Talk:Hans Rolfes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debold his name in the Biography section.
- Done.
What were his parents' names?
- Unknown.
Was his mother a housewife or did she work (where?)?
- Unknown.
Which schools did he study at in South Africa?
- Unknown.
What was he studying in London and where exactly?
- Unknown.
What makes Aerodrome a reliable source?
- It is run by the very same authors who write authoritative aviation history books for Grub Street and Osprey Publishing. I doubt they tell the truth in print and lie on the website.
Where and in which unit was he serving when he was first wounded?
- The source insinuates, but does not explicitly state, the 14th Dragoons. I have retained the ambiguity rather than jump to a possibly wrong conclusion.
Where and when did his aerial victories take place? What were the plane models that he shot down and what air force did they belong to?
- I summarized his victories rather than string them out. I can give you a table of all his victories, complete with dates, aircraft shot down, location of victory, etc., but what does it add for the average reader? Unfamiliar French names, peculiar aircraft names. And the national origin of the aircraft downed would have to be guessed, at best. So, is there anything to be gained by a victory table, except confusion?
  - Okay, here's the victory table.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide details about the accident in which he died?
- No details available.
The categories imply that he was half South African rather than a German who was born in South Africa. Can you clarify that?
- I am not responsible for the truth of categories. Rolfes was German.
  - Deleted false categories. Left hidden message that Rolfes was German.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the references you use have two ISBNs.
- And?
  - Okay, I dug down into the pronunciamentoes, guidelines, etc. Seems 10 digit ISBNs are now verboten. So they got the axe.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Catlemur (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Georgejdorner (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its present state fail 3 out of the 6 WP:BCLASS criteria, making it as Start class article. Its citation style is inconsistent (see ISBN comment) therefore it fails B1. Its coverage of the subject's early life, military career and death is limited so it fails B2. The entirety of the text is placed under the Biography section, thus it also fails B3. There are also some other minor issues such as the Categories. Since you have have been unable and in some cases outright unwilling to address the aforementioned issues, I have no choice but to fail this nomination. My advice would be to bring it to B class before trying to renominate for GA.--Catlemur (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The remark that I am unwilling to change items is uncalled for. I cannot give you information that does not exist. I do not place the categories on the article. I can easily insert a victory table if it is appropriate, though as I noted, it will not make much sense to the general reader. And I fail to understand why giving a reader a choice of ISBNs is a problem.

Having said that, I am not protesting the GAN failure.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgejdorner Can you accurately prove that this information is not recorded in any reliable reliable source? I very much doubt that. I regards to the Categories you can alter them to your liking regardless of who inserted them in the first place, especially since you are nominating this article for GA. Removing information that is contrary to the sources you are citing should be self evident. In regards to the ISBNs you could have written just that instead of a passive aggressive "And?".--Catlemur (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot prove a negative, even if your request for a "reliable reliable source" wasn't so ambiguous. And, speaking of passive agressive, you still haven't given a reason for objecting to dual ISBNs.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgejdorner Making fun of a typo I made was the best insult you could come up with? All while writing "agressive" yourself. You've been here for over 10 years and you still don't know how Categories work, take a good look at yourself before trying to make fun of anybody. If you have done even a tiny bit of research on the topic you would be able to present a bibliography on the topic of German WWI aces (comprising of books in German and English) you have consulted before claiming that "this information does not exist". As for providing dual ISBNs, you can start by reading the Occam's razor article. While there is no guideline against it, it is completely useless and dual ISBNs are used neither in academic journals or books of any repute. I am going to end this here, since you seem to be intent on wasting people's time instead of building an encyclopedia.--Catlemur (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All known sources were used for this article. Your insistence on non-existent facts is ridiculous.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]