Talk:Ortrun Enderlein/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get this one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Her older brother is motorcyclist Klaus Enderlein.[3]" - I doubt the source mentions this. The de wiki also has no source for it. Seems to be an addition of material like the Eckenfelder article.

See below.--Tomcat (7) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She is married to Bernd Zöphel, the former manager of KUKA Werkzeugbau Schwarzenberg GmbH.[8]" - Never mentions about marriage in the source. It does however note the role in the second half of the sentence...

You don't have the source, so you can not state that. In German Wikipedia, we usually don't reference every paragraph, but the next reference is also the overall source. It seems like you only look at the German page.--Tomcat (7) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also things like ' snow hissed and vapourised' is a bit of a stretch, as that is not sourced on the de wiki page, it seems the sentences have been merged, but the material doesn't match the ref.

Why did you stick on that snow issue? Do you have more examples? And snow hissed and vapourised is from a book, which I think you don't have. I asked the main contributor for assistance.--Tomcat (7) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from dewiki, and closely mirroring the original text translated through a machine, like Google translate. I really worry about the clarity of the text. Especially since nuance and form is lost as a result. Let's use that last part you translated as 'vaporized' which suggests heat enough to make it boil on contact. The sources conflict, but do not back it.

It was translated by me, not a machine. --Tomcat (7) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Aus heutiger Sicht ist es hanebüchen, welchen unglaublich subjektiven Ermessensspielraum der "Test" bot: Swiderski prüfte die Kufen mit der Hand und ließ dann Schnee auf die Kufen rieseln. Blieb er liegen, waren die Kufen kalt, schmolz er, musste es sich um einen Betrugsversuch handeln." From http://www.mdr.de/damals/archiv/artikel93502.html

Actually it supports the sentence "According to Stasi documents which came to light in 2006, Świderski had allegedly been bribed by the Federal Republic of Germany and Austria to make the allegation." - you have still problems to carefully read a source.--Tomcat (7) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not in any way back your translation. Also if you are going to put forth this matter, it should be brought up with the implemented thermometer that was instituted following this incident. Also I do not see race fixing in the source cited. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46122803.html And the whole hissing of the snow there sort of ruins it. Different sources say different things, the hissing and vaporizing which you contend as noted in the 1968 source versus the melting snow in the other and the 2006 source which covers the matter of the accusation and bribery.

It states "Rennbetrug" [1], which translates as race fixing.--Tomcat (7) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cover the snow test and the corruption better, it glazes over a very serious allegation of which innocence is claimed and evidence of corruption by an official is well noted. Given the political situation more background is needed on that, as most readers will be unfamiliar with it.

Totally disagree. This article is about an invidiual, not about the event. That piece of information would be clearly undue. --Tomcat (7) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this, it is not ready for a GA. A few issues here and there, but the translation and a source not matching the info is still a concern for me. It is also not on the dewiki page, so I am not sure why you insist on inserting references like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only reviewed the first sections. If you look at [2] you will see that it is adequately sourced by in-line citations.

