Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 edit

Notified: Gerda Arendt, Thoughtfortheday, WikiProject Classical music

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues mentioned at Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4#WP:FAR? Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. General
    1. well-written: lot of weasely writing and putting emphasis where it doesn't belong, e.g. (giving my thoughts when reading that in brackets): "At this time, Bach was already demonstrating ingenuity in keyboard music (well, name a few of these works then, the sources on this period of Bach's life do so – e.g. Geck mentions the Andreas-Bach-Buch and the Neumeister Chorales in this context), but Christ lag in Todes Banden is a significant milestone in his vocal music. It was completed seven years before his sequence of Weimar cantatas, begun in 1714 with [[[Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182|Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (what is the relevance of naming this one?),[1] and 17 years before he started a complete annual cycle of chorale cantatas in Leipzig in the middle of 1724 with [[[O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20|O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (again, why this one? – why not the last new chorale cantata in that cycle, the one performed a week before BWV 4 was restaged in the version we know it today?).[2]" — this style of being vague regarding the topic at hand, but giving excessive detail on topics with no more than a very remote tangential relevance to the topic pervades the whole article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    2. comprehensive: neglects a lot of the history, in favour of generalities regarding Bach that aren't even relevant to the article topic
    3. well-researched: not representative of the sources on this cantata, nor of the period when it was written
    4. neutral: off-topic detail instead of on-topic minimum unbalances article
    5. stable: unstable: article title; layout
  2. style guidelines
    1. a lead: lead section instable
    2. appropriate structure: doesn't follow the recommended structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
    3. consistent citations: sometimes relevant page number is missing, see below on the Geck/Hargraves reference.
  3. Media. (tbd, but seems OK on first approach)
  4. Length. Not OK, it doesn't stay focused on the main topic, going into unnecessary detail and doesn't use summary style.

References

  1. ^ Dürr 2006, p. 258.
  2. ^ Dürr 2006, p. 387.

Added a "by FA criterion" overview of the issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC); expanded style-related thoughts --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggesting a source (alas in German, but with the advantage of being available without exception with one click): pp. V-VI of NBA I, 9 – introduction to score publication --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source, on the period when the first version of this cantata was written: Spitta, start of Part III (maybe also go back a bit for the end of the Arnstadt period) – (of course for Spitta always check whether more recent scholarship confirms or modifies his approach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Eidam (not available on-line) this period of Bach's life is described from the second half of the 3rd chapter to the first half of the 5th chapter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Geck/Hargraves reference the page number is not indicated, I suppose somewhere around p. 62 ff. (which has some relevant material not yet treated in the article on BWV 4) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, what had been an exciting and promising start at Arnstadt, had now turned into recriminations and disputes is another way of explaining why Bach wanted to change from Arnstadt to Mühlhausen (current explanation in the BWV 4 article: the post at the Divi Blasii was "more important", which is a very narrow view on the issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johann Gottfried Walther not mentioned in the article on BWV 4: nonetheless (Bach as) "... the only candidate considered seriously" only becomes understandable when at least mentioning that Walther had retracted his candidacy... and explaining why he did so (as it is in the sources on this period of Bach's life). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Brass/Woodwind distinction made in the article on BWV 4 regarding the cornetto seems rather anachronistic. The Wikipedia article on the musical instrument compares the cornetto with "... other(!) woodwind instrument(s)". This needs at least some context, or, alternatively, slimming the BWV 4 article down on that quite irrelevant distinction for early 18th-century instrumentation. Anyway, both Bach-digital and the NBA score introduction mentioned above are quite clear that trombones were only added later, and that all other assumptions regarding the instrumentation are of a speculative nature. With these sources the assumption that the scoring "... may have been similar to the surviving version" seems unjustified/speculative/weasely (weasely in the sense that the little bit of exact knowledge on that matter is replaced by something vaguish that quite obviously misses the point). Also, it is not explained why the instrumentation is "archaic"; nor does "The string accompaniment is consistent with the limited instrumental forces which Bach had at his disposal early in his career" seem justified: later in his career he would use string sections with one viola part as a standard (instead of two as in this cantata). Three trombones is also not covered if assuming both "limited early instrumental forces" and the instrumentation of the later version "similar to the surviving version". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This point regarding instrumentation has been partly addressed, but not enough to warrant striking the original remark in whole or in part. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend procedural close – As the FAR instructions state, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". According to the article's talk page, the FAC ended on March 11. If my math is correct, we aren't at three months yet. The thinking behind this is that issues should have been brought up during the FAC; apparently the classical music project has an article alerts system that lists new FACs, so it's not like the FAC was hidden from interested editors. I'd be inclined to make an IAR exception if plagiarism was a factor, but not for other matters that can be resolved in the normal editing process. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tx. for the clarification, however "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted" is in the intro of the FAR instructions. Also, please don't quote out of context, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here" is only half a sentence. The full sentence is "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." (bolding the part that was left out). The extenuating circumstances here are instability, and disruptive behaviour. Also because of the "radical change in article content": I moved the general treatment of early cantatas to Church cantata (Bach)#Early cantatas (Arnstadt and Mühlhausen) (most of it on other cantatas) and would replace it by content more specific to this cantata. That more specific content on this cantata is in the relevant reliable sources, thus the current version of the article fails WP:BALASPS miserably, and so we're back at "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made. There are some divisions among classical music editors that are well-known, and I have less than zero interest in getting involved with them (and lack subject-matter knowledge), so I'll bow out here. As a parting thought, I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC, or why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re. "It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made" – yes, the radical change is my proposal. Did I say anything different? Is that relevant?
        • Re. "I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC" – I'm not in the habit of following FACs. Just became aware of the article when working on Church cantata (Bach), because of the Early cantata (Bach) redirect that went to that article then. After dealing with the "early cantata" related content I started looking at the article, did a few edits, got reverted on a few of these, and only then realised it was a FA. The more I looked at the article, the more it seemed problematic.
        • Re. "why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend", sorry I stumbled into this so short after the FA nomination, not my fault. "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted", was what I read next, and the article sure didn't pass these standards whenever it was was promoted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to article and review process edit

