Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aleksandr Vasilevsky/archive1


 * 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 removed by Dana boomer 20:48, 29 May 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WikiProjects

Article is not reliably sourced. A majority of the sources are by the subject himself, and about another 30% are by a colleague, a General Shtemenko who was the chief of the USSR military. Almost all the sources are by involved people, Soviet military or political colleagues  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the period before World War II, as discussed in the FAC, there are very few other sources but his biography. I do not believe this article should be moved to FARC simply because there are few other sources for the pre-World War II period. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewriting the article solely on Western sources is not feasible - it would mean, as already said, removal of half of its content. Any volunteers? It just won't happen. If current sourcing is unacceptable for a FA, delist. NVO (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary
''Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section revolve mainly around sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)''

Keep—in the absence of recommendations of sources that should be included, more critical commentary of what is not covered in the article, or an example of a better article on the subject. This opinion is not based on a particularly thorough review or knowledge of the subject so if any other more informed opinions come up I would not mind having this one given less weight, but I wouldn't like this article and others like it of reasonable quality shunted aside unnecessarily simply for lack of an expressed opinion on it. Lambanog (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist No_original_research is quite explicit that primary sources should not be the foundation of articles, let alone FAs, which are supposed to use "high-quality" sources. It's up to the scholars to work out if generals or political leaders are inflating their achievements, etc  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist — Per YellowMonkey.  Aaroncrick  TALK 06:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist: over reliance on a source by the subject is a concern to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.