Talk:Armin T. Wegner/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) 04:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial impressions
Hi, I will be reviewing this article. I will get to it shortly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To start off, several paras are uncited, such as "Education", and the paras in the section "Weimar period". There are several ext links that serve as references: https://en.gariwo.net/, but the links are dead and do not contain the material on Wegner. Two paras in the Legacy section are uncited. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll get on that over the next day or two, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some book sources that may be helpful: chapter in Saving the Jews by Mordecai Paldiel and an entry in Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection. BTW, Wegner appears to be better known as "Armin Wegner"; feel free to move the article, or I could do it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is particularly inopportune timing, as just Friday I lost access to my preferred university library's online resources.  Still, there appears to be enough on him to repair what's insufficient in the current draft--the relatively good state of which is in no part related to my own efforts: it was really goof before I ran across it as part of an Armenian Genocide GA review. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, this is enough for today, and I've put a notice on the talk page re: your proposed title move. I know I have to cite the movie in the legacy section, and I'll be looking for other online confirmation of his German awards; feel free to highlight anything else I've missed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One pare in the Weimar period section is uncited. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'll address that, probably later tonight. The more feedback--nits to big stuff--you can list out for me to fix, the better.  I do get a bit cross-eyed looking at the same text over and over again... Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wanted to review the article when it was close to complete; if you believe it's ready, then I'll do it in the next couple of days. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've got everything cited. Things just keep sounding familiar, so I ran it through Earwig's tool myself, and it appears to have been copied from, and may have in part been closely paraphrased from some of its sources.  Would you mind taking a pretty firm look at that, and identify things you'd like to see rewritten? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Review
Getting into the meet of the review. May take me a day or so. Please feel free to address the comments once I'm done going through the checklist. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted and will address in detail tomorrow. I don't see anything too unexpected so far. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel that the sourcing is still problematic, especially the reliance on this web article, which in several cases do not support the content being cited to it. I feel that better sources exist. Please let me know if you'd like to me put the review on hold while you source the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you've found all the problems you want me to fix, by all means put the article on hold and I'll remedy the issues. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the article is far from meeting criterion 2, with the use of the web article from gariwo.net which does not cite its sources. I would not consider it an RS worthy of a GA article. Moreover, the source did not support the material being cited to it. As an example, this edit should have probably happened before the article was nominated. In another example, this quote does not appear in the source:


 * My conscience calls me to bear witness. I am the voice of the exiled who scream in the desert.


 * And that’s the first source I spot checked so far. Continuing the review while the sourcing is still in flux would not be productive. That’s why I inquired whether you wanted to put the GA review on hold while you re-write / re-source the page. I linked to a couple of high-quality sources above. My other option is to fail the nomination, which would be a shame. Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So, I can't fix what you don't tell me needs fixing. Are you suggesting that Gariwo be excised completely as non RS? I think that's an FAC level critique applied to a GAN process, and that's not at all what I understood from your first comment on it, but I can work with it.  Most of the problems with Gariwo are my attempt to source previously unsourced things, which lacked the level of precision you're expecting-- in some cases, like the direct quote, an entirely fair criticism: I was wrong, and should have rephrased things to what IS sourceable .  Actually, that misapplied citation was already in the article when I started work on it; I was wondering how I'd screwed up a direct quote that badly. Turns out, I didn't, I just failed to check it. I've fixed two issues so far, and now you bring up a third one which I would have already fixed if you'd told me about it.  If you've looked at the state of the article, I've already incorporated one of your two sources (the other one might be useful to supplant some of the existing citations, but really doesn't add much to what the other sources say)
 * I still don't understand how you think the review/hold process is supposed to go. Here's what I'm expecting, based on how I do GA reviews:
 * 1) You review it thoroughly, listing every deficiency you find. If any, put it on hold. If none, pass it.
 * 2) I address every deficiency identified--either fixing something or explaining why your suggestion isn't optimum.
 * 3) You re-review iteratively, failing it if we're not going to get to agreement on GAC, bringing up new issues--things I messed up in the revision or things you just now noticed--that need fixing, or passing it. Ideally this 'reconsideration' step is 1/10th of the effort of the first go 'round.
 * So I'm completely unfamiliar with any pre-review hold, and don't agree that the sourcing deficiencies amount to a quickfail criterion. I appreciate what you've invested in the review so far, and will keep working with the concrete feedback you give me, but at some point, as an editor poring over an article, I start to get lost in the weeds, and very much prefer specific, actionable feedback. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Images: Images are appropriately licensed. I recommend moving the later portrait into the infobox, and using the current image in WWI section. Rationale: Wegner had a full career after WWI, and the later-life image is more appropriate. Also: are there any image by Wegner on Commons? It could be a nice addition if a representative image is available. We could lose the house image -- it does not add much. However, if no other images are available, it could be a keep. I don't feel strongly on this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The older gentleman's image does not actually appear to be Wegner. It's an Armin WAgner, used in the Wegner articles across multiple Wikipedias, but not properly categorized on commons. Other images (non-free, from Websites about him) of Wegner in older age show him with a beard.  I cannot say for certain it is a different man, but it seems too speculative to include at this point. There are a number of Armin Wegner memorial, tree, plaque pictures on Commons, and I may add a gallerdy of them to the legacy section. Jclemens (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I was wondering while the young and the old person do not look alike. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Copyvios: Full report here. Getting a hit to The Armenian Genocide & The Holocaust: One Man Takes A Stand, copyright 2009. Needs to be rephrased. Tumblr most likely copied from here; nothing in Web Archive. So ignore Tumblr. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Took a bit to track this one down, but it looks like we had the key wording in 2007. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Citations: The first citation that I spot checked does not contain the words Mossul and Tigris, or that Wegner wanted to become a travel author. The same link does not mention Gerlach either (cited in another para). Do citations need more work? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to know where some of these things originally came from. The citations I added are the best I had available to support the text as it stood then.  I will begin culling things I cannot find online, English references for. I do not have ready access to any of the books which speak of him in more depth, and yes, the various, sometimes contradictory summary biographies are a bit maddening to piece together. Jclemens (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