As one of the editors involved with this article, I welcome the opportunity to improve it. I don´t really want to get involved in the debate as to whether it should have been promoted. I would say however that given the dating problems with Bach´s early cantatas, some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably necessary in the article. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • would make that: "some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably absolutely necessary in the article". But (e.g.) why more generalities about the Arnstadt church than about the Mühlhausen church? Why only the vaguish "some responsibility for choral music" regarding the Arnstadt period, when a more precise general description, based on extant contemporary sources, is given in relevant literature? — etc.
Anyway, would proceed with such improvements to the article ASAP, sure, that's the real focus, not the process with which such goal is achieved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I am wondering which specific keyboard works to mention in the context of the Arnstadt period apart from the Neumeister Collection. If the Passacaglia in C Minor can be assumed to have been written there, it would suggest another level of achievement. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the Andreas-Bach-Buch (BDW 00664) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Geck source mentioned & linked above: Möller manuscript (pp. 57–58) → Andreas-Bach-Buch, mentioning Passacaglia (pp. 58–59) → Neumeister collection (pp. 59–62) → transition to Mühlhausen, mentioning BWV 4 (pp. 62–65). What I mean to say by this: we don't have to "invent" such connections (whether he wrote the Passacaglia before or after BWV 4) – the connections are in the relevant sources. With all that is known about chronology of these early works, they belong in the same timeframe – one an organ composition, the other a cantata. Readers might recognize one of the two and thus this clarifies at which point we are in Bach's development.
What one won't find, afaik, mentioned in each other's neighborhood in such sources is however BWV 4 and the cantata BWV 182, as it is currently done in the Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More source suggestions edit

  • Philippe and Gérard Zwang. Guide pratique des cantates de Bach. Second revised and augmented edition. L'Harmattan, 2005. ISBN 9782296426078
This preview of the first 48 pages of that revised edition of the Zwang catalogue describes BWV 4 on pp. 43–44 as probably the first cantata Bach wrote. Don't think the Wikipedia BWV 4 article can be complete without mining the info on these pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting edit

This:

was changed to:

with loss of page numbers, indicating a translation as "(in German)" (while it is an English translation), italicising the title of a short essay instead of putting it in quotation marks, and ending on no less than four parentheses, without indicating which parenthesis applies to what. Is there no more elegant solution to address this, while keeping within the ref format established on the page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural edit

Coord comment: In light of the short time since the article's initial promotion, I think it's appropriate to put this review on hold for now and allow more time for talk-page discussion, where some of the issues mentioned above can hopefully be addressed. If in a few weeks concerns about the article persist the review can be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussions were hit by an out-of-process archiving, mid-discussion. Most of the issues persist (I struck the few that got resolved in the submissions above), so I kindly request this FAR would be re-opened, more than three months after the FA promotion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article title was again discussed in more than one place outside the article's talk page (7–21 June, 21 June), giving new impetus to the page name instability mentioned above (unstruck the issue while apparently not settled yet). @Nikkimaria: kindly repeating my request to reopen the FAR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: I can certainly do that, but I think the article title issue ought to be settled with an RM discussion and I don't see much benefit to running that concurrent with an FAR - perhaps it would be best to deal with that first? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean while a discussion about the article title had been opened at Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Article title. I replied there, not here, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [2].

West Wycombe Park edit

Notified: Giano, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject Buckinghamshire, WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force,

I am nominating this featured article for review because it quite clearly does not meet the criteria for being classed as an FA. It received FA status all the way back in November 2006, at a time when the criteria for reaching FA status was far more lax (indeed a great many of articles that were awarded FA status in those early years have since been demoted). In particular, this article consists primarily of un-referenced information (and thus clearly fails 2c of the FA criteria), and accordingly at present it would not even pass GAN, let along FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection: Wikipedia:Featured article review requires a step before FAR: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article." Looking at the tiny, unspecific exchange at Talk:West Wycombe Park #Featured Article?, I don't believe that any effort has been made by the nominator to "resolve issues", nor to "informally improve" the article, but only to raise vague issues with citations and then jump straight to FAR. FACR 2c requires content to be "supported by inline citations where appropriate" - the link is to an essay "Wikipedia:When to cite". That in turn rests on the essay Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, which gives advice on when to use in-line citations. Until such time as: specific concerns have been raised; we have seen just what content is challenged; and an attempt allowed to address meet those specific concerns, this FAR should be closed. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. While I might be criticised for jumping to FAR too hastily in this instance, I did open a conversation on the article Talk Page prior to doing so. The only response that I received was one from the original FA nominator who expressed the view that there was no problem with the referencing, which is quite clearly not the case. The chronic lack of in-line citations in this article is extremely concerning; I reiterate my viewpoint that this article (in its present state) would not even pass GAN, let alone FAC. In its present condition, it is not good enough to be rated as an FA. This being the case I would hope that other editors recognise the problem here and keep this FAR open. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it fr speedy deletion: it would appear that I invented of dreamed half the facts up - I'm sure that none of them could be found by the nominator here quite simply with a five minute google search, so it's best to delete it and let him start to write it again. Giano (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my user page, you would see that I use female pronouns, Giano. Beware the perils of androcentrism! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would I want to look at your user page? Giano (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it might prevent you from making erroneous assumptions about me, as you just did. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with RexxS above; this is a good-faith FAR, but is based on a misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA. The only places on Wikipedia where "every statement needs a citation" holds true are the hooks at DYK, and direct or closely paraphrased quotations; a more general "cite every paragraph" isn't and never has been a FA criterion. (The actual criterion is—and has been for a decade—anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers.) If you can point out any unsourced statements that aren't simple statements of fact I agree it would be appropriate to remove or reword them, but "some parts may need minor edits" is a very long way from requiring the bureaucracy of FARC. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. No Wikipedia article – let alone an FA – should have this level of un-cited material. Let's be honest here; if I presented this article for GAN, it wouldn't even pass right now, let alone passing an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment: Midnightblueowl, I have to agree that this seems a bit hasty - while you did post to the talk page, you opened this review only 25 hours later. I would encourage you to outline your specific concerns on the talk page and give editors a bit more time to respond and discuss. If in a week or two your concerns persist we can re-open this review; for the moment, it is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Nikkimaria; putting it on hold probably seems like the best compromise right now. I will raise the specific issues over at the article's talk page, and if no improvements are forthcoming then I shall alert you in order to bring the article back to FAR. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that this nomination has not been preceded by sufficient article talk page discussion whereby the primary or subsequent editors may address itemized concerns. Recommend closing this and allowing points to be made at article talk first.--MONGO 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: This review was put on hold. The discussion moved to the talk page of the article and I and User:Choess did some work on the article. I believe it can now be closed and archived. DrKay (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Have all of your concerns now been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'd forgotten about this. From what I can see, there are still at least two areas of unreferenced text in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them[3]. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC) [4].

