Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aleksandr Vasilevsky/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Dana boomer 20:48, 29 May 2010 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Aleksandr Vasilevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProjects
Article is not reliably sourced. A majority of the sources are by the subject himself, and about another 30% are by a colleague, a General Shtemenko who was the chief of the USSR military. Almost all the sources are by involved people, Soviet military or political colleagues YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for the period before World War II, as discussed in the FAC, there are very few other sources but his biography. I do not believe this article should be moved to FARC simply because there are few other sources for the pre-World War II period. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewriting the article solely on Western sources is not feasible - it would mean, as already said, removal of half of its content. Any volunteers? It just won't happen. If current sourcing is unacceptable for a FA, delist. NVO (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section revolve mainly around sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—in the absence of recommendations of sources that should be included, more critical commentary of what is not covered in the article, or an example of a better article on the subject. This opinion is not based on a particularly thorough review or knowledge of the subject so if any other more informed opinions come up I would not mind having this one given less weight, but I wouldn't like this article and others like it of reasonable quality shunted aside unnecessarily simply for lack of an expressed opinion on it. Lambanog (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is quite explicit that primary sources should not be the foundation of articles, let alone FAs, which are supposed to use "high-quality" sources. It's up to the scholars to work out if generals or political leaders are inflating their achievements, etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist — Per YellowMonkey. Aaroncrick TALK 06:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: over reliance on a source by the subject is a concern to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.