Talk:Helmut Wick/GA2

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

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on a work by an amateur historian, the contents of which can be traced to war-time propaganda; please see: Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk:Helmut Wick.
 * It's also A-class, I see. ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The updated link to the original A-class review is: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmut Wick/archive1. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be less concerned about the Ringlstetter-source and more concerned with two of the other sources. For some reason, we are using as sources:
 * A 1943 book by F. L. Neher, published by Hanns Arens Verlag. Far from an up-to-date source, and since it was published during World War II in Berlin, I would expect it to censor some details. Nazi Germany is not known for its freedom of the press.
 * A 1940 article from The New York Times, which mostly criticizes statements which Wick made in a news conference. Clearly a primary source, reflecting the views of the American press on Wick.Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the possible issues concerning the sourcing, parts of the prose reflect common errors when translating from German to English, leading to the suppositions that some of the text - attributed for example to the NYT (paywall) was in fact from a German language original (Ringlstetter?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist. I am convinced by K.e.coffman's reasoning above that Ringsletter was likely based off of Nazi propaganda. The main question is whether there are better sources, or if there are simply no high-quality, in-depth sources about this person and therefore it's not possible to write a GA on him. buidhe 12:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist. Further to my comment above, I have now thoroughly examined the more detailed de.Wiki article: Ringlstetter states that his publication is based largely on a photo album and two diaries by Franz Fiby, a fighter pilot who flew joint missions with Wick. This diary had already been used by Nazi propaganda writers. Wick himself did not have a diary at the time. Battle descriptions, which are in the Grabler's  1943 publication as quotations from Wicks diary are identified, can be found in Ringlstetter as unspecified verbal descriptions of Wick or as Wicks told a war correspondent. It is safe to assume therefore, that Ringlstetter is not a reliable source. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. This certainly should have been caught by the GA reviewer, and the fact that it then sailed through A-class is slightly—worrying. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Everything ever written is "biased" based on the circumstances and culture of the writer. "Propaganda" and "bias" accusations are modern terms. How about adding the above comments and references to the article, rather than putting this in the discussion?
 * What did Helmut Wick do during his lifetime? is the question to address here -- within the context of when and where he lived and who wrote about him -- and when he was written about. This discussion includes a lot of information throwing light on when he has written about and probable biases. Why not simply add this to the article? Outlier59 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Biased sources can be reliable or unreliable; Ringlstetter is the latter. Criterion #2b says: "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)