Talk:Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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
The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on a dubious work:

• Bracke, Gerhard (1997). Gegen vielfache Übermacht—Mit dem Jagdflieger und Ritterkreuzträger Hans Waldmann an der Ostfront, an der Invasionsfront und in der Reichsverteidigung [Against Overwhelming Odds—With Fighter Pilot and Knight's Cross Recipient Hans Waldmann on the Eastern Front, on the Invasion Front, and in Defense of the Reich] (in German). Zweibrücken, Germany: VDM Heinz Nickel. ISBN 978-3-925480-23-2. OCLC 918505396. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Please see this discussion at RSN:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Gerhard Bracke.

Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delist per Coffman. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The first voter doesn't seem to have bothered looking into this at all. Firstly, what evidence is there that this a dubious source?

It seems here the author, while not an academic, has studied history. here. His work has also been used on the German Wikipedia for Melitta Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg. No evidence has been presented again. Dapi89 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• keep. As per above. Until a case is actually made. Dapi89 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Gerhard Bracke. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delist per the RSN discussion. The arguments that this source is non-RS have convinced me, and I'm not seeing much of an argument that it is an RS. Having been cited by another wikipedia for some article does not mean anything about its reliability. Furthermore, almost all of the prose is based on this one source. I, for one, would be extremely cautious before approving a GA or A class article based on one source, and there's even a cleanup tag for that, {{one source}}. buidhe 10:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging Ed!, AustralianRupert, Anotherclown, Ian Rose, Runfellow and Sturmvogel 66 who were involved in the various stages of the previous review cycles. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any specific evidence that the Bracke book is non-RS? Like an actual review? And given that the book is used for simple facts about his life, I see no issues since that's all its being used for. It's a bit long at 232 pages to fit in with the typical Landser literature, AFAIK, though I'm not familiar with VDM Nickel's biographies, only their unit histories and technical aviation history material which are fine, IMO.
  • Biographical information on German aces is typically scanty and usually covered only by a single biography, with their wartime careers being much more heavily covered, so that isn't a reason to delist. That said, there's a definite excess of detail in the early life section that needs to be trimmed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • This is an obscure, dubious publication from an author described as an extremist at the RSN discussion. It's a bit long at 232 pages to fit in with the typical Landser literature is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. The onus is on those who wish to use the source to present "specific evidence" that it's RS, "like an actual review", and / or that the book / author / publisher are known for editorial oversight and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

• • • • Well, since you'd already made up your mind, I suppose there was no point in waiting for me to respond to your comment. Not everyone operates at a high tempo on Wiki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)