have entailed in this context. Our articles provide this background. I read that he died of lung cancer, which I've obviously heard of before. Was this an unusual way to go out in his era? Should he have seen it coming, since today we all know smoking is carcinogenic? Our article does in fact go into lung cancer rates and the prevalent and eventually declining "culture" of smoking in the 20th century, and how long it took to prove the connection. Now I hit the term "military exercise", a passing reference to something the subject did briefly. I really DGaF for a detailed exploration of that right now, because it doesn't tell me anything important about the bio subject. I run into "eulogy"; even if I don't actually know this word, it's kind of clear from the context, and I know what a dictionary is; reading up on the history of eulogies helps me in no way understand the subject better. And everyone over about the age of 3 knows all about burns, from having touched the hot stove or mommy's curling iron by that age; there's no reason to link this except in a context where understanding the physiology and treatment of burns is helpful (e.g. in an article on first aid, or even in this one, if the subject had died in hospital of burns received in a house fire).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The article is potentially non-neutral, as it contains POV language, such as:

• He was captured by the French in October 1914 and almost executed on the spot for wearing civilian clothes. He was later sentenced to forced labour (if he was wearing civilian clothes, then perhaps he should have been sentenced as a spy) and after an odyssey (non encyclopedic language) through various French prisons and several escape attempts ....

• "odyssey" is flowery and pretty unencyclopedic. The others are appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Execution and forced labor are standard terms for these situations and I fail to see any POV in using them. Executions for espionage were standard practice for much of the 20th century, particularly in war-time. Even the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) which restricts the use of the death penalty and lethal force makes an exception for war-time offenses. "Protocol 6 - restriction of death penalty - Requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war". Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia, which has signed but not ratified." Odyssey sees out of place here, since the definition is "an extended adventurous voyage." Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Röll states that Strachwitz believed that he could better politically represent his Upper Silesian agricultural and forestry interests by joining the NSDAP.^[1]... (this appears to be a way to explain away the subject's party membership; also the construction "Röll states that Strachwitz believed..." suggests that this is either speculation, or that Röll was writing the book from the subject's words)