Talk:Ronald Smelser

Links

• Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and its Aftermath
• Marching into darkness
• Sudeten Germans

Query regarding notability

Is this person notable per WP:NACADEMIC? Perhaps someone could point to which of the criteria they meet? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, why does he have to? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Because we don't have articles on just anyone. We have notability criteria to decide who we have an article on, and NACADEMIC is the one we use for academics. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

but he meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG so whether or not he meets another sng is a moot point. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On what basis does he meet AUTHOR? Virtually everything about him relates to one book, so I'm not sure he himself meets the significant coverage in reliable sources part of GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

which is covered by point 3 of author("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."), reviews of other of his works are also available online including The Nazi Elite, and Lessons and Legacies volV The Holocaust and Justice (www.ejil.org/pdfs/15/5/386.pdf). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

But is that book a significant or well-known work? I'm not seeing the coverage of the man himself for GNG, so we're relying on a SNG here. I just want to be clear what the claim of notability is actually based on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

common outcomes notes that "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." and WorldCat shows The Myth as being held in around 400 libraries which is pretty good for this type of work; you can always test it at afd and see what happens. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Academics are notable for their academic work, not for their personal lives., just as painters for their paintings, or politicians for their political roles. People who are interested in them want to know what they did; their personalities are secondary in most cases (cf. WP:EINSTEIN) You're confusing them with pop stars, who are known as much for their personal lives as for what the pretend to perform. or society celebrities, who are known only for their personal lives. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're paying attention. I'm making reference to the SNG for academics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ronald Smelser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is possible that I have the wrong end of the stick, but the details I can find on