Connie Talbot edit

Notified: WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject West Midlands

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls well below current standards. It was one of my first featured articles, and was promoted when expectations were quite different, and it hasn't really been kept up-to-date. While some of my older FAs have aged fairly well (I was pleased to get a positive comment about Dungeons & Dragons (album) when it ran on the MP a few weeks ago, despite being promoted back in 2007), some really haven't. I sadly do not have the time to work on the article at the moment, though there is some urgency: It was recently included as a forthcoming TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 20, 2018. I don't think that the article is good enough to go on the main page, and so Ealdgyth suggested that I send it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:TFA coordinators I wonder if anything can be done about this? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:TFA coordinators A final effort. Is there any chance that a different article could be put in place of this one? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A better spot to discuss TFA selection would be at WT:TFA, where you'll get some outside input. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I know nothing about the subject, FAs about living people are always inherently unstable, and when it comes to someone this young, will become outdated extremely quickly? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to go into a fair amount of detail about certain aspect of their life but seems to dip off in other areas. Featured articles should contain as much encyclopedic content as possible and this falls short on various areas; the biography feels short and just doesn't really go into much further detail than 2018, leaving a rather cliff face at the end of the article, so to speak. I would move for its removal. Eolais | Talk | Contribs
  • There seems to be quite a bit of unreferenced material here. I think the best option might be to de-list this one, in the hope that it can be improved and re-nominated in the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I had hoped TFA would lead to improvements, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. DrKay (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency, comprehensiveness, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for citation needed. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per insufficient referencing, nothing beyond 2016 (outdated), and the article isn't comprehensive given its general lack of detail on artistry (genres, lyrics, influences). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per SNUGGUMS. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per SNUGGUMS. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [5].

Werner Mölders edit

Notified: K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, Nigel Ish, LargelyRecyclable, Ian Rose, Cinderella157, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Bishonen, Assayer, Doug Weller, AustralianRupert, Creuzbourg, Sturmvogel 66, Iazyges, Parsecboy, Lineagegeek, TomStar81, Peacemaker67, Jayen466, Jake Wartenberg, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography

This article was promoted in 2009 and has not been under formal review since then. In 2017, a major content dispute (1c, stability) arose regarding the level of detail (4, length) and quality of sourcing (1c, well-researched, and possibly 1d, neutral). Some editors, particularly K.e.coffman, were concerned that the article relied too much on questionable far-right and fringe militaria sources. A dispute also arose as to whether the word "Luftwaffe" should be italicized (potentially 1a). Recently, the article was restored to the pre-2017 status quo by MisterBee1966, adding more than 20,000 bytes to the article (to give an idea of the magnitude of the content dispute). There is an ongoing ArbCom case including several of the editors involved in the content dispute, with Arbcom members expressing support for overall bans or topic bans for some of the editors.

This case was brought to my attention by Nigel Ish, who described the content dispute as "severe and irreconsilable" (sic), and supported the article's delisting. For these reasons, I think that the article should be scrutinized to see if it meets 2018 FA criteria, and if not, if it can be brought up to meet that criteria. Catrìona (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that my name has been mentioned above, in that I originally raised concerns about the stability of the article owing to the ongoing removal and replacement of material. I will make no comments on the case owing to the ongoing Arbcom proceedings and the resultant litigious atmosphere where Arbcom have clearly interfered in a content dispute, which has resulted in a situation where further comment or editing on some topics is not safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review section edit

Comments I have some suggestions for where sources could be re-checked, or the article further improved:

