Wikipedia:Featured article review/Inner German border/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Inner German border

Notified: [2], talk page notice Nov 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns outlined in my talk page notice. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I reserve the right to be wrong on this, but on inspection, I don't really see the issue? Responding to the four points raised on the talk page... Unsourced content is the biggest concern, but there doesn't appear to be any currently. Now, if you did some spot checks and it turns out that the citations are only covering one minor point and other unsourced info snuck into the paragraph, that is concerning, so if you did that feel free to say so - but just based on basic inspection, it seems fine. Older sources are fine to "flesh out" details, so that doesn't appear to be a huge issue either - there are substantive books cited written as late as 2008 (makes sense, since it was a 2009 promotion), so as long as the editors weren't citing old sources for claims that are in contention with modern sources, it shouldn't be problematic. (And they're not even *that* old, 1970 and some 1980s for the ones that get cited some, and the 1970 book is by a respected British journalist.) On the Cold War / Western Bloc angle, I don't see any wild bits of bias - Stacy 1984 is the US Army itself writing, but it's all talking about the very early history of East/West Germany, I don't see anything in that paragraph that looks controversial even to a diehard communist (at least as long as they grant that some people did indeed flee from the Soviet zone westward). And we're allowed to acknowledge the obvious, which is that censorship concerns means that any East German publication used would have to be used with some extreme caution. The concern about the possibility of using more German-language sources is interesting, but I think that's a dangerous criterion to impose. There appear to be some German-language sources cited already, but in general, on English Wikipedia, English citations should be preferred so that they can be verified and checked more easily. Sometimes there's no choice but to use other language sources, especially for more obscure topics, but this is a very well-covered topic, so it should be entirely possible to source the vast majority from English-language scholarship. If there's a specific German source that is just truly essential yet not available in translation, then sure, but that should be specific sources to call out not a general desire for more German-language sources. Finally, looking at the additional sources linked on the talk page, those don't seem so important to impact comprehensiveness concerns? The first is on economic impacts in one region after the border fell, which seems more like a "History of Bavaria" type local thing. The second on linguistics is on a topic that seems more related to the political effects of German reunification, not the border itself (i.e. an expansion of German reunification#Effects - really, there could be a summary-style spinoff article called "Effects of German reunification" or the like on the 1990-1995 or so period). They're relevant related topics, sure, but that's worth maybe a sentence at most or a link in the See also. The article is already at 70kb prose size, a little longer than recommended, so keeping it focused on when the border existed seems a way to keep the size in check.
  • As stated before, I did not do spot checks, so if there really are referencing problems, that's worth investigating and fixing. But the other concerns don't seem so dire as to be FARC-worthy. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well known that many aspects of the Cold War, including East Germany, were not fully understood until the opening of Eastern Bloc archives. I just don't see how this article could be considered well researched or comprehensive without the examination of more recent, scholarly sources (the fact that most of the high-quality, recent sources happen to be written in German is inconvenient, but does not recommend citing inferior sources just because they are in English). The sources on linguistics cover how dialects diverged due to being located on opposite sides of the border, and are therefore affected by the border itself and not reunification. If length is a concern, it could be addressed by reducing the amount of content sourced to contemporary press reports, which do not necessarily indicate lasting significance, and possible overemphasis on Western, English speaking viewpoints compared to East German ones.
    Incidentally, there is still plenty of unsourced content in the article: it has not been fixed since my notice. I have not thoroughly checked for failed verification issues, but the article has many sentences like "The GDR implemented a variety of security measures along its Baltic coastline to hinder escape attempts. Camping and access to boats was severely limited" (cited to a 1962 news article). This could potentially tell us what the situation was in 1962, but only a retrospective source could verify this claim because policies could have been changed later. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that post-Cold War sources are required, but aren't they already being used in the article? I have to presume that they were examined and used. For example, there's a bunch of citations to a book from David Childs (academic) written in 2001, who appears to be an expert in German history. Gordon L. Rottman isn't from academia but rather the military, but this is a military topic too, and there's a book of his from 2008 cited heavily. Gareth Dale lived in East Germany during the period (perhaps addressing the worry about not giving sufficient deference to East German sources) and he's a Reader (if not a full professor), so at least not a nobody, and his book was 2005. To be sure, there appear to be some non-prestigious random authors thrown in (no idea who Michael Cramer is based on a Google, possibly an independent author; he's clearly written on the topic some based on Goodreads and he's cited a decent amount for his 2008 book, but can't tell his reliability easily), along with some reference spam. But it doesn't appear to be a major problem merely from inspection. (It would be a problem if pre-1990 sources are used to cite things that post-1990 sources disagree on, but that would require essentially reading all the relevant sources.)
