![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have restored this article to its pre-existing condition because it was an Milhist A-Class article, and if an editor has significant issues with it, it should be subjected to a Milhist A-Class re-assessment, not subjected to a death by a thousand cuts, which is what is happening now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The article copy largely relies on a WP:QS booklet series featuring RK winner profiles:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Given the questionable nature of the source, the level of detail in the article is WP:UNDUE. I tagged the article accordingly.
Please also see diff for reductions; rationale is included in the edit summary. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tags. The author in questian, historian Gerhard Steinicke ( [1], [2], [3]), has published a number of books on the history of Meißen, in particular on National Socialism in Meißen. See Beiträge zur politischen Bildungsforschung | Elitenbildung in Sachsen und Preußen – die Landes- und Fürstenschulen von Jonas Flöter | wissenschaftl. Mitarbeit and Literature by and about Hans Philipp/Archive 1 in the German National Library catalogue. As such, the tagging is unjustified. Cheers MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
An RfC of interest to this article, "Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht?", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. – dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
editorial oversight. The comment from 2 months ago asking
Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced.went unanswered, and the de.wiki article is still not fully sourced, reducing the weight of the argument that that specific individual author was credible. But, I was sure to note that was a weak consensus, in part because of how divided the discussion was. I hope this answers your questions -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You've got a strange way of quantifying a consensus. I think if you'd actually asked those editors for clarification they'd have spelt it out for you. I see you've also discounted my remarks. If that is a consensus, I'm the Queen of Sheeba. Dapi89 ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article relies heavily on "Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta]" Steinecke, Gerhard (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6 (4 January 2013). (used at Hans Philipp) which, per a recent
RfC, is not a reliable source. Because of this it fails GA criteria 2B. –
dlthewave
☎ 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Corrected source –
dlthewave
☎
17:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)…" -because that is the Ritterkreuzträger Profile that is used as a reference in the article? This looks like a simple cut and paste error, but I believe the RFC was about the series of books rather than the individual book. (I am not commenting either way otherwise on the arguments for delisting).
Nigel Ish (
talk)
12:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"Obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS"seem to indicate general unreliability. For what it's worth, the source is used to souce several Wehrmachtbericht mentions in this article. – dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"...the Nazi communiqué report has already been established as a military award by academics that participants to this discussion regard as reliable.also goes against this consensus, since the source must specifically refer to the subject and cannot be an overall blanket statement about the Wehrmachtbericht. – dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)