  • " He the first fighter pilot to amass 100 aerial victories in World War II" - given the over-claiming which was common (and unavoidable) in World War II, this isn't credible as it presents all of his claims as proven. He was the first to have claimed this, but it's almost certain that he wouldn't have actually destroyed all 100 aircraft he claimed. What do post-war assessments say?
  • There were fairly strict rules for confirming claims, requiring witnesses etc, and he had another ten unconfirmed claims. A quick Google Books search indicates that Spick (2011) [6] and Kaplan (2007) [7] also credit him with being the first to 100. I don't think this is particularly exceptional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that helps. The wording here (and elsewhere in the article) could be improved though: it says that he "claimed" kills, which is different to them being "confirmed". From memory, discussions at WT:MILHIST and similar have generally concluded that we should focus on confirmed numbers, and present them as such (e.g., to minimise use of the term and concept "claimed"). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one of the issues is that pilots would make a claim after returning, but confirmation in a pilot's logbook might not happen until later, perhaps from ground troops or a shot down wingman. I think it is ok to list them as claims in the narrative then clarify the total number of confirmed victories in the dedicated table. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Mölders continue to focus on flying combat sorties after being appointed to what looks to have been a key command role in 1941? (at a time when the German invasion of the USSR was failing). How do historians interpret this?: it would seem that he effectively ignored his duties. From memory, some historians note that the Luftwaffe's poor performance in the second half of the war was partly due to the lackadaisical attitude of some of the combat commanders who were appointed to command and coordination roles: many preferred to fly combat sorties when they should have been doing staff work.
  • "He was a devoutly religious individual who demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly, and often would invite captured pilots to dine with him" - did his units actually capture many airmen? (it seems hard to see how they would have). Also, did this courtesy extend to Soviet pilots?
  • "the British intelligence agency dropped flyers over Germany " - the British had several intelligence agencies by this time, so this should be made more specific
  • This is the same faked letter mentioned in the next two paragraphs, and I have combined them. Could you please read over it to see if it flows properly? Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 24 June 2005, it is the central attraction at the Navy Museum in Wilhelmshaven" - this should be updated
  • The para starting with "Evidence also demonstrates Mölders' propensity to value friendships over political expediency." needs to be re-worked. It goes into detail about Mölders assisting a Jewish family, but then concludes by stating that the MGFA regards the story as unlikely: this undercuts both the claim made in the first sentence, and the account which is the para's focus.
  • Regarding the Jewish/Mischlinge story, I personally think that it should be reduced to much shorter statement such as, "Mölders' brother claimed that he had helped a friend from school, who had some Jewish ancestry, but the MGFA ruled this assertion "highly speculative," and did not investigate further." Intermarried Jews were protected from deportation, as were German Mishlinge, some of whom even served in the Wehrmacht.[8] "Families with an Aryan husband and baptized children were part of the category classified as “privileged mixed marriages”: they received better rations and the Jewish wife did not have to wear the yellow Star of David."[9]—Mölders had nothing to do with that. Only towards the end of the war were they targeted for deportation, but then only to the less hellish camps such as Theresienstadt or to labor battalions, and the chances of survival were much better.[10] Catrìona (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that Catrìona: I agree. The mechanisms of the Holocaust for German Jews could be surprisingly bureaucratic, with Jews in certain circumstances having a degree of protection due to various regulations. The intermarriage regulations were among the most important. War veterans also had a degree of protection: both factors acted to save Victor Klemperer's life, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section would benefit from placing the removal of honours in the context of the much broader re-evaluation of Germany's wartime history which has taken place since the 1980s. Most modern Germans are not keen to honour heroes of the Nazi war effort, and the modern German military has also been at pains to distance itself from them. As such, Mölders and the people associated with the Condor Legion have not been singled out: this has formed part of a broad effort (from what I've seen in visits to Germany, only military personnel who have unequivocal links with the resistance and weren't involved in war crimes are officially honoured).
  • More broadly, the discussion of Mölders' attitudes towards the Nazi Government is difficult to follow, and uses weasel words at times. It seems that he wasn't enthusiastic about the Nazis and passively resisted the worst of the Government's actions, but didn't outright resist them (a very common approach among Germans, not least due to the brutal methods the regime used against those who explicitly opposed it). The article at times seems to be trying to inflate the extent of his resistance, despite noting that the MGFA takes a fairly dim view of the topic. It would be better to call a spade a spade.
  • The article needlessly includes the German language names for things such as medals which translate directly into English: this doesn't seem helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day Nick, I've trimmed some of that. Feel free to trim some more as necessary. I think the ranks and unit names need to stay in German, as that is generally how they appear in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, in regards to concerns about intricate detail or similar, I'd suggest comparing this article to FAs on Allied fighter aces. These also go into detail on the men and their personality. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which fighter ace bios? For WWII Allied FAs, I've only found Caesar Hull, Peter Jeffrey, and Dick Cresswell. There are also some WWI fighter ace FAs (Richard Williams, Thomas Baker, George Jones) and a WWII bomber pilot (William Brill). All of these, with the possible exception of Hull, have very little about their personal lives and focus on their careers and notability. The fighter pilot politicians (John McCain, Ian Smith) don't make a good comparison because their personality/personal life is more relevant to their politics than their military careers. Pat Pattle is a GA and says almost nothing about his personality, despite some details being sourcible to QS material relating to him. Johnnie Johnson, also a GA, has considerable information on his background but I would argue that's not comparable because it influenced his military career by not allowing him to join the RAF earlier.
I think it's important to distinguish between personal details of Allied fighter pilots, and those offered for Mölders. What the sources are trying to argue, and the article ends up insinuating, is that Mölders was ideologically opposed to the same regime that he was fighting for—a pattern in German WWII bios as many people want to be able to admire these people without connecting them to National Socialism or the crimes of the Nazi regime. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof and extra scrutiny. Catrìona (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extra comment, I just read through the 'In propaganda' section, and it's a bit confusing: the narrative of how the leaflet was developed is unclear. It also carries the implication that Nazis couldn't be Catholics (or vice-versa?), which was far from the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing
Given this has been raised as an issue, I thought I'd start a section to discuss the sourcing.

