Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2019/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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Cold War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently de-listed at GAR and it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and needs quite a bit of work to meet it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This is months of elbow grease away from A-class. (Full disclosure: I asked Peacemaker67 to start this nom, because I hosed the technical aspect up last time. Tks). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I'm a delist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, I have skimmed over this, and these are my initial issues, before even going into a detailed prose review:

The lead is far, far too long. (Even by my own standards.)
There are too many images, and these often pinch the text.
There are (by my count) 20 "citation needed" tags, and 7 "citation not found" tags.
Many of the book references don't provide page numbers.
There are quite a few basic formatting issues, not least the eighth paragraph of the Third World escalations section.
While many paragraphs are long, and have a tendency towards over-detail, there are also some single sentence paragraphs.

Overall, this needs a lot of love and attention to get it up to A-class standard. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per Harrias. And a number of other issues. 16,000 words! Plus footnotes. Gah! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Some citation problems, too many images, use of quotes when prose could be employed, inadequate explanation of events in Africa and things like death of Dag Hammarskjöld go without mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Where shall I even start? First, those templates about having a too-long lead and the article itself. Second, it looks terribly with its chaotic images are in the wrong places. And as of last like everyone else, this article lacks reliable citations this article doesn't derve to be an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2019 (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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Müncheberg

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Schumann & Westerwelle 2010, which was deemed "not reliable" at RSN, is still used as a source throughout the article, and the neutrality concerns raised at GAR have not been addressed. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1 and A2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to me A-class criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I find Assayer's comments at GAR convincing. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've advertised this to the whole project before, but it could do with a couple more opinions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 28 May 2019 (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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Helmut Wick

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class re-assessment because it recently underwent a GAR after which is was delisted, mainly for using an unreliable source. The GAR is at Talk:Helmut Wick#Individual reassessment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Per my vote at GAR, it fails A1, "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources". b uidhe 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unfortunately, though I would think once those refs are replaced there's room to reconsider. —Ed!^(talk) 23:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the comments at GAR, one of the sources isn't very reliable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:20, 31 January 2019 (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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Werner Mölders

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Werner Mölders/archive1

Featured article review/Werner Mölders/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I don't believe it currently meets the criteria of Milhist A-Class and should be delisted. Specifically, the article really should rely heavily on Braatz (the most recent bio), not earlier biographies like Obermaier and Held, and the inadequate handling of the controversial aspects of Mölders' story let the article down in terms of recent scholarship (A1) and comprehensiveness (A2) respectively. It needs a concentrated effort to bring it up to A-Class standard in those areas, and there hasn't been the required level of effort being committed to improving it during or since its delisting as a Featured Article. For info, the 2009 ACR is now here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for the same reasons it was delisted at FAR. These issues have been sitting around for months/years and have not been fixed. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 10:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasoning outlined above. Zawed (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist My comments in the FAR discussion haven't been entirely addressed. As the outstanding items include some significant issues (for instance, the paragraph starting with "According to Viktor Mölders, his brother had saved Georg Küch" details a story which it is then briefly noted is considered dubious by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office), I don't think that this article meets the A-class criteria either. If the puffery was to be removed and the article reworked using only solid sources it should be possible to bring this to a high standard given that there seems to have been considerable serious writing over the years on Mölders, his role in Nazi propaganda and how he is remembered. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am going to list this for closing shortly given it has been open for two weeks and there is a strong consensus to delist and none opposing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 20 January 2019 (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.