    I still don't think the linguistic differences between West & East is on-topic. This article is mostly about the physical border, the politics behind it, and things like escapes / fortifications / guards. Linguistic differences develop across all borders no matter how they're made and no matter the politics for the natural and obvious reason of being in different states; the Inner German border wasn't special here. Checking, I don't see any mention in Canada–United States border about the difference between Canadian English and American English, or Germany–Switzerland border about the difference between German German and Swiss German. To be sure, that journal article sounds like a great source to use to expand Dialects of German or some sub-article on differences during the Cold War, but it is at most worthy of a single See also link in this particular article IMO. Especially given the article's length, it's just too peripheral.
    I don't have access to The Times of London archives so I can't comment on the claim about restricted access to boats. It doesn't sound particularly controversial (and the openly-accessible German site indicates that the observation towers part was definitely real) but sure, a better source would be nice there. (Less worried about the timing - even if they dropped the policy in the 1980s, which seems unlikely, it'd still be relevant - and more just the slant, that a Western paper might have exaggerated.) That said, I think chopping out less relevant parts sourced only to news reports might be a good change, sure (or perhaps moving them to some holding pen on the talk page). SnowFire (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SANDWICHing in Crossing points, and there are so many images in this article that it feels cluttered; not sure they are all needed or adding anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of words in section headings breaches WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a shot at fixing this (diff). I left two minor exceptions - "Crossing the border" (Just "Crossing" sounds like a noun/place, but it's meant as a verb in context) and "Fall of the inner German border" (Just "Fall" seems a little vague - it could be misread as the season it happened in, or the fall of the East German politburo, etc.), but open to suggestions on those two. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Considering that this is a historical concept at this point, I think the news sources should be replaced with academic sources as much as possible. I don't see any recent edits for improvements. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC unless someone is going to start the article overhaul. (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per above, I'm still not convinced that any improvements or overhaul are actually needed. I guess it comes down to trust in the original editor - are the news stories just being used as "supplemental" sources and everything relevant is in the cited scholarly works as well, or are there major parts cited only to contemporary news stories? Because some editors just throw in supplemental "this is also here" references to buttress a claim, and this isn't necessarily problematic. The original FAC features some very effusive praise for the article editor, so I'm inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No there are entire paragraphs cited to news reports only and some are original research/insufficiently supported like the one I quoted above and another case I flagged in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics

These walls of generalized text are a bit frustrating. Could we get some specifics nailed down? The talk page notice said:

  • Heavy reliance on cold war era sources (all published in the Western bloc of course) causes potential for bias and/or errors, and not all these sources could be considered high-quality
    Could we have at least one concrete example of Western bloc bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples are quotes like this from a Western/Anglophone perspective. I removed this one but there are still a disproportionate quotes from anglophone journalists as opposed to German people. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are not high quality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that most or all of the pre-1989 news sources are not "high quality reliable sources". I also do not think it's good practice to cite offline museum displays that at best could be verified from one place in the world and at worst may have changed over time. And what makes "Baltic Border Tower in Kühlungsborn" or https://www.wearethemighty.com/ reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated
    Some specific examples of neglected German sources, and what they include that is omitted, would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of coverage of economic and linguistic[3] effects
    Have these been added ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The aftermath section talks about environmental effects but does not mention any other longer term effects of the border, for example economic effects. That's covered eg. in this source. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to Buidhe's concern, as I have clearly seen similar problems when Spanish-language sources are overlooked in Latin American articles in favor of English-language news reporting, but I hesitate to advocate for FARCing without concrete examples on the page.