There are several issues that have been raised on the talk page and they form the justification for the article tagging. These seem to me to be of three types. The first issue is the claim that some of the sources are weak and/or dated, in particular Obermaier & Held (1996), but also Obermaier (1989, but apparently it is actually older). The second is an issue of a possibly questionable source, Prien (1997) with issues raised about the publisher. The third issue is the lack of use of the biography (what is the title?) by Kurt Bratz (2008) and a few articles on the reversal of honours, in other words a failure to use more recent scholarship, albeit most of it is in German and may not be accessible to many editors on en WP. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Braatz' work is Werner Mölders: Die Biographie. Moosburg: Neunundzwanzigsechs, 2008. 400 S. ISBN 978-3-9811615-3-3. Kges1901 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks (I was searching on the wrong spelling of the surname), according to Worldcat, there are no copies of this book in Australian libraries, so I won't be able to help with this one. Perhaps the next step is to look at reviews of the book to see what is highlighted as being unique to this book? That might help to narrow down a request for a chapter or two on WP:RX. There are some reviews listed on the talk page, so I'll request them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and/or dated sources edit

I think this depends on what is being sourced from them. If we are talking about exceptional claims about something like Mölders' alleged anti-Nazism, then these are probably not suitable, particularly if they are contradicted by recent scholarship. However, if they are being used for mundane matters of what type of aircraft Mölders shot down on a particular day, that is another matter, and I don't see a problem. The latter type of material is not likely to be updated by recent scholarship. On the other hand, if recent scholarship has uncovered information about Mölders that had not previously come to light, then recent scholarship should be preferred over older works on those matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable source edit

This revolves around the fact that Prien is published by Schiffer, and a claim that Schiffer is questionable because they "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". It isn't clear to me that a case has been made that Schiffer meets this criteria. Sure, they publish "popular history", but what evidence is there that they have published factually incorrect material or have no meaningful editorial oversight, for example? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schiffer has always struck me as a mixed bag. Some of the works they publish are very good (including some re-prints of excellent works initially published elsewhere), while others are very bad. My impression is that the firm doesn't exercise strong editorial oversight, though it's not at the bottom of the heap: there appear to be at least some editors and other publishing professionals involved, though I suspect that fact-checking is not rigorous (for instance, its books are professionally typeset, illustrated and printed which is uncommon for essentially self-published works). Where books have been initially published by a more rigorous publisher and/or the author has a good track record as a historian this doesn't matter. A useful check for works which don't meet these criteria is to see if reputable historians have referenced them. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was actually thinking of Stackpole! I'm less familiar with Schiffer. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Schiffer book about one of the Muslim SS divisions. It is thoroughly footnoted, has a good bibliography, is professionally typeset and illustrated and has no typos or grammatical problems I can recall. It won an award from Rutger's University, and also covers not only the military aspects, but also the political and social basis of the division, as well as war crimes. But specifically regarding Prien, here are reviews of two of his volumes published in Air Power History [11]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have added that Schiffer's website says they have a dedicated group of military history editors, and Prien is published by other publishing houses, Struve-Druck and Rogge Verlag. On the basis of that, the two reviews, and the lack of any evidence that Schiffer has "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, or has an apparent conflict of interest", I consider that Prien isn't questionable and is a reliable source for the material it is being used for. This material only relates to the naming of JG 53, an accident he had, his receipt of the Iron Cross Second Class, and the formation of III./JG 53, none of which requires an exceptional source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent scholarship edit

