Talk:Joachim Müncheberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Overly detailed article

I was going to place {{overly detailed}} tag but want to see if I can get any feedback on Talk first. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose that. This article has been through multiple layers of review and no criticism of the level of detail were made. You are clearly unfamiliar with the comprehensiveness criteria for Milhist articles on en WP. Please familiarise yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tags

The article is using a number of self-published and questionable sources, such as Ralf Schumann who also publishes in the extremist publisher VDM Heinz Nickel. The article contains a source from another extremist publisher Verlag Siegfried Bublies. Given the WP:QS sources, the level of detail is WP:UNDUE. I tagged the article accordingly.

Please also see diff for additional reductions; rationales included in the edit summary. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: re: this edit, I mentioned above that, due to the questionable sources, I found the level of detail to be undue. Would Template:Undue weight be more appropriate here? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If the prime concern is source reliability (which I don't yet have time to comment on in this particular case) then I think that's the tag that should be used; I'm not sure an additional undue tag is needed since it would seem to follow from questionable sources, but it'd probably be more appropriate than an intricate detail tag, which could in theory apply equally to an article whose sources are judged impeccable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wubbe is used for one citation. The case for the unreliability of the other has not been made out, and appears to be that he has had a book published by a publishing house coffman doesn't like. He has also had books published by other publishing houses, including the one used here. In the absence of information about this particular publishing house, I think this complaint is very thin. I'm reverting the deletion of information cited to Schumann et al for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ralf Schumann was discussed here: Talk:Joachim_Helbig#Unreliable_sources_tag_.282.29. It seems unlikely that his Landser-hefte booklet from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb would be any more reliable than his works published with VDM Heinz Nickel. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• According to current consensus at WP:RSN, Schumann & Westerwelle is not a reliable source. Please do not remove the tag until this issue is resolved. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC of interest to this article, "Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht?", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joachim Müncheberg/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This article looks in good shape. Some minor bits:

• Last sentence of "death" is uncited.
• de Zeng, Stankey & Creek (2007) is not used
• Isby (2012) is not used
• Don't see the need to hide the battle/wars in the infobox
• We normally don't capitalise ranks when then are not used as title.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I believe German ranks are always capitalised (I might be wrong but I'm sure enough).

Ok to the rest. Dapi89 (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: