Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hans-Ulrich Rudel/1

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: There is consensus below that while the article may be incomplete, it touches on all the major areas of expected content. What constitutes broadness is subjective, but it does not mean the article must include all important facts (differing from FACR 1b). This close does not mean the article is considered complete; on the contrary, Good Articles can often be improved. However, such discussion is better suited for the article talk page than the GA process. CMD (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was promoted to GAR in 2016, the article was significantly reduced in content. The reasoning being the sources put forward by me at the time were contested as unreliable. In consequence, I doubt the article still meets the criteria of significantly broad in coverage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, what do you think is not covered by the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 have a look at the article in the state it passed GA and compare it too its current version. His entire military career was reduced to a few paragraphs MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if the sources supporting those removed paragraphs were deemed unreliable, their content doesn't need to be in the article MisterBee1966 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion, justified or not, still makes the article incomplete, subsequently failing "Broad in its coverage". Consequently, the article should be demoted. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966 and AirshipJungleman29: it might be worth it for the both of you to take a look at this. Best, 750 h+ 10:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to avoid a discussion about sourcing and the deletion here. Although the historian Sönke Neitzel used the same sources when he created the Rudel entry in the Deutsche Biographie (see Deutsche Biographie: Rudel, Hans-Ulrich and Publications at the University of Potsdam), the same sources which the original Wikipedia article also used, the deletions on Wikipedia were enforced. In my opinion, the current state of the article fails the GA criteria. I think the article should be demoted and rebuilt, potentially using other sources. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(here from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Old GARs needing participation). Reading through the article before I looked at this discussion, I would not have said that there was an issue with broadness of coverage. Even having read it, I cannot see what the issue is. What, specifically, do you think should be addressed in the article which currently isn't? Remember that (as WP:GANOT puts it) criterion 3 does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudel was the most highly decorated German soldier of WW2, maybe comparable to the Audie Murphy. In comparison, the Rudel article does not tell us where and how Rudel was trained, when he was promoted, in what engagements he fought, his impact on the German propaganda. I find that a shortcoming. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an uncited statement. @MisterBee1966: I think the article does cover where Rudel was trained and various engagements. Are there any sources that you can be provided that might help us fill in the missing information? While this article cannot cover every engagement, are there significant ones that are missing from this article that you think should be included, and if so which ones? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have, I will not. I remain convinced that the article insufficiently covers his war service for a military history GA article. Obviously, if the community thinks it does meet the criteria, I will rest my case. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rudel article does actually discuss all four of the things you mention as missing. Perhaps it could include more detail of Rudel's training, but we do get the specific dates he was promoted to Gruppenkommandeur, Oberstleutnant, and Oberst; information about several battles he was involved in, including a fairly detailed description of one specific action (the sinking of the Marat); and a mention of the use of footage from his plane in German propaganda newsreels. And again, the GA criteria do not require comprehensive coverage like the FA criteria do. I don't believe that this article is insufficiently broad in coverage to meet the GA criteria. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This debate seems to be around coverage. The requirement is that it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It seems to do that. The criteria don't specify to what level of detail. What we have is considerably more than a token effort, so to me 1a is met. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hayward quotes twice from Stuka Pilot in Stopped at Stalingrad (1998), a RS. I would normally consider that to mean that we can use those quotes, with in line attribution. Before I put something together, are there opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish author sv:Christer Bergström, particularly his book "Kursk—The Final Air Battle: July 1943", covers his actions as an anti-tank pilot. A source I would consider checking into. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: please can you check if there is consensus to close one way or the other. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the demotion, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the World War II section a little. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2024 (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.