Articles should always be updated to include the most recent scholarship, and this article should be no exception. An issue for this review may be the accessibility of such sources, if they are in German. My German isn't great and is focussed on land warfare technical terminology rather than aviation stuff, but I can try. Assistance is likely to be needed from Assayer and others with German language skills, and access to the sources may be difficult as well for those whose library access is mainly English-speaking. I certainly can try to get access to the articles via WP:RX and can ask for help if I find I'm out of my depth with the German. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, I've requested the article by Klaus Schmider, "German Military Tradition and the Expert Opinion on Werner Mölders: Opening a Dialogue among Scholars", which appears from the abstract to be quite critical of the work of the MGFA in providing the rationale for the de-naming of Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 74 Mölders. Here is the abstract.[12] Once I've secured a copy I'll start adding material from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update: I've also requested Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134 for balance. Once I've received these two I will seek to add to/modify the "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section, which appears to be the most critical section needing updated scholarship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my belated reply, but I have been busy elsewhere, mostly RL. The aforementioned articles are a good place to start, because the case of Mölders has indeed received some attention and drawn some controversy by historians. I think I have provided the links earlier at Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature: There was a discussion between Schmider and Heiner Möllers published on Portal Militärgeschichte, quite a good resource for recent scholarship in military history, btw. The links are (in random order) doi:10.15500/akm.26.06.2017, doi:10.15500/akm.28.11.2016, [13], doi:10.15500/akm.05.09.2016. Unfortunately I will not be able to get hold of a copy of the bio by Kurt Braatz. It is not held by many German libraries. There is a review by Heiner Moellers on H-Soz-Kult.[14] I have noticed that recent edit by MisterBee1966Diff, who now seems to make good use of that work. I think that this edit invariably demonstrates that the bio by Obermaier/Held is unreliable. I am a little surprised, though, that MisterBee let the fiction by Obermaier/Held stand as if it was real. --Assayer (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand MisterBee1966 now has a copy of Braatz, and I look forward to the article being improved with that source. What fiction though, Assayer? Can you clarify? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine he is referring to the first part of the paragraph qualified by this edit [15] Catrìona (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Molders intervened on behalf of the Frenchman that attacked him, or who shot him down? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am letting it stand for now until I have fully read, and understood, the Braatz book and have an idea on how to best address the subject. According to Braatz, Mölders, in parts, approved the story that he was shot down by a French pilot as he did not want to give the German propaganda the opportunity to portray him and the Luftwaffe as a superior force where only he could be beaten by a German pilot. The entire relationship of Mölders, the German propaganda, Fritz von Forell (author of his wartime biography), and Göring has yet to be addressed as well. According to Braatz, Mölders was very much aware of what the propaganda tried to make of him and he wanted to retain some level of control over the information. In addition, Braatz states that after his death, there was quite a dispute over his inheritance, which was sizable. Noteworthy, Braatz states that Mölders widow was to receive a relatively large house, a gift from Hitler personally. She was given the option to choose among a few in Munich. She found out that these houses belonged to Jewish families and were to be seized from them. Apparently she had a good understanding of the situation and carefully rejected the gift. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed, as Catriona hinted, refer to the first part of that paragraph sourced to Obermaier/Held. To my mind it does not make much sense to have a paragraph which first states: While in French captivity, Mölders asked to shake hands with the pilot who had shot him down, and learned that Pomier-Layrargues had been killed in action 30 minutes after their encounter, and then directly contradicts that a couple of sentences later by stating: Braatz investigation revealed, Mölders was not shot down by Pomier-Layrargues. You cannot have it both ways, so I would have expected that those anecdotes would have been put into perspective. If the story of the requested pardon is "very likely ficticious", why is it still narrated as fact? Braatz's investigation seems much more reliable to me. I would also imagine that he explictly dealt with the earlier literature like Obermaier/Held and their reliability.--Assayer (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone has picked up the wrong end of the stick here. In one of the articles you yourself linked on the talk page [16], Schmider repeats that Mölders was shot down by Pomier-Layrargues and cites p.218 of Braatz for the fact (although he says that Braatz states an accidental shooting down by a German aircraft is possible), and he also goes on to explore recent scholarship on the requested pardon and concludes that Mölders did intervene with Goering on behalf of the Frenchman. This section needs a rewrite to reflect current scholarship, but questions about the reliability of Obermaier/Held on this issue are not as cut-and-dried as you claim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Schmider believes that Mölders was shot done by Pomier-Layrargues, although he does not name any sources for that. But as you yourself once put it, it is our job to compare and contrast what the sources say, even if they are contradictory. I do not believe, however, that it is our job to produce paragraphs which are contradictory in themselves. You cannot narrate as factual that Mölders was shot down near Compiègne at about 18:40 by Sous lieutenant René Pomier Layrargues and continue, investigation revealed, Mölders was not shot down by Pomier-Layrargues. If you got new information, the least you should do is attribute the different stories to their respective sources. What apparently neither Schmider, Braatz, Hagena, and even Mölders' Nazi biographer Fritz von Forell claim, however, is the story of the stolen Knight's Cross, the mistreatment by soldiers (seems to have been a punch by a civilian) and that a French soldier was concemnded to death but pardoned at the behest of Mölders (see Schmider for details regarding the French civilian sentenced to twelve, later reduced to six, years imprisonment). For me that demonstrates that Obermaier/Held are not reliable, but still their bio is being used for much information without contribution. My understanding of a thread on recent scholarship is that it also demonstrates where older sources are unreliable.--Assayer (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the section. According to Braatz (see pages 36 and 179), Fritz von Forell was a relative of Mölders, married to his cousin since 1928. Braatz claims, Forell was never a member of the Wehrmacht propaganda nor any other German propaganda machine, he was an officer (Major) in the Heer. Braatz source for this statement is "Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt: Jagdgeschwader 74 'Mölders', Mölders Kaserne, Potsdam 2004, p. 5.". Subsequently I question if classifying him as "Nazi biographer" is a fair representation. As said before, I am still reading. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To serve the Nazi propaganda effort, you do not need to be an official member of the "propaganda machine". de:Wolfgang Schmidt (Historiker) describes Forell, a party member since 1933, as an author who conformed with Nazism and cites Forell's memoir Wir vom verlorenen Haufen (1936) about his captivity in Russia as evidence. According to Schmidt, Forell's Mölders und seine Männer gloryfied war as intended and defined by the Nazis. In fact, in a new edition published in 1951 Forell himself claimed that due to the then prevailing conditions his 1941 book was "only fragmentary". Schmidt questions the authenticity of the newly incorporated quotes by Mölders, however, arguing that it was Forell's intention to construct a distance between Mölders and the NS regime that otherwise could not be shown from other sources. Forell also published about Mölders in the Deutsches Soldatenjahrbuch (1963) and a new edition of his bio in the Druffel-Verlag, all of them well known for their extremist rightwing political outlook. (Wolfgang Schmidt, "Organisiertes Erinnerung und Vergessen in der Bundeswehr. Traditionspflege am Beispiel der „Causa Mölders“." In: Nina Leonhard u.a. (ed.), Organisation und Gedächtnis. Soziales Gedächtnis, Erinnern und Vergessen – Memory Studies, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 183-223.) Anyway, I would strongly question the neutrality of an article which puts undue weight on sources like Obermaier/Held. by treating them at equal length as recent scholarship. Is there a specific reason why their (fan) fiction should be kept?--Assayer (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Braatz, Mölders attempted to use Forell as an editorial means to counter the official Nazi propaganda machine, in particular Mölders seemed to have rejected how some of the other pilots (Wick, Trautloft) have explored popularity. Additionally, Braatz explains that the war, following the Battle of France, was almost exclusively fought by the Luftwaffe as well as by the Kriegsmarine (U-boats). In Braatz view, this posed a new challenge for the German propaganda. Apparently, it was easier to communicate the advance troops made on the battlefield. Subsequently the German propaganda started focusing on soldiers which excelled, in particular U-boat commanders and fighter pilots. Braatz indicates that Mölders was aware of this. On the one hand he did not want this media attention, on the other hand, he understood that he could not escape it. Caught in this dilemma, Mölders had (exclusively) authorized Forell to write a book about him (and his men), Braatz stated that including his men was a means to defocus from Mölders alone and also give credit for his success to others). Do you think this should be included, and if yes, how so? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and far reaching thesis by Braatz. I notice that particulalrly this thesis was appreciated by moelders.info, the website maintained by former Bundeswehr general Michael Vollstedt. Is this Braatz's own interpretation/conclusion or does he back that up with further sources? But I doubt that the German propaganda faced a new challenge in 1940, because the aviator-hero was already an important image before the war. In terms of ideology, as Manfred Funke put it, the army was Prussian, the navy Imperial and the airforce Nazi. More propaganda movies dealt with the airforce than with the army or the navy, many of them by Karl Ritter like Legion Condor of 1939. Does Braatz discuss works on the cultural image of the aviation hero in Nazi Germany like those by Peter Fritzsche? Stefanie Schüler-Springorum's study Krieg und Fliegen (2010) about the Legion Condor might also be worth a look. As Wolfgang Schmidt sees it, by enlisting Forell Mölders himself had a major share in his own heroization. Schmidt knows the bio by Braatz, but merely cites the revenue that the very well selling book by Forell generated. And didn't Mölders commission the book as early as 1939? I'll leave it up for other opinions whether that information is covered by Wikipedia's criteria of "comprehensiveness". I would be interested in a discussion of Mölders' image and how it was created. As usual interpretations should be attributed to its respective sources and all notable views by reliable sources should be covered.--Assayer (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you pose many questions I am not yet prepared to answer, and I must reread parts of the book to address them. What I recall, unlike Hannes Trautloft (one of a few examples given) who wrote Fliegeranekdoten in 1939 following his return from Spain, Mölders refused to write, publish himself, or have someone else write about him. Braatz states, at the time, the German propaganda had enough heroes who willingly participated in this game without having to focus on Mölders. I am not exactly sure when Mölders first handed over material to Forell, but I recall that at the time did not authorize any publications. According to Braatz, Mölders continued to fall through the net of the German propaganda until he was awarded the Oak Leaves in late September 1940. Shortly after, in October the Luftwaffe propaganda magazine Der Adler published an article on Mölders. According to Braatz, this event triggered Mölders to change his attitude (pressured into is pobably less euphemistic) and subsequently had Forell proceed with the publication. Mölders did this to control the information presented. Braatz states that Der Adler distorted facts to the dislike of Mölders, one of which was the distortion of his former membership in the Bund Neudeutschland which in Der Adler sounded like a membership in the Hitler Youth (or some other scouting organization). You wrote "As Wolfgang Schmidt sees it, by enlisting Forell Mölders himself had a major share in his own heroization." Yes, I would agree to that statement. However, as said before, Braatz claims that Mölders intend was to control information and, contrary to other contemporary German publications, was free from ideological superiority theories. Braatz stresses the fact that Mölders had lost his father in a war with France and Britain, a fact which impacted him in his willingness to fulfill his military oath given before God. Braatz claims, due to Mölders upbringing, education and belief, Mölders was bound to his oath. Mölders was unable to see and understand that Hitler, to whom Mölders had pledged loyalty, abused him (and others), and that the regimes intentions were criminal in nature. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should update that I have been unable to secure copies of the two Global War Studies articles I requested at WP:RX, but perhaps we could proceed with the Schmider article at Portal Militärgeschichte, which appears to be a summary of the state of play in 2016? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding this link again for MisterBee1966, this is the recent article by Schmider that nicely sums up the scholarly state of play on a number of controversial issues regarding Mölders. As it is in German, I thought it would be better if you gleaned material from it rather than me with my poor German. I consider it should be used as the basis for a rewrite of a couple of paragraphs that currently are contradictory or confusing, as noted by Assayer above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other edit
  • If I may, the photo under the "Eastern front" subsection is a portrait of Mölders with the caption "Oberst Werner Mölders - 101 official victories in World War II". This seems hagiographic and, as it stands, out of place. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

