Talk:Battle of Remagen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well-written
a (prose): b (MoS):
Instead of pipe linking the V-2 Rocket just leave the link alone.

Double links to Operation Plunder, 9th Tank Division, and Lunderdoff Bridge

Replace M3 halftracks with quadruple 0.5 in machine guns with just a link to M16 Half-track

Major Scheller tried ~~and failed~~ to reach his superiors
It is verifiable and factually accurate
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Needs citation for the first paragraph of the section called "Background"

Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "Dead man's corner"

Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "Conflicting orders"

Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "German order of Battle"

Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "U.S. captures bridge"

Needs citation for the last paragraph of "Anti-aircraft defense"

Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Aircraft attack bridge"

Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Additioal Bridges"

Needs citation for the fifth paragraph of "Bridge Fails"

Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Americans find bridge intact"

Also needs citation for last paragraph for "Awards for valor"
It is broad in coverage
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy
fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Is there a better resolution for the video showing U.S. troops crossing Lunderoff Bridge.
Overall
Pass/Fail:

I would normally quickfail this, but I'm giving you only one chance to fix this, or this article is going to fail. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a lot more citations for a lot of blank spaces. Thai is the main reason it failed. If you want to renominates, you can after you fix the blank citations.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

I think your review lacks Good Faith and is inconsistent, unnecessarily picky, and insufficiently specific.

There are 43 instances of double links in the article. Why do you pick on these four? The other three items within Section 1 are things you could have easily fixed yourself.

As to Section 2, Verifiable, all but three of the paragraphs you cite as requiring a citation already contains one or more citations. It's not required to provide a reference for every single sentence if it happens to fall at the end of a paragraph. If there are specific facts that you feel require citation, then to be clear you should add "citation needed" to it. For example, the first Paragraph of "Aircraft attack bridge" had five (5) citations, yet you require another because the last sentence is uncited? One of the pillars of WP is IGNORE is that there are no rules, only policies and guidelines.

In conclusion, you wrote that the article "needs a lot more citations for a lot of blank spaces". This seems contradictory to CITE which says, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." With the three exceptions you noted, every paragraph is already cited. Where are all these "blank spaces"?

Finally, you "would" quickfail it, but then you do quick fail it... What about Good Faith and allowing me an opportunity to rectify the legitimate shorcomings within the article. The issues with prose and MOS are pretty trivial and can be easily remedied. I'm sorry I didn't reply within 24 hours of your initial assessment, but please remember not everyone hangs out on WP 24/7. I don't see why you didn't give me a chance to fill a few missing cites. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this won't seem like an unwarranted intrusion, but I was surprised to see that this article was quickfailed and thought I might interject before things became heated. I should note that although I've skim-read the article I haven't done any kind of review myself and have no specific comment about the issues raised above. Firstly, unless there is direct evidence of bad faith that sort of accusation isn't very helpful, although on the other hand I don't think that giving an hour to fix the problems with the article (which do seem relatively minor) is the most appropriate way to conduct a review - the Instructions page recommends seven days, although its true that this is left to the reviewer's discretion.

I recommend that User:btphelps either fix the issues as they see fit and renominate this article today, or take the review to WP:GAR for wider community comment. You may even find that you obtain a more comprehensive examination of the article with the latter course. Either way, please both remember to Assume Good Faith - I know how heated things can get, but in those situations no one wins. If you want me to comment further please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrry with the problems, Btphelps, you can renominate if you want.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]