Talk:Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

• The lead should be longer to summarize all of the sections of the article. done
• The Wehrmachtbericht references should at least be mentioned in the bibliography prose. done
• I would also suggest putting the awards section into either a paragraph format or some kind of table, to make it look better.
• Other than that, the article seems fairly well written, occasional typo aside, well done.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
2. Not Yet

• The biography section is very sparse in citation. Every sentence containing a date or number needs a citation. done
• The listing of the Iron Cross as an award needs a citation. done

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

• His early life needs more extensive coverage. There is one sentence covering his birth and the next when he is 18. Where did he go to school? Where did his family live? Was he involved in any organizations? I know these things don't seem relavent compared to his military career, but it is essential that all of his life recieve coverage. done
• The details of his kills need more detail. Which battles did he participate in? Which areas was he operating out of? mentioning the kill number at certain dates does not give enough detail, in my opinion. done at least this is all the info I have
• His personal life is also important. Was he married? Did he have children? This kind of detail is essential for an article to be broad enough to be a GA. done

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is stable:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

4. Overall:

   On Hold The article needs a good deal more detail and citation. But I believe that, with these, it can eventually become a GA. -Ed!^(talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm out traveling for the next 4 weeks. I will address the issues once I'm back. Please be patient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's fine. Just let me know when you've improved the article! -Ed!^(talk) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Very good, the article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of pre-existing condition of article

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) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi publication

I removed citations to the fringe work Helden Der Wehrmacht: diff, and replaced with cn tags where applicable. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are, I will address them in the text. Dapi89 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: re: this revert, the article now contains multiple citations to Helden der Wehrmacht – Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten ["Heroes of the Wehrmacht – Immortal German soldiers"]. That it's a neo-Nazi publication is not an opinion; it's mentioned in Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 as being offered alongside such book as "KZ-Lies" and "The Wehrmacht as Liberator". In addition, this book was classified as an extremist publication by Claudia Fröhlich and Horst-Alfred Heinrich.

References

Do you consider Helden Der Wehrmacht to be an RS source?

In addition, the revert also restored another neo-Nazi publication (Schaulen); please see: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications

Please advise how you plan to address these two issues. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and take it again. I can replace it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)