Talk:Johannes Rebmann

GA Review

I have delisted this from the GA Nominees for the following reasons:

• It is not well written. It contains numerous clunky sentences, questionable grammar, and a bunch of spelling errors (Slud Map, Inscisors, Kilomanjaro, Brittanica, etcetc...). Suggest a thorough copyedit.
• The entire article cites only four sources. That's not necessarily bad, if these are the only things written about Rebmann - but surely there's some published work about him? Modern commentaries? (I bet postcolonial studies have been written about him.) The fact that nearly the entire body of the article is written based on essentially one source, the ntz.info site, gives me pause.

In reply to that, I have now added a 'Further Reading' section. Does that solve the problem of the lack of literature? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article should be overhauled re:wikilinking. snow and ice probably don't need to be wikilinked; farmer isn't really necessary, but Swabia should be. (And so on.)

Feel free to renominate once concerns are addressed. Chubbles 07:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your only substantial claim is the grammar and spelling, both of which have been fixed in a simple copyedit. There really isnt a rule about too much wikilinking, and sources are fine. I'm resubmitting. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now also taken the time to remove some of the more superfluous wikilinks per the suggestion. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review 2 Result: Fail

Hi there, I am afraid I have reviewed this article and find that it fails under the Good Article Criteria. My particular concern is the lack of sources, since source 4 (a website) is cited a large number of times. I would recommend seeking additional sources of information to ensure verifiability. Without doing this, I don't think that this article will pass a good article review.

There are additional problems with the text. Dates are formatted incorrectly - 27th of October shouls be 27 October, for example. The prose in the sections Discovering Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya and The Slug Map needs to be broken up to make it readable, and properly referenced.

The article also has confusing headings - why are the references under a section called Notes? A lot of work needs to be done to bring this up to standard, and I think you should aim to have the article rated up to B-Class by the parent WikiProject first. This is, however, not a requirement but a suggestion since it will encourage more feedback to improve the article. Any questions to my talk-page. Regards --Fritzpoll 18:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work on your suggestions, and will not resubmit until perfectly sure of the result. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Added many more refs, fixed up prose (as much as I can tell (?)), generally spruiked up. What you think now? Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Another look...

The article does look a bit better. I would try to find like 5 or so more citations, maybe a teensy bit more sprucing up of overall language and prose, and then put it up for Peer Review. Then, after the Peer Review issues have been addressed, put it up for GA again. (Peer Review is another thingy that can go in the Article History box, as well...) Yours, Smee 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm going to go out on a limb. I'm going to try for GA again. After all, its not as if it is losing anything by failing Ga, it's just brining in more comments and constructive critisism. Whats the harm?

If this fails, it will go straight to peer review. I really think this now deserves GA. If it fails, fair enough. I find that GA failing brings in what is like a very quick and very concentrated peer review. So, here goes! Fingers crossed! Third time Lucky! Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 07:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still think a Peer Review is the better option at this point, but good luck! I won't review this as I already commented, but I'm glad to note you will take it to Peer Review if needed. Your hard work so far on this article is to be commended. Smee 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Well, we'll see; you may be right, but I think that it has a good chance now of being promoted. Thanks for your help with the formatting of the refs and the general tidy up by the way. makes the article that little bit better. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I reviewed this previously, so do not feel I can adequately review this again. I would suggest, however, that the references are still not broad enough (one is used more than 15 times!). Why don't you apply for review by WikiProject Biography to see if it is even at B-Class yet? It will be an opportunity for feedback, which is always better than trying to do it all on your own. Good luck, anyway --Fritzpoll 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I cant pull references from nowhere - there is a limit of possible references. I feel that it is now fairly well-referenced myself. And I think it is B-class. To be very frank, I have seen many worse GAs. I'm just very tired of constantly being told that it is not ready for GA when I have seen many other less-quality biographies pass. Thanks fro your opinion anyway. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the article in some small ways, like fixing the spacing on references. References should come right after the punctuation. Also if only one reference is used for an entire section, it does not need to be put after three sentences in the paragraph, just at the end of the paragraph. I fixed those. I've also fixed some dates and other very minor changes. I hope this helps it get to GA. Also, I've assessed the article as B. I am, after all, the coordinator of the WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive :). If I were you, I would take it off the GA candidates page and submit the article for peer review first to make sure it is completely ready for it. And remember, whether it gets GA or not you've still made a great article, and improved Wikipedia as well. Good luck! Psychless 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review 3

I'm putting the review on hold for 10 days pending progress on a couple of fixes that need to be done:

• I think the article needs an infobox - while not absolutely necessary by GA standards, it will make the article look a lot better and provide a reader with some quick information about Rebmann.
  • done. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• As to sources - I think the concerns about sources are well-founded. Specifically, there are a number of what could be controversial statements that are connected with unverifiable or potentially biased sources. For example, I worry about a foundation named after Rebmann being used as a source in an article about him, especially in relation to the interplay of Christianity and Islam in Africa, which has the potential to be controversial. I found a number of more neutral potential sources at Google Books.
  • I have added an extra source, but I think the foundation is probably to be trusted, considering that a charitable foundation is probably, when you think about it, more reliable than your everyday source, in truth. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article still needs a thorough copyedit for grammar. I would suggest either running it through peer review, asking the League of Copyeditors to take a look, or finding another editor who is willing to go through it for you - maybe at Wikiproject Biography. Just as an example, from the last paragraph, "...allowed for much of the progress that has been made in those parts of the world possible," would be better put as "...contributed to the progress of East Africa," both because the grammar works better and because crediting Rebmann with 'much of the progress' in East Africa is a little eurocentric and would likely offend many Africans.
  • I have gone through with AWB and Microsoft Document and the inbuilt checker in Firefox and fixed the errors. What do you think? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Geraldk 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

note:User:Geraldk has now promoted the article.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Johannes Rebmann/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to further expand the lead to better summarize the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johannes Rebmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218001319/http://othes.univie.ac.at/404/1/02-13-2008_9125172.pdf to http://othes.univie.ac.at/404/1/02-13-2008_9125172.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

Am I alone in thinking that this article, which is mostly devoted to Rebmann's achievements as an explorer, is unbalanced? The major part of Rebmann's 30 years in Kenya was his work on languages and his compiling of three dictionaries. But anyone reading this article would think that his major focus was on exploration in the manner of Burton or Stanley. Kanjuzi (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead too long?

The lead to this article, which should be a mere summary, seems to go into too much detail. In addition, nothing is said of his linguistic work (I have now added a sentence about that). Perhaps some of the detail about the reaction to his discovery of Mt Kilimanjaro could be moved to further down the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)