 * What do you think of this? Seems to have more than we have, and substantiate most of the previously unsubstantiated text, but it is from a clearly partisan source. However, I can't see how any of the things we would be using it for, to fill in details of Wegner's life, are partisan issues. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is another possibility. Aleteia appears to be Catholic, but otherwise not discernably partisan. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not use blogspot.co.uk -- there's no editorial oversight or fact-checking; it may also be plagiarised from somewhere. Aleteia is a by-lined piece; could be useful for fleshing out personal details. The article also links to another article which contains images taken by Wegner -- I'd include that one as an external link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still working on this, but I'm not going to have time to address things until Monday. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the review still isn't complete; I await your comments on the other GA criterion. I will not be replacing the gariwo.net wholesale, as there is no reason to think it is NOT-RS, as you admit in your critique below. It's an NGO dedicated to the cause of genocide prevention, and they have no reason to lie about Wegner. I have deleted the pull quote that was inappropriately sourced there, as I can't find another source.  Given that disagreement, I can see three ways forward:
 * You can fail the article now because I disagree with you on this source
 * You can complete the rest of the review and if that remains the only thing outstanding, you can ask for a GA second opinion.
 * You can ask WP:RSN to weigh in on Gariwo.net, and if they support source replacement, I'll abide by their decision.
 * Acutally, as a fourth option, you could go through and replace the citations with suitable substitutes yourself, if you don't think that would compromise anything to do so. I'm not in any WikiCup or anything, nor am I a major contributor to the article, so I've got no particular ego in having it "my way", I just don't have any more time to chase things on an article that, when I nominated it, looked far better sourced than it has turned out to be.
 * Regardless of your choice, I thank you for the work invested in the review to date, and the article is on substantially better footing than when you started. Thus, knowledge of one man who stood up to inhumanity is improved somewhat, which is all I set out to do in the first place. Thank you for that. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Gariwo.net source should be removed as it does not comply with WP:IRS; its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is not known. http://www.theleadermaker.com should also be replaced; it's a blog with no editorial oversight. The statement ending with "...for which Wegner authored the preface" is uncited. Certain passages cited to Gariwo failed verification (i.e. the quote "My conscience calls me to bear witness"). This also raises concerns about WP:OR as it's unclear where this material is coming from. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Second opinion request
I've requested a second opinion on the review. I'm challenged with how to address the sourcing concerns / disagreements that have been identified in the course of this review. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, I noticed you were looking for a second opinion for your GA review. Having looked at the source in question, in my opinion, Gariwo.net lacks reliability. There is inherent bias in the article due to the nature of the organization. Despite that, it still has the potential to be a reliable source, but I see no references or citations to academic or other reputable sources in the article. While it is unlikely they are "making things up" about Wegner, without academic references or reliable news sources, one cannot make the assumption that everything in the article is completely accurate. The source could be making assumptions or jumping to conclusions about the subject and we have no way of knowing without a more reputable source to fact check with. I suppose the article could be used as a supporting source, but if there is any information in the Wikipedia article whose reference is unique to Gariwo.net, I suggest another source should be located to verify it or that part of the article be removed. Thanks to both the nominator and the reviewer for their hard work and careful research. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel the reference has some reliability. The organization, while biased, is chaired by Gabriele Nissim, and has done a fair amount of work, including petitioning the European Union. That being said, I feel the source is not sufficiently reliable to be a stand alone source–again based on the nature of it. Is it really impossible to just replace? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Review status
K.e.coffman, it is now May, and nominator Jclemens has not edited the article since mid-January. I think you should strongly consider closing the nomination, since the work you have requested has not been done. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The concerns pertaining to sources have not been addressed so I closed the GA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)