Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1

Panzer Aces[edit]

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

Result: No consensus. Editors are divided over whether the reliance on two co-authors for much of the Reception section falls short of the neutrality and verifiability criteria: editors arguing for delisting hold that this is insufficient, while editors supporting GA status argue that no additional coverage exists that could be added, thus observing due weight as required by the GA criteria. There were also disagreements over the level of depth accorded to the plot, with some pro-delist editors arguing that the current level of depth is insufficient. Per the instructions at WP:GAR, no consensus in reassessment means that the prior consensus stands; the article will remain listed as GA. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept I know I opined on this one, but it has been open a long time so consider this a bold close. If anyone disagrees I am willing to revert. Basically closing it per my rational below AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I do disagree and you wouldn't have known this, but I requested a non-involved admin close a week ago. Mujinga (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have reverted as best I can. You might like to ask at the WT:GAN page if no one responds there (it doesn't need an admin to close it). AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be in obvious need of reassessment and I left a note about the problem on the talkpage in January which didn't get a response. Rater gives a C grade, which I would agree with, since the article doesn't satisfy B2: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

From reading the article, I wasn't actually sure if the books are regarded as fiction or nonfiction, from researching a bit more it seems they are historical but with fictional elements. In any case, the article doesn't follow the guidelines at either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels or Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, whichever one applies.

The thing is, the article lacks almost any exposition about the books themselves such as their full publication history and their contents. Everything is very unclear, I would suggest there needs to be at the very least a synopsis of each book in the series. Checking on googlebooks, book1 appears to have 6 accounts of different tank commanders, including Michael Wittmann, Hans Bolter and Hermann Bix. Book2 has chapters on among others Hermann von Oppeln-Bronikowski, Kurt Knispel and Karl Nicolussi-Leck. Only Wittman is mentioned currently.

Right now the article fails GA criterion 3 Broad in its coverage very badly in my opinion, but this could be rectified with the addition of a synopsis section along the lines of the ones in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. The article comes in at 10k right now so there's definitely room for expansion. Mujinga (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually quite important in confronting certain popular fantasies about WWII. However, from a structural point of view, it isn't clear what its focus is. It's actually more about the critique by two authors than the books themselves. It isn't helped by an info box which assigns the book to the genre of "historical fiction" whereas these, however objectionable, were aimed at a popular history market. I don't think the article really needs too much expansion on content - the books notability is more from its notoriety than its historical or literary merits. But I would be tempted to broaden the critique - it very much from a single authorial view whereas there are other critiques out there. MILHIST has enough WWII expertise to identify those, I think. Monstrelet (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fantastical writings of Franz Kurowski are somewhat of an esoteric topic; the only English-language source (that I'm aware of) that covered them in detail is The Myth of the Eastern Front, 2008, Oxford University Press, by the two authors used the article. I will check with a German colleague to see if they are perhaps aware of other sources in German. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very one-sided and comes across purely as an attempt to discredit the author and the books, leaning heavily on one source. This is unsurprising and, in my experience, is part of a pattern of editing that seems unduly critical of the German war effort and any suggestion that the Germans might have occasionally had some highly capable people doing remarkable things, even if we don't agree with the regime under which they operated (which I don't by the way). I have no axe to grind here, I just want to see good quality, balanced articles that reflect the range of sources on the topic. This article doesn't cut it. Bermicourt (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: so what are the other sources on the topic which meet WP:RS? b uidhe 20:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to sort the article out; I'm simply assessing it, and an article that is highly critical based largely on one source is nowhere near good enough for a GA. Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mujinga and Bermicourt, I don't think this meets criteria 3., it isn't balanced or structured IAW guidance either. While it is clear Kurowski was a fantasist, we need to do better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Sorry I would have contacted you as the reviewer but when I checked the contributions from Catrìona, your previous name, I only got User account "Catrìona" is not registered. On the sources issue, well there are at the very least the books themselves Mujinga (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note for the record that I am not enirely convinced by the criticisms made here. Yes, it would be good to have a section on publication history, and the plot section could stand to be expanded somewhat according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, but on the other hand the plot section cannot be allowed to overwhelm the reception section. With minor tweaks there, I would support keeping the article as a GA. Critics are unable to identify any additional secondary sources that might be used to expand the article, and K.e.coffman can hardly be expected to add sources that don't exist. b uidhe 19:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I am in favour of delisting. In the absence of other opinions/analysis from critics, the reliance on Smelser & Davies potentially leaves the impression of bias, since it is effectively only one, highly critical, opinion (they are co-authors, not writing independently of each other). I would be unlikely to support delisting if complementary/supporting opinions could be found since this would show Smelser & Davies are not isolated in their criticism. Understandably, given Kurowski's reputation, thankfully I think it unlikely there would be a credible contrary opinion arguing that his work be taken seriously... Other things I noticed (but at least these should be easily able to be fixed):

The article at point refers states: "The Panzer Aces series focuses..." there is no antecedence for that fact. It is only mentioned later that there is a Panzer Aces II and III.
The point no sources/bibliographies are cited and that some of accounts are in first person is cited to World Cat (cite 7). However, when I look at that page itself and some of the entries there I didn't see that explicitly stated. On one entry a reviewer said the book had no sources but that wouldn't be reliable so shouldn't be relied upon as support (if it is). Zawed (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning keep on this one. I don't think we can hold it against the article if there are only a few reliable sources that cover the books. The plot section is pretty barebones, but probably good enough for a GA. It reads alright to me. I agree that the reliance on one source is not ideal, if other sources are presented here that could be used then they probably should. I looked myself and found nothing suitable. I trust the Milhist project has better capabilities than me in this regard though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]