From reading this, it does not sound like there is consensus about content and sourcing. Furthermore the article is still tagged. Hence I have moved to the FARC section and invite people to state their opinion over the current status of the article and remaining issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some of the sourcing criticisms aren't convincing, as reliability of sources depends very much on what they are being used to cite, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Uncontroversial information doesn't require academic sources, just reliable ones focussed on the subject. However, the article really should rely heavily on Braatz (the most recent bio), not earlier biographies like Obermaier and Held, and the inadequate handling of the controversial aspects of Mölders' story let the article down in terms of recent scholarship and comprehensiveness respectively. It needs a concentrated effort to bring it up to Featured standard in those areas, and I'm not seeing the required level of effort being committed to it at the moment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not all of my comments above have been addressed, and the article still fails to place Mölders in perspective and includes weasel words and over-emphasis of dubious claims (for instance, the para starting with "According to Viktor Mölders, his brother had saved Georg Küch, one of Werner Mölders' closest friends, who had been classified as a half-Jew by the Nuremberg Laws" is details a story which experts doubt is true. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There has been quite some research on Mölders recently. As long as outdated, adulatory biographies like the one by Obermaier/Held, which is originally from 1982 (not 1996), are treated as if they were as reliable as archival reasearch by historians,[17] this article is neither accurate nor neutral and thus does not match the FA criteria. During the last months there have not been many efforts to improve the article.--Assayer (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [18].

