Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/Demoted

Demoted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Corcoran

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article has longstanding issues with unverifiable information that was present in the article at the time it passed ACR in 2007. Eight citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Duty was not entirely idyllic, however. Due to the fort's proximity to Georgetown, clashes between soldiers on leave and civilians were inevitable is original research, sourced only to an old letter; Due to Fort Corcoran's large size and proximity to Georgetown, duty as part of the fort's garrison was less of a hardship than it was at many of the more isolated forts in the defenses of Washington, such as Fort Greble needs a source other than the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, there's heavy uncited content, and much of the article is sourced only to primary source records. The Historical Marker Database source is user-generated and I don't think the ""History of Battery C, First Rhode Island Light Artillery". Archived from the original on 2007-07-26." tripod website is reliable for A-Class either. I don't have the sort of sources that would be necessary to resurrect this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Comment - I am not likely to be able to do more with the article than I did in the past few hours. It is not enough to avoid a delist. I have reduced the number of citation needed tags to three. My guess is that a source was used for the two comments about life at the fort for which there are no citations but it may be difficult to find it and thus determine whether it is reliable. I have removed the reference to the Historical Marker Database and replaced it with a citation to a JSTOR article which says the marker was placed by the Arlington Historical Society; I added at the "approximate" location. Although I think the Official Records are probably reliable enough for some of the routine facts for which they are cited, I think the use as a source for so many of the facts in the article is problematical and not appropriate for extensive use in an A class article. It is not reliable in the example(s) provided by HF. Donner60 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hog Farm and @Donner60, I've made some preliminary edits. I would like to try to restore this article to A level. What is your expected timeline for this? 20 days seem to be enough to me. I know this reassessment has been open for 3 months now but I might be able to get a rewrite done. Matarisvan (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article improved. I think that as long as the nominator, @Schierbecker:, knows that it is being worked on that person will be glad to keep the matter open. I worked, with HF and another user on a GA reassessment last year for several months before we got it back into shape. I wondered whether at least two of the sentences on life at the fort with citation needed tags could be omitted if they can not be sourced. They are interesting but don't seem crucial to me. Donner60 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. What's another few months? Sorry I can't help more with this project. Schierbecker (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schierbecker, my apologies but I am too busy with rewrites for 2 FAs and 2 GAs and therefore cannot find the time to work on this article. I thus will have to vote for a delist of this article. My apologies once again for needlessly lengthening the review process. Matarisvan (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-26

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Featured article candidates/T-26

Featured article review/T-26/archive1

I am nominating this for reassessment. This article rightly lost its FA status in 2014. This article was promoted to A class in 2007, when standards were much lower. This article has many issues with verifiability and I don't see them being resolved any time soon. Schierbecker (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the (unsourced) list of individual surviving examples can probably be culled, but there are still 17 other CN tags outstanding. Hog Farm _Talk 21:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Almost all of the citations are to Russian language sources. The article is comprehensive but needs revision and more sourcing. Without specialized sources, to which I assume most editors do not have access, I think the shortcomings of the article are unlikely to be fixed any time soon. I agree with Schierbecker and Hog Farm. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Mickl

