Open main menu
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Contents

Featured article reviewsEdit

Albert SpeerEdit

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany,WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Jewish History, Wehwalt

The article was promoted to FA status in 2008; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship and utilises sources that are not independent of the subject, dated, and / or questionable. Specifically, it relies heavily on:

  • Speer 1970, 1976, & 1981 (28 citations), and
  • Fest 1999 (55 citations)

It largely ignores a full-length biography by Martin Kitchen published in 2015, after the article had been promoted. FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. The FA criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...; and (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. Here are comments on Speers memoirs, as well as on Fest. I'm borrowing in part from Assayer's analysis posted on the TP here:

  • From a review of Germany and the Second World War: "In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role."
  • From de:Magnus Brechtken: Speer's image was shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny. (...) Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography."[1]
  • From Martin Kitchen: Fest's biography of 1999 is "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. (...) Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways, they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing."[2]

References

  1. ^ de:Magnus Brechtken: Persuasive illusions of the Self: Albert Speer’s Life Writing and Public Discourse about Germany’s Nazi past, in: Birgit Dahlke (ed.): German Life Writing in the Twentieth Century, London: Camden House 2010, pp. 73-4, 85.
  2. ^ Martin Kitchen: Speer. Hitler's Architect, Yale UP 2015, p. 11

In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's account. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article; it does not meet the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Here a sampling of prior discussions:

Parts of the article reproduce the Speer myth and it is thus non-neutral. I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to remove Speer's self-serving POV. However, some of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and because the Talk page does not appear to be well-trafficked, I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reviewEdit
I'll probably have more to say later, but these do not seem to be valid grounds, nor that this is a good use of FAR's limited resources when many old FAs have long swathes of unsourced material. If every time a new bio came out, we FAR'd an article, we'd have no FAs left. This seems to arise directly from the content dispute here. You favor Kitchens, who denigrates the author you do not like, so it goes, that's academia for you. Regarding Speer's books, many of the remaining Speer citations deal with direct quotations, statistics, Speer's youth or old age, or matters where Speer was the only surviving person in a conversation to write about it. Where I think you could be most useful with your use of Kitchens is during the WWII/Armaments Miracle section.
The bottom line is that FAR is a poor way to establish the principle you are espousing, that we should not use Speer's books at all. Remember, there was a very widely participated in FAC, and at the time, there were many more cites to Speer; the community found it met the criteria and the criteria are more or less the same today. I would suggest a RFC to try to establish the principle you seek, then try applying it to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not realise that there were so many page watchers. I transcluded the review to the talk page; hopefully, more editors will see it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed that there are many in FAs in far more need of review. This article is comprehensive and well-written. There is no requirement that an article use every available source, or that it be updated whenever a new book is published. If Kitchen contained some ground-breaking research requiring a reappraisal I might be more sympathetic; but to quote a typical review:

    In truth, there is not much that is genuinely new about Martin Kitchen’s Speer; he draws liberally on the work of other historians, closer to the coalface, who have published partial accounts and micro-studies. He is not even the first English-language biographer to challenge Speer’s lies; that honour fell to Dan van der Vat in 1997.