I reviewed the entire article. Though you and I differ on points. So allow me to explain without splitting my review further up. You have previously and very recently shown to copy and paste directly from Google Translate into Wikipedia. I also recall that such translations should be copy edited by a native English speaker for clarity. The first GA review showed how terrible it once was. Though I still should not be seeing strings of sentences mirrored exactly from Google translate. We've been through this before. Secondly, race fixing and fraud are really different concepts. One which is match fixing for a per-determined result and the other is really cheating. However, Spiegel is reporting a result at a time when the truth or even a rational thought would explain the situation. If the runners were hot enough to vaporize snow on contact, a story not supported by other documents linked here and elsewhere, then such heating would melt ice in the same way? Anyways, I'm not going to get into nitty-gritty here, but Enderlein's claim of innocence and comments carry weight. We have two different accounts of the test, one snow melts, one snow vaporizes. The whole 'snow melting' is the official account by many regards that is why it was so subjective a test and you cross two very different points by stating it in the article. The difference between something over 0C to 100C is quite a lot. The whole heat from the tent and not cooling with Horst Hörnlein. This matter needs to be handled delicately and properly, with the different 'results' noted because they vary so greatly. Given the matter of bribery and corruption, it does seem like they were robbed of the medals, as noted by the media. And I don't think Spiegal alleged racing fraud, as they were reporting the findings, and at that time, the word of the officials were unquestioned. Its one thing to report and another to come up with it, so they didn't allege it. Again its a wording matter. And lastly Tomcat7, you added a reference were there was none about her brother. Removing it in this diff [3] is a start, but do not try to sneak out of it. There are plenty of problems to fix here, and I don't think you have the material for this article either, but I don't like seeing additional inline references that don't exist on the dewiki, you did add one about her husband, but it doesn't say that he is married to her. While it is not wrong, it just doesn't say they are married in the source. Fix this article, copy edit it and clarify the controversy section, considering evidence points to their innocence now. And please explain the differing accounts on the snow tests. I saw two distinct different accounts of it in the sources, but technically 3 exist based on procedure. Were there any other witnesses to the 'snow test'? The vaporizing snow or melting snow matter must be addressed as the sources themselves cannot even get it correct and the article goes on about the heat from the tent being enough to disqualify Horst. It needs fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it was GDR propaganda. The German article put the words into quotation marks, presumable a quote. "very recently shown to copy and paste directly from Google Translate " - this is a false accusation; it was done when my knowledge in copyright was not totally established. Gave me a recent example. "should be copy edited by a native English speaker for clarity. " - it was clearly copedited by a native speaker. "There are plenty of problems to fix here" - I don't think this is correct. The German version is clearly well-referenced, and your claim that you only picked a few issues is quite ridiculous. And you are still talking about the snow thing, which suggests that this is the only problem.--Tomcat (7) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That she bears his name is a proof that she is married to him.--Tomcat (7) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, less then two weeks ago is fairly recent I'd say, so the accusation is correct. Your knowledge in copyright does not automatically give you a free pass on everything prior to that. You are responsible for your own edits. The snow test is a huge problem, and quite frankly, that is why I am bringing it front and center because its the only one which I have looked into deep enough to see that your translation, the source material and the history are all way out of whack. I know from previous experience you are reluctant to fix problems, and instead do as you just did and re-nom an article for GA without even attempting to fix the problems I just raised. The whole controversy section requires clarification as this is bounced around so much in the sources as to what happened. I do not have all the source material to verify all the other sources, but I have enough to go on the controversy section. And this little bit about you adding references which don't back the material, about her brother, is extremely concerning as this is not the first time you've done it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with ChrisGualtieri. You seem not to have taken into account any of the recent criticism of your actions but carry on with premature nominations of translated articles that are not up to en.wiki sourcing standards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one is better then Eckenfelder, much better. The controversy section is complicated, and accurate and neutral analysis of the details as noted in reliable sources is required. Usually the word of the officials is reliable and solid, but that is thrown out with the matter of bribery and corruption. The account of the 'snow test' is just the part I noticed as snow doesn't vaporize on contact unless it goes straight to a boil which is indicative of 100C temperatures at sea level (less at higher elevations... but I digress...) and that the claim of innocence riding on the fact that if the temperature was really that hot it should have melted the ice down to the concrete as Enderlein mentioned. The whole bit of corruption though essentially condemns the official account of cheating because the test was flawed (as in did the snow melt?) rather then was it purposefully heated. A huge difference in those claims exists and yes it is because of this incident that the thermometers were instituted for the runners, this should be mentioned in the article because it was a direct response to the controversy. The mainstream belief seems to rest on Enderlein's innocence in light of the evidence, but Wikipedia still should provide the context and the clarity of the subject. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]