That said, I'm learning FARC as there has been extremely limited engagement so far, and it's highly unlikely that an FA this old–whose original nominator is disengaged–would not need updating and improvements as newer and better sources become available. And three of the original nominators six FAs have already been defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the citation needed and original research issues flagged in the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, there is plenty here that needs to be acted on and hasn't been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There has been no effort to fix outstanding cleanup tags. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute, we're going too fast here (nomed 7 January 2023) . Re comprehensiveness, the was a lot of spin out to daughter articles during the origional FAC. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: are you interested in fixing up the article? No one seems to be editing it to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one yet. Its only been c. a month, and most of the complains seem to be either shakey (use German sources) or easily fixed (text squash or recently added uncited bits and pieces). Anyways, the thick walls of tldr text above make it hard to pars what's actionable. Slow down people. Re "are you interested in fixing up the article?"...Grrr actually I'm losing faith given the pace of this process. Let me see, theirs this Tulip Mania, Yellowstone National Park, Dürer's Rhinoceros, as well as prep for my own articles to prepare to defend from a group think and I sometimes think...scoreboarding. buidhe (a coord no less, and somebody I almost always disagree with on everything)) nomed on the 7 January and opened FACR to vote delist on the 5 February...that's not right and very, very, very disillusioning. At that timescale: take a few weeks off and your gone. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same concerns about the vagueness of the complaints, so entered four questions (see above) that satisfied me that the article is not in good shape, nor likely to be fixed-- see my queries above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted to the promoted version, do what ye must. Sandy I always appreciate your input and diligence; but my point stands: outside of your always helping above and beyond, this group is moving too fast. Ceoil (talk)
Just noting for the record that it's been almost three months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we now have to look for foreign language scholarly sources? Per the talk notification: "German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated" That would be a major change. I ask so that requests are kept within FAC criteria, so that people are not overwhelmed by dual criteria at FAC & FAR Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question on that aspect (above) wasn't answered. Regarding making sure the criteria are kept in focus, and FAC and FAR are in sync, I think the burden would be on the reviewer to lay out exactly what is missing from foreign language sources such that the article fails comprehensiveness or neutrality. I know that, were it a Venezuela article, I would be easily able to make the case for issues covered in Spanish-language sources but not in English. I'm not convinced that has been done for this case; it is lack of updates in the other areas (eg economic and linguistic) mentioned above that convinced me that work was needed here. And there is some dubious sourcing.
Do we know of anyone who might work on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Not now, but can we please give it time - I do think a longer term should be given; ChrisO, a long long term editor until recently, is intermittently active here, and when becomes active, is highly active.
I agree that non eng sources should not be used as implied reasons for delisting as happened here, but take your point re gaps in "economic and linguistic" - but thus far the gaps have not been clearly defined and to be fair anybody cant throw out such terms and be convincing to passers by. I really have a hard time imagining what "linguistic" might even entail. Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Buidhe to use FAC terms, your list of concerns needs to be made more actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have put forward actionable concerns as best I can, noting examples above of missing coverage and sources that, given their date of publication, fail to fully verify the content. There's a limit to what I can do because my German is not the best. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be more careful. "given their date of publication, fail to fully verify the content." That is patently nonsense in this context. As a separate point, what gaps in linguistics are you seeing given "my German is not the best?" Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil Special:Contributions/Prioryman does not look promising (last edit in June 2022 and only 22 edits for the year of 2022). How long do you suggest waiting and who might show up to address what issues remain? The FAR Coords will need more to go on ... I'm asking because I had intended to next put up Quneitra, which I noticed as unmaintained and dated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much longer in the cold light of day Sandy :( I still think first rational was shaky however, but grand. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil ... so ... 1) Is anyone in email contact with Prioryman? 2) I will hold off, per your concerns, on putting up Quneitra (which is seriously dated and obviously unmaintained). 3) Buidhe please be sure to put up specific, actionable concerns at FAR so we don't become known as a speedy delist place and can avoid long back-and-forth generalities like at the start of this FAR. 4) HOLD until Feb 20, at which point I will be a Delist unless someone engages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have no concerns re you noming Quneitra, have never been inclined to question your judgement. Ceoil (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, there has been no additional feedback on the FAR since my comment at 13:42 6 February, and no significant engagement at the article either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm, Buidhe, Z1720, and Ceoil: to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My delist vote stands because of the lack of improvements since then. Indeed, in a quick run through of the article I was able to find unsourced content and other sourcing issues. (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - some sourcing issues exist and have not been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 17:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Work seems unlikely. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Inner_German_border/archive1&oldid=1142911447"