Dan van der Vat's The Good Nazi: The Life and Lies of Albert Speer (1997) is used extensively in the article. And I wouldn't have given him the honour of debunking Speer either, when there is Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (1995). Or, to go back further, Matthias Schmidt's Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (1984). All of which are used in the article. Kitchen uses the same sources as the article, so I'm doubtful that much could be garnered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 10% of the article is using a WP:Primary source. The FAC don't preclude there use, however I don't see Mein Kampf being used to source 10% of Hitler's article. Granted it is a reasonably well written article. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If this article has issues, they should be addressed by improving the article and, where appropriate, seeking consensus on the talk page. I'm worried that this may be just part of an unbalanced, ongoing campaign to discredit, downgrade or remove articles on German people connected with the Second World War. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was about to initiate a FAR review by myself, because the article does not meet the criteria for featured articles, in fact, it never did. It is neither comprehensive, nor well-researched. During the last four decades major research has been conducted and published on Albert Speer, including Magnus Brechtken’s seminal biography Albert Speer. Eine deutsche Karriere, in 2017.(review in German) Further recent works include Isabell Trommer, Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main 2016; Sebastian Tesch, Albert Speer (1905–1981), Wien 2016; Wolfgang Schroeter, Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos, Paderborn 2019. These works, particularly Brechtken and Trommer, have conclusively shown, that the works by Joachim Fest, including his bio from 1999, and Speer’s memoirs, both of which have been extensively used in writing the article, are unreliable sources. Brechtken also takes issues with the book by Gitta Sereny, arguing that Sereny ignored much of the available scholarship, including Matthias Schmidt’s work. He concludes that the book was a psychological mosaic of quotes and memories rather than a biography and should not be confused with historical scholarship. (p. 550) Brechtken has mixed feelings towards van der Vat’s work. He praises it for its critical approach, but states that it mainly follows Schmidt’s work.
That said, it has been argued that Matthias Schmidt’s and van der Vat’s works have been used for the article. But for what? There are now two references to Schmidt’s work. The first is for the sentence: He wanted to become a mathematician, but his father said if Speer chose this occupation he would "lead a life without money, without a position and without a future". The second is for another quote: Goebbels would note in his diary in June 1943, "Speer is still tops with the Führer. He is truly a genius with organization." That's it. In other words, Schmidt’s work is merely used for quotes by Speer’s father and by Goebbels. But Schmidt’s research is mainly about Speer’s leading role in the eviction of Jewish tenants in Berlin and about Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust. The chapter "Actions towards Jews," however, is mainly based upon Fest’s biography and thus it seems that Speer was merely “aware” of the activities of his (own) Department. Susanne Willems, who has written another study about Speer’s policies (Der entsiedelte Jude. Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau, 2002, 2nd ed. 2018) argues that Speer was responsible for 90% of the deportations from Berlin. [1] Why is Speer quoted that Himmler tried to have him physically isolated and so forth, but Schmidt's debunking of this legend is not quoted? Van der Wat’s bio is equally exclusively used as a reference for trivial information. That Speer received a twenty years prison sentence, for example, is not the kind of information van der Vat’s work is about. So the whole chapter "Assessment" is at best a lukewarm representation of the current historical scholarship. The chapter "Imprisonment" presents a detailed account of what Speer read. His role in the Holocaust, however, is relegated to a few sentences under "legacy and controversy". That’s completely out of proportion and not comprehensive.
I could go on and on, but it would lead much too far to discuss all the myths and mystifications by Speer that are retold in the article. Just one example, sourced to van de Vat, may suffice.
"Following the publication of his bestselling books, Speer donated a considerable amount of money to Jewish charities. According to Siedler, these donations were as high as 80 percent of his royalties. Speer kept the donations anonymous, both for fear of rejection and for fear of being called a hypocrite." (van der Vat, 1997, p. 348)
Brechtken discusses “Speer and money” at length (pp. 492-506). He argues that it was part of Speer’s strategy to indicate that he would donate money to Jewish charities. In 1971 Speer told the Daily Express that he had donated 200.000 Marks. In fact, he repeatedly donated only three up to four-digit amounts, but, as Brechtken argues, by strategically presenting numbers and spreading rumors Speer effectively won writers over for himself. (pp. 501f.)
