Talk:Hans Philipp/GA2

GA Reassessment

The result is Delist. There is consensus that the article fails GA2 (verifiability) due to the use of unreliable sources, and these concerns were not resolved during the course of the reassessment. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)[reply]

Comment the above-mentioned book is not used nor referenced in the article, subsequently I see nothing actionable. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Err: Steinecke 2012 provides almost half the entire referencing :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

should the original statement have said "... Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (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). {{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)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I did mean Steinecke 2012. Corrected. –dlthewave ☎ 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at RSN seems to have been scoped as referring to its use for mentions of the Wehrmachtbericht. Is everybody sure that the "weak consensus" applied to the book's use as a more general biographical reference, particularly as the author seems to be a historian.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the RfC was framed (by yours truly) as a question about mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, comments such as "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)[reply]

Delist: does not meet the current GA requirements for NPOV and sourcing reliability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The charge that reviews can't be found = "general unreliability" is not logical. Also, the Nazi communiqué report has already been established as a military award by academics that participants to this discussion regard as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my comment above. ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another relevant RfC has established that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included when a reliable secondary source that "focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour." All except one of the mentions currently fail this requirement since they are sourced to Steinecke 2012 or the Wehrmachtbericht itself. The comment that "...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)[reply]
- Consensus is irrelevant when historians "make blanket statements". If they say it was an award, it was an award. Dapi89 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a GAR, not a discussion on the Wehrmachtbericht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far as I'm aware, this GAR will have no effect on the Military History WikiProject's assessment of the article as A-class; MilHist will have to do its own reassessment for that to change, or whatever they do when an A-class assessment is challenged. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Although it might make the claim that A-class is "almost" FAC-quality ring slightly hollow if it's short even of GA ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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