Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Walther von Brauchitsch/1

Walther von Brauchitsch

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Walther_von_Brauchitsch/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist: 6 to 0 votes supporting delisting due to problematic sources and content K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

During 2014, this article was expanded to about double its size, almost entirely by who is now under a TBAN for articles covering Nazi Germany. This is one of several problematic articles Jonas expanded. It was taken through GAN and then an unsuccessful FAC, after which the TBAN was put in place. One of the significant issues with this article is the quite heavy reliance on Hart, a book published in 1944 (the reliability of which is questionable given its age and that it was published during the war, and the inaccurate terminology used to describe von Brauchitsch's WWI service (indicating he was actively involved in battles when he was actually a staff officer). There are also a significant number of unaddressed issues raised during the unsuccessful FAC and the peer review before that. In essence, I believe that the article has significant issues with criteria 2b., 2c. and 4. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than provide an exposition of all the issues (which are extensive), I suggest interested editors have a look at Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1 and Peer review/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1. Pinging those that participated in either review, as well as the original GAN reviewer. Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day, from my perspective the reliance on Hart is a major concern (I think it would be ok to use this source very sparingly, though, potentially to compare and contrast varying assessments). I also think that the article's prose requires work. If these issues could be fixed, I would be happier to support the article keeping its GA assessment (I would reserve judgement to see the final outcome), but unless this occurs I think it should be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hart wasn't my preferred choice, but did not have other books about the field marshal at the time. The book covered many of the same topics online sources in the article said about Brauchitsch, so it did not strike me as outrageously unreliable. Still, I'm all in favor of replacing Hart with modern sources. I suggest someone check out this book: Loeffler, Juergen (2001). Walther von Brauchitsch (1881-1948): Eine politische Biographie. ISBN 978-3631377468. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delist -- problematic content ("opposed Nazism") and sources. Besides over-reliance on an ancient 1944 source, the article also uses non WP:RS sources Islandfarm (website of dubious accuracy) and Jewish Virtual library (content farm). For a GA article, that is just sloppy. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's an explanation from the editor on why Hart was used (from the peer review):

"'Well, there is a bio-book on Brauchitsch from 2001 I have access to. However, I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion). - JV'"


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist for the reasons I've outlined. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: Does Jonas's participation in this discussion constitute a violation of their topic ban? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is broadly construed, quite possibly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist due to certain sources used and possible content issues which someone will have to re-visit. I do believe the GA reviewer should be notified of actions taken and those involved in the prior peer review: Peer review/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1 in the past. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe they were back in December, but I will do it again:  Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist - I find the extensive reliance on a 1944 source, not to mention the justification given for its use, to be quite problematic. Especially since it appears that modern sources are available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also some strange wording throughout the article like " a German planner and strategist named Erich von Manstein" (???) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist, the 1944 source is problematic, it's certainly not unbiased and definitely has a POV it's pushing being written during the nazi regime. Choosing that and ignoring subsequent sources who have the benefit of passage of time and information becoming common knowledge is problematic. If the 1944 source was presented to give several sides of the issue that may be okay, but that's not what's going on here.  MPJ  -US 01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist per my comment at the FAC along with others' here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Six editors support delisting, with zero opposing. Per WP:Snow, should I go ahead and delist? Or somebody else wants to do it? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clear delist to me, more than four weeks have elapsed and more than five editors have commented. Go ahead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)