Some of the problems have been named in Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs of May 2017. I rewrote a section myself, [2] It is true that Martin Kitchen did not present ground breaking new research in 2015, but he summed up German scholarship, previously overlooked in the English speaking world, and made it easily accessible to the English speakers. As my difflink clearly shows, historical scholarship had not been used for major parts of the article. The article rather fell and still falls for Speer’s tricks, lies and mystifications. Thus it is biased and not well researched. To try to improve it, would mean to completely rewrite it.
To use the bio by Martin Kitchen would certainly be a good starting point but will not suffice. One last example: Speer came up with the idea of "ruin value" while working on a Spiegel interview in October/November 1966. He reiterated it in his memoirs. It has been debunked as early as 1981 by Angelika Schönberger. (Brechtken, pp. 542-544), and there are a couple of German articles about the legend. Kitchen buys it (pp. 34-5), it is presented in the English Wikipedia as fact and there is even a whole article on it. But it is still a legend.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Over-reliance on some sources is neither here nor there; errors of fact are another matter entirely. That is of great concern. Now, you are within your right to say that you are not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. (Although personally I think you are ahead of everyone else here.) Spending a year reading through books on Speer, some of them in German, holds little appeal for me too. So what do we propose to do? As Koffman said, the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through the normal editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The point is not Over-reliance on some sources [my emphasis], but heavy reliance on unreliable sources, which necessarily means over-reliance. Consequently, the article is full of distortions, mystifications and lies. These are not simply errors of fact, but willfully misleading obfuscations by Speer. Wehwalt claims, Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed. Is he? Speer is quoted at length claiming that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. Next, historian Martin Kitchen is quoted, that Speer had intimate knowledge of the Holocaust, as if KItchen was stating an opinion, while historiography has established beyond doubt that Speer did not only know of the Holocaust, but was actively involved. This is false balance. Wehwalt insists on keeping that Speer quote[3] and a problematic lede section.[4] So the problems go well beyond factual errors.
I was assuming that there would be a consensus to maintain the highest standards in terms of information. Thus, I assumed that, once the problems were named, there would be an attempt for improvement at some point, i.e., that the article would be cross checked with the most recent biography (at least that one available in English). If that would not happen, the article could not be kept on FA level. I contributed my share, but I am not an expert in architectural or economic history. So, this is where we stand now, and given some of the comments made during this review, it is about time to put the finger on the problems. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that as more than one editor feels similarly, obviously, I think I can work with that. I would like to keep this as a FA. Shall we try and see?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add the third party tag to the page. He's a very interesting character so I'd prefer this to stay at FA too. The tag may encourage editors to WP:BOLD because it needs a lot of work. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I will read through the WP:PRIMARY refs and note those that aren't being used with care. I share the grave misgivings noted above however. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ref 31: Speer surrounded the site with 130 anti-aircraft searchlights. Speer described this as his most beautiful work, and as the only one that stood the test of time.[31]'
Ref 54, 55, 56: As the war progressed, initially to great German success, Speer continued preliminary work on the Berlin and Nürnberg plans.[54][55] Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.[56]
Ref 59: On February 8, 1942, Minister of Armaments Fritz Todt died in a plane crash shortly after taking off from Hitler's eastern headquarters at Rastenburg. Speer, who had arrived in Rastenburg the previous evening, had accepted Todt's offer to fly with him to Berlin, but had cancelled some hours before takeoff (Speer stated in his memoirs that the cancellation was because of exhaustion from travel and a late-night meeting with Hitler). Later that day, Hitler appointed Speer as Todt's successor to all of his posts. In Inside the Third Reich, Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, saying that he only did so because Hitler commanded it. Speer also states that Hermann Göring raced to Hitler's headquarters on hearing of Todt's death, hoping to claim Todt's powers. Hitler instead presented Göring with the fait accompli of Speer's appointment.
Ref 69: On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there (5.7 percent of the work force died that month).[68][69]
Ref 71: In January 1944, Speer fell ill with complications from an inflamed knee, necessitating a leave. According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.[71]

Comments I agree that this is no longer of FA standard, and substantial work would be needed to restore it to this standard. The article is not neutral or accurate, as it repeats the now long-discredited "Speer myth" about his role in the war and makes little use of the current standard works. It also does not fully cover Speer's life and career. I'd suggest moving to a FARC discussion in the near future. I have the following comments

  • I agree that the failure to update the article after Kitchen's biography was released is a serious problem. Kitchen's work is a major reassessment of Speer's life.
  • The article also makes very little use of Adam Tooze's 2006 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, which is the standard work on the German war economy and has extensive (and highly critical) analysis of Speer's role and performance.
  • When reading this article after reading Kitchen, I was particularly struck by how little attention is given here to Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg. The use of slave labour was perhaps the single most important reason Speer was convicted, and explains why the Allies refused to release him.
  • It's very concerning that Speer's autobiography is regularly cited - modern historians treat this work with great scepticism (Kitchen argues that Speer deliberately falsified key elements of it, for instance), so I don't think it's a RS. From some spot checks, some of the statements cited to the book are highly dubious - for instance:
    • "During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions." - an autobiography cannot possibly support such a statement about its subject, and Kitchen and other historians argue that Speer actually dodged responsibility for many of his actions and those of the regime, most notably in regards to the Holocaust.
    • The account of Speer's appointment to armaments minister is cited only to the autobiography. This is totally inappropriate. Kitchen and several other historians provide somewhat different accounts, with Kitchen expressing doubts over the accuracy of Speer's accounts and suggesting that Todt may have been murdered.
    • The first para of the "Consolidation of arms production" section is referenced only to this work, and presents only Speer's account of the power struggle which occurred when he fell ill in early 1944. Speer argues that his weak position was due to him being sick and receiving bad medical care but, from memory, Kitchen also argues that it was due to Speer's incompetence as a manager.
  • "Speer stated he was apolitical when he was a young man, and he attended a Berlin Nazi rally in December 1930 only at the urging of some of his students" - why is only Speer's claims being presented here? Kitchen argues that he was fairly (though not strongly) political in his youth. A central theme of Kitchen's work is that Speer's post-war claims to have been a technocrat rather than a committed Nazi were falsifications. Other historians have reached the same conclusion.
  • The para starting with "Speer placed his department at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." is wrong-headed. It suggests that Speer was selflessly offering his department for the war effort, despite Hitler trying to stop him. In reality, Speer was a very active participant in the bureaucratic empire-building and duplication which was a key feature of the Nazi regime. Like the other senior Nazis, he ended up with a sprawling and utterly incoherent range of functions, which he was ultimately unable to manage.
  • "Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe" - he also oversaw the construction of some of the facilities used in the Holocaust, but this isn't mentioned here. When it is mentioned, it's under a claim that Kitchen only "indicates" this - from memory, he explicitly states this at multiple points in the book. Given Speer's sprawling responsibilities, it's entirely credible.
  • The account of the improvement in armaments production repeats the "Speer myth" of him having revolutionised the war economy. Tooze utterly demolished this myth in his book, demonstrating that Speer inherited a rapidly improving armaments industry and then falsified figures to exaggerate the scale of the further improvements. Kitchen confirms this, and also states that Speer emphasised the production of obsolete weapons to keep production numbers up despite these weapons often being useless. Both Tooze and Kitchen argue that Speer was competent during this period, and helped guide further improvements, but that the expansion in output was not due to him.
  • The positive account of the system of central management and committees Speer instituted in the para starting with "Speer overcame these difficulties by centralizing power" was also demolished by Kitchen, who demonstrates that Speer's ministry was actually quite weak, and the vast numbers of committees which ended up being established were unworkable.
  • "Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing more slave labour from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods" - this implies that Speer was opposed to the use of slave labour. Quite the opposite was the case - while he was not as an enthusiastic a slave lord as some of the other Nazis (for instance, he intervened to have some war production take place in France rather than enslave the French civilians needed for these factories), he was a central figure in this vast crime.
  • "On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there " - Kitchen demonstrates that he was not actually shocked, and did nothing substantial to improve conditions.