Mumia Abu-Jamal edit

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement

I nominated this article for featured article status (only archive4 and after, not the previous times), but I've come to the realization that the nomination was a mistake. As detailed at Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 4#Far from a featured article and Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 3#Primary sources almost the entirety of the promoted version was sourced from primary sources, because secondary sources are almost always grossly partisan. The prose of the article has since suffered and it now consists of short stubby paragraphs and sections. I no longer believe that this article meets criteria 1a, 1c, or 2b. There are also problems with 1d (the article is now skewed to a more pro-Mumia viewpoint) and 3 (see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mumia2.jpg). As previously indicated, the article is not maintained[19]. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review section edit

See above. Moved to FARC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Choppy paras - prose, comprehensiveness and POV issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [20].

Mount Tambora edit

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section edit

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history"
"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over the course of several decades"
Food crops "failing" is awkward
"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.
"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.
Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases https://web.archive.org/web/20071024202358/http://www.vsi.esdm.go.id/volcanoes/tambora/geology.html and https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=264040 rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima" Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track." This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP." That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..." Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,
  • Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
  • Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
  • General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.
    1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Sisyphus, who knows mountains. Outriggr (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist

  • There are still a number of statements which are unreferenced.
  • The lead refers twice to the 1815 eruption as if it has already been mentioned before describing it.
  • "archaeologists discovered the remains of a civilization destroyed and buried by the 1815 eruption. Known as the "Pompeii of the East"" This is grotesque exaggeration in the lead. The main text describes the excavation of one ordinary local house which seems to have been compared with Pompeii by the lead excavator purely because is was deeply buried and then described as a lost civilisation by the press.
  • The lead is an awkward mix of referenced and unreferenced statements.
  • "Tambora is located 340 kilometres (210 mi) north of the Java Trench system and as the neighbouring volcanoes Mount Rinjani on Lombok and Sangeang Api on Sumbawa, situated 150 to 190 kilometres (93 to 118 mi) above the active north-dipping Benioff zone." This is ungrammatical. "as" what?
  • "The convergence rate is 7.8 centimetres (3.1 in) per year." What is the convergence rate? (Presumably the speed at which the Australia plate is moving towards the Asia plate but this should be explained.)
  • "The formation of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57,000 years before present (BP),[4] while a 2012 study reports an argon age of 43 ka for the first pre-caldera lava flows.[14] The formation of Tambora drained a large magma chamber pre-existing under the mountain." I do not understand this. I do not have access to the source, but it appears to say that 57,000 years ago an upwelling of magma increased the height of the mountain. So how is this the formation of Tambora rather than one episode in its history? Also BP and ka are mixed in one sentence.
  • I have not continued reviewing beyond here as it seems clear to me that the article is well below FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I closed this but neglected to see that (finally) some work is going into it. I'll leave it open for a bit. @Tisquesusa: can you please alert reviewers when you're ready for folks to take a look? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Outriggr: I have to clarify the scale - what I meant was (in reply to this) is that for many many FARs...nothing much happens. I have been very happy that stuff has happened here overall. Apologies if it didn't come over that way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I think Dudley's comments are fair, and they've not been addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Confirming delist after second re-visit, third visit. Each time I've visited the article the same problem is evident: reliability/unsourced statements. There are still unsoured statements in the article and those that are there are not verifiable. I examined three of the first four lines in the "Comparison of major volcanic eruptions" table: (1) the article says Taupo erupted at a VEI of more than 6 in 181 AD: Smithsonian source says it may have been 6 ("6?") around 230 AD and Oppenheimer says it erupted around 181 (not in 181) and doesn't give a VEI; (2) the article says Paektu erupted in 969 at VEI more than 6 but links to an article that says 946 at VEI 7: Smithsonian says it erupted around 1000 AD with a possible VEI of 7 and Oppenheimer says around 969 without giving a VEI. I don't see Kuwae (row 4) mentioned at the Smithsonian and Oppenheimer doesn't give a VEI and again says it erupted around 1452 not in 1452. DrKay (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have tried my best to:
Add several new references
Add information from the references (existing and new) to shift the focus of the article towards the actual volcano and less on the 1815 eruption
Update all the accessdates
Remove dead links or replaced them with live ones
Rewrite the prose where indeed it was staccato or not professional
Add relevant images
Address the remaining issues by @Dudley Miles:@DrKay:@Casliber:
Tisquesusa (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the time it has taken for me to come back to this. Tisquesusa has greatly improved the article and I have struck my 'delist', but there are still some issues.
The lead considerably exaggerates the effects of the 1815 eruption. It says "The eruption caused global climate anomalies in the following years, while 1816 became known as the "year without a summer" due to the impact on North American and European weather. In the Northern Hemisphere, crops failed and livestock died, resulting in the worst famine of the century.". Oppenheimer says that the effects in North America were confined to the north-east US and the Canadian maritime provinces. Also the main text says that it was only the worst famine of the century in some European cities.
I have deleted one unreferenced statement but there are still ones in the first paragraph of 'Aftermath' and Global effects'.
The comments about a lost culture in the lead and the first two paragraphs of 'Culture' are based on one dodgy press release and press reports based on it. I would delete and expand the third paragraph in the section, which appears to be based on a reliable source. I would also delete the poem at the end of the section, which appears to be reflect prejudice of a neighbouring people against the villages which were destroyed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December question edit

So, where are we with this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: do you think it has improved to the point where it fulfils FA criteria or do you still think it should be delisted? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a bunch of unsourced sentences, so I am thinking not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (given this has been open for over a year, and still no consensus) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/December_2018&oldid=874962432"