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

This article failed a good article review in 2019 due to alleged POV issues because of unreliable sources. This is a routine A-class review to determine if this article still meets the A-Class criteria. Schierbecker (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I mentioned in the MILHIST talk about these articles, my view is that very odd rationales were taken by a group of editors during the GAR, especially about sources, and even extending to generic images used in the article. I acknowledge some flowery language needed trimming, but most of the criticisms were not based on policy but some weird ideology that the man was being glorified because he had an article that mentioned anything other than the war crimes of his division. This was widespread across many articles about the German war effort at the time and coincided with and preceded the ArbCom case. The article needs some work due to the unjustified deletions, but (for example) the idea that a biography co-written by the historian Heinz A. Richter (who was selected to write Mickl's article in the Neue deutsche Biographie) is unreliable, is utter nonsense. Both sources that were challenged as unreliable were listed by Richter as sources he used to write the NdB article on Mickl. If they are good enough for NdB, they are good enough for WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PM - just one other question on Schraml - does Richter use this source heavily and/or refer to it positively or just use it lightly? As an example of my line of thinking, I've seen a lot of sources, including ones we'd consider highly reliable, cite the works of John Newman Edwards to some extent but I don't think we'd ever want to rely on Edwards on enwiki. I don't see why Richter should be considered unreliable at all and would just like a little more clarification on Schrmal. Hog Farm _Talk 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HF, regarding Schraml. This is an example of a participant-written history, where a source should only be used for what it is reliable for. Franz Schraml headed the Kameradschaft of the German-Croat divisions, i.e. the veteran’s organization of the three divisions that were manned mainly by Croats but had predominantly German cadre (368th, 373rd and 392nd). His book covers these three divisions. Participant-written histories are a valuable source of information of units, for example, Cecil Lock's battalion history of the 10th Battalion (Australia) is used heavily in that article, despite the fact that Lock was a private soldier in the battalion, and a wheelwright by trade. The same applies to Frank Allchin's history of the 2/10th Battalion (Australia), Allchin was the battalion quartermaster and a clerk by trade. Neither was a historian. For plain factual information, such as where the unit deployed and when, which battles it fought and where, how many casualties it suffered in those battles, the names of commanding officers and those who were decorated, both of these books are outstanding sources. For critical analysis of operations those battalions undertook, not so much. For that we go the Charles Bean's official history of Australia in WWI, or Gavin Long's official history of Australia in WWII, or history books about specific battles. So far as Schraml is concerned, it is my view that he is fine to use for the sorts of things that one might use Lock or Allchin for, but not for the sorts of critical analysis that Bean or Long might provide. So to say that he is entirely unreliable and cannot be used for anything at all is just nonsense. Schraml's accounts of the outcomes of battles, especially where we know the Germans often counted civilians murdered in reprisals as enemy casualties, must be clearly attributed and contrasted with accounts from Partisan sources, for example. The same applies to Kobe (who was Mickl's principal operations officer) and although their relationship may have been difficult at times, obviously held him in some regard. My point here is that the labelling of Schraml and Richter & Kobe as entirely unreliable sources is nonsense, and should not be used as a justification for downgrading the article. All that said, this was written fairly early in my WP career (2015) and I have learned a lot since then, and even with some of the deleted material reinstated it needs some considerable work, trimming flowery stuff and attributing Schraml and Kobe where needed. I wouldn't nominate it for GA in its current condition, mainly because it was butchered by an editor who was on a crusade at the time. I'm not against it being downgraded to B, but it should be for the right reasons (probably lack of comprehensiveness, a few areas where better sources are needed, and some balance issues), not some weird ideas about the sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, strongly leaning towards delisting I know nothing about this person, but it's surprising that the material on his lengthy and fairly senior service in the fighting in Yugoslavia makes little reference to the civilian population of the area: it's like the war was being fought in a desert or similar. Given that civilians are central in all partisan warfare and atrocities against civilians were common in this fighting, this doesn't seem credible unless there are sources explaining the matter. The tone of the article as a whole is similar, and never acknowledges the political and criminal aspects of the war Mickl was involved in. Likewise, there appears to be no material on his views towards the rise of the Nazis and the resulting Nazi-led government. This doesn't reflect the way in which modern biographies of senior(ish) German officers of World War II are written, and I don't think the article would pass an A-class review now in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Nick-D, I agree. It isn't A-Class, desperately needs context, and I wouldn't nominate it at GAN as it is now, for that and other reasons. My point is about the identified sources and their uses. ie the reason for delisting, not whether it should be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm not disagreeing with your views above, and I'm not at all competent to comment on the references here. If the sources are reliable but not sufficient for the article meet modern A-class bio standards, then the article likely wouldn't pass a nomination. From looking in Google Books, it seems that the English language literature on Mickl is largely lowish quality works on his role as an armoured commander. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Barrel Roll

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

This article was promoted to A class in 2007. It does not remotely pass muster for A class now. Almost half of the content is uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nomination. Much of the lengthy article is unreferenced, so would require very substantial work to return to A-class status. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - significant sourcing work needed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad warship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Featured article candidates/Ironclad warship

Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1

Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose byDelist - Gog the Mild

You are correct, way too much uncited text, so didn't need to look any further before opposing. I think this needs to be at PR, preferably after the uncited text has been either cited or removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: - just wanting to make sure you are aware this is one in a series of delisting nominations, not an actual a-class nomination to oppose. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no, thanks; I missed the "reassessment". I shall have a more detailed look, but it is still up for delisting unless someone has access to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through it properly and could add quite a bit, but I see no need to - it is clearly a long way from A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Pickersgill-Cunliffe

MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - HF

Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.