  • "By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany" - this is incorrect. The Allies gained air superiority over Germany in early 1944.
  • "However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer was able to overcome bombing losses" - also false. Tooze and other historians have demonstrated that the Allied bombing substancially suppressed German war production (e.g., that it would have been much higher if the bombing had not taken place). This claim is a central element of the "Speer myth".
  • "production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months" - not sure that the scale of this improvement is correct, but both Tooze and Kitchen demonstrate that the "improvement" to the speed of submarine construction was largely a statistical mirage - Speer had submarine production moved to facilities which had no idea how to build submarines, and the completed boats were often unseaworthy, with many never entering service or being rapidly destroyed when they did. Speer was also a key player in the fiasco that was the development of next-generation submarines, by pushing an immature design into mass production in inexperienced facilities: almost none of the hundreds of these submarines entered service. The story of German submarine production is actually one of failure.
  • "with allied bombing destroying just 9% of German production" - 9% of economic production being destroyed in a month is actually rather a lot. More importantly, the Allied bombing in 1944 crippled the German oil and transportation industries, which crippled the rest of the war effort soon afterwards.
  • " Production of German fighter aircraft was more than doubled from 1943 to 1944" - also part of the Speer myth. Multiple historians note that Germany emphasised quantity over quality during this period, and this had disastrous results - the huge number of aircraft which were produced were largely obsolete, and were slaughtered by Allies (which were turning out even larger numbers of better aircraft). The scale of the production also came at the cost of the production of spare parts, which meant that the Luftwaffe had a low serviceability rate.
  • "The task force oversaw the day-to-day development and production activities relating to the He 162, the Volksjäger ("people's fighter"), as part of the Emergency Fighter Program" - this project was a fiasco, but this is not noted
  • More generally, there seems to be much too much emphasis on the production of aircraft. Other elements of the war economy performed even worse, with Kitchen arguing that Speer never paid enough attention to the production of ammunition (leading to frequent shortages).
  • The article repeats Speer's account of his efforts in stopping the "Nero decree". This is also part of the "Speer myth", and Kitchen demolishes it by demonstrating that Hitler soon rescinded this directive, and it was largely ignored by local commanders anyway (modern historians tend to stress the collapse of central command and control in Germany in 1945, with experts such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans arguing that Hitler was largely irrelevant by the end of the war)
  • "Eventually, 75,000 Jews were displaced by these measures" - they were then sent to concentration camps, something not noted. Kitchen argues that Speer was aware of this.
  • "Much of the controversy over Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust has centered on his presence at the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943" - Kitchen takes a different approach, and demonstrates that Speer was both aware of and actively involved in the Holocaust from an early stage. Kitchen dedicates relatively little attention to Posen as a result.
  • "The debate over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust" - I don't think that there has been a "debate" over this. Rather, the claims Speer made were initially believed, but were demonstrated to be false. I don't think that any historians argue that Speer was not aware of and involved in the Holocaust, though they do differ over the timing and extent of this.
  • The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
  • It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
  • There's nothing on Speer's private life. Kitchen covers this usefully, demonstrating that he pretty much deliberately alienated his wife and children. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually a central thesis by Tooze has been deliberately removed from the article by charging that this was an unreliable source.[5] I have quoted some sources at Talk:Albert Speer#Armaments miracle.--Assayer (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have used that language in my work on the WWII section. I've also gotten hold of a copy of Tooze though I have not yet looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I may as well get this show on the road so I've downloaded the e-book of Kitchen and will be reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment much of Kitchen's work is available as a free preview on Amazon UK. It is rare for a new bio on an old subject to add much, but this one does. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added a little on his joining the party. I'm not a FA writer so it could probably do with some copyedit.Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I made some deletions today and took out what I think is POV, fabrications or undue weight content. There are several paragraphs I can see which need reworking, they just can't be deleted because there is too much content and it would unduly affect the readability of the article. They will have to be looked at later, perhaps by someone else. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Terry SanfordEdit

Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject North Carolina, WikiProject United States governors

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised about it in May have not been addressed. This article was promoted to FA back in 2008 and, as was characteristic of the time, the review was not very rigorous. Terry Sanford was a monumental figure in North Carolina and throughout the southern United States in the 20th century and had a long, acomplished career. Per WP:FACR 1b it is expected that featured articles be comprehensive. This article is simply not a full summary of all the reliable material out there on this man. Some things not well covered:

  • He suffered "wounds" in World War II. No elaboration on how he got those, or why he wanted to be a paratrooper in the first place.
  • No details on how or why he became an FBI agent (plenty found in the very underused source, Terry Sanford: Politics, Progress, and Outrageous Ambitions)
  • Many details on his personal life absent (see above source)
  • Sanford left the bureau to work at the Institute of Government (this not stated explicitly in the article), but there are no details of his work there.
  • No details on his tenure as President of the NC Young Democrats
  • No details on his campaign for governor against I. Beverly Lake, Sr., despite the fact that a whole book (Triumph of Good Will: How Terry Sanford Beat a Champion of Segregation in and Reshaped the South) has been written about it, not to mention the political effects of race in that contest.
  • Only two small paragraphs on his work for NC education, probably his biggest legacy.
  • No background on the establishment of the North Carolina Fund or evaluation of its success, and no info on his relationship with LBJ and involvement in the overall War on Poverty
  • Very little info on race relations politics (I added most of what's there), which played a very important role in shaping his image as well as the face of Southern liberalism and the Democratic Party
  • Only the briefest info on how Sanford promoted Research Triangle Park
  • Aside from a blurb about his views on capital punishment, not very much other info about his gubernatorial career
  • As President of Duke University Sanford had a very important role in trying to right the institution's finances and get more money by appealing to wealthier students (see here), but this is not mentioned.

I've made some improvements but right now I don't have the time to read three books and rewrite a Wikipedia biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've since added more info about his education policy as governor, though details on his work with commuity colleges still needs to be fleshed out. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

TyrannosaurusEdit

Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[6], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and Lusotitan, I purchased Hone's book. Whats the plan? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
References

The following books are currently cited without page number:

  1. Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3.
  2. Ride, W. D. L. (1999). "Article 23.9 – Reversal of Precedence". International code of zoological nomenclature. London: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ISBN 978-0-85301-006-7. OCLC 183090345.
  3. Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M. The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  4. Carpenter, Kenneth (1992). "Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America". In Mateer, Niall J.; Pei-ji Chen. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. ISBN 978-7-5027-1463-5. OCLC 28260578.
  5. Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  6. Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  7. Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85471-648-4.

Cited with page number, but the range is too large:

  1. Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.
  2. Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka. The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
  3. Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Arbitrary line break

  • I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
  • Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
  • There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
  • Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all

An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict.[141]" – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying take it all out apart from the first sentence, I agree and have done so. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of synonyms that aren't discussed, for example Stygivenator, though some are discussed under classification, it might be better under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are omissions like you say then perhaps those should be included. I'm doubtful I would have the competence to add this content myself, it is just too far out of my experience. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • On the history section. I've just been reading through it and noting the earlier comment (that it looks like info is missing) I think it should be re-worked. I removed the mano section and merged it with earlier finds, then added a new section name for skeleton discovery. I'd say now the specimens section name should be changed so the timeline flows. Doing that would mean we're missing 1960s to 1990s (as there were no discoveries 1910 to 1960 or thereabouts). Did anything big happen in those decades? What exactly is missing? And what could the the notable specimens section be called to cover the time period 1990 to modern day? Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The classification section is actually about the same size as some recent FAs like Brachiosaurus and Dilophosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems this could be wrapped up? Not sure we really need that maintenance tag under description. And not sure if the recent image placement rejig was really an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for this to be wrapped up. I don't think there would be m(any) votes to demote this if it went to FARC. I'm not convinced we need the tag under description either. I've looked for better pictures on commons, the article deserves some knockout pictures. Sadly we just don't have them available. I've no opinion on their placement. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Heinrich BärEdit

Notified: WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Germany, MisterBee1966, Dapi89

