Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rommel myth/1

Rommel myth
While very well written and seemingly exhaustively sourced, the article is a POV content fork dealing with a subject that is fundamentally a neologism supported by synthesized research of a small group of editors. Additionally several claims are made regarding sources and their content that are not accurate, including misrepresentation of credentials and context. Concerns are more elaborate outlined on talk page, showing failure to meet criteria 2(b)(c), 3(b), 4, and now, 5. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Rommel_myth/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus to delist, so defaults to keep as a GA for now, but note that this may change in future given this reassessment is being discussed as a small part within the ongoing arbitration case at . Fish +Karate 09:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
 * I've added my comment to the article's Talk page, as this is where the discussion is happening ATM: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I was about to close this as kept, but have had second thoughts. First off the article title and notability are not issues as far as a good article review are concerned. There are other venues to deal with that and they fall outside the scope of what we try and do here. My concern is neutrality (criteria 4). I am not a historian, or even that interested in military matters, but I am familiar with controversial topics and there are a few too many red flags here for me. In the lead we have scare quotes and (if any) in brackets. I can not work out what is meant by he term critical historians. As opposed to the ones that are not critical? Google did not help me here, or the body of the article (which it should for this to be a GA). I get the feeling this lacks WP:BALANCE. I am fine for a content fork to focus on this aspect of his life, but I would expect a better introduction into what his myth is before it is torn down. Maybe if the elements section was a bit earlier and expanded upon and there was a bit more in the lead about it I would feel more comfortable. I realise that neutrality is a spectrum, and this is near the edge of that spectrum if not off the side. It is very interesting and a great read, but I will let someone else close this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)