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had an Unreliable Sources tag since June 2018 and the Talk page shows multiple unsuccessful attempts to address the issue. Additionally, a recent RfC reached consensus that "Stockert, Peter (1996). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 1 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 1]" is not a reliable source. Stockert is cited multiple times throughout the article and thus fails FAC 1c. –dlthewave 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've just read the article and have tagged it for tone. It is written like he's superman. I'm undecided about the reliability of the refs as I haven't looked into it sufficiently, however I suspect they are being used to back up the superman tone. Szzuk (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The tone tag was removed without discussion. I'm not replacing it because edit warring may follow. Checking the article history it was promoted to FA in 2009. Szzuk (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am looking at deWikipedia's article, which has a whole section on how Bär was glorified by the Neo-Nazi and far right press and the "ace" image cultivated. Given that the proffered source mentions Bär by name, it might merit discussion in article? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: does not meet the current FA criteria for NPOV and sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the article's tone is problematic, and some elements seem inaccurate. As examples:
    • "Hermann Göring's personal dislike of Bär, coupled with Bär's insubordinate character and lack of military discipline, deprived him of this award" - "deprived" is an odd word here: insubordinate and undisciplined military officers are lucky if they get anything other than dismissal. Often they end up in jail, and the Nazis executed rather a lot of them.
    • "His outspokenness frequently landed him in trouble with Göring" Why did Göring (the head of the German air force and the second most powerful person in Germany at this time) care what this pilot thought? Is this really true?
    • There's almost no coverage of Bär's role in the Battle of Britain, despite presumably being a leading ace of this campaign
    • "JG 77 was tasked with supporting the hard fighting in the Crimean Campaign over the Kerch Strait on the Crimean Peninsula. Led by the flying aces (Experten) Gollob and Bär, JG 77 took over the air space above Kerch-Taman " - this reads like Nazi propaganda (which really is not something I say lightly).
    • Why are the western pilots Bär shot down often named when none of the Soviet pilots are?
    • " Galland was greeted by Major Joachim Müncheberg, who introduced Bär to Galland. Thus began a comradeship which outlasted World War II" - also reads like propaganda, and is totally unclear. Were they friends, or only comrades? What did this involve?
    • "Bär had increased his tally to 179, but, fighting a losing battle against ever-increasing Allied air superiority, Bär lost his fighting spirit, and suffered severe mental and physical exhaustion. " - also propaganda (especially "lost his fighting spirit"). The literature on fighter pilots of World War II notes that the German air force required its pilots to remain in combat until they became casualties of one kind or another, while the western Allies regularly rotated theirs through combat and non-combat duties. As a result, many veteran German pilots suffered breakdowns or were killed due to fatigue. This literature needs to be drawn on in this context.
    • "His combat skills were hard to overlook" - the German air force's fighter pilots were being massacred by the Allies by this stage of the war, and it was cutting the quality of training for new pilots in a doomed attempt to make up the numbers. They had no choice but to force broken down men back into combat.
    • "On 15 March 1944, Bär, now a Major and rehabilitated from the demotion" - how did this happen? It was presumably related to the vast casualties the Germans suffered over this period.
    • "Bär had just landed at Störmede airfield from a II./JG 1 intercept when a smoking United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) B-24 of the 458th Bombardment Group passed overhead. Bär and his wingman quickly got into their aircraft and intercepted the B-24. The bomber's gunners had already bailed out of the aircraft, making it an easy aerial victory." - this obviously implies that the bomber was already badly damaged and probably doomed, something which should be noted if this is going to be described.
    • "Unternehmen Bodenplatte, a Luftwaffe mass attack against Allied airfields in the Benelux area. The operation resulted in hundreds of aircraft losses on both sides. " - this makes it sound like it was some kind of draw, when historians are unanimous about it being an utter disaster for the German air force.
    • " Karl Koller had ordered JV 44 to relocate to Prague and continue fighting. Bär, as a Galland loyalist, attempted to ignore the order." - sounds dubious. During this period German military personnel (almost all of whom saw the war as lost) were rushing west to surrender to the Western Allies. It seems likely that Bär and his men wouldn't have wanted to go anywhere near the Soviet front lines for this reason.
    • "interrogation by US Intelligence officers of the 1st Tactical Air Force's Air Prisoner of War Interrogation Unit" - according to our Tactical air force article, these were British Commonwealth formations, and 1 TAF was an Australian unit which served in the Pacific. The Commonwealth unit in Europe was 2 TAF, and it's not clear why its POW interrogators would be American.
    • The article provides almost no coverage to the 12 years between 1945 and 1957.
    • What was the cause of the crash which killed Bär? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Ongoing concerns are comprehensiveness, tone and balanced sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Demote. The article needs many edits and many hours from committed editors. I have checked and no work has been done. I'm not expecting any meaningful work to be done given the difficulties outlined. Szzuk (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist: does not meet the current FA requirements for being (1.c) well researched, due to low-quality sources; (1.d) neutrality, due to representing the subject with bias; and (4) length, due to containing much unnecessary detail such as jr promotions and exhaustive list of each and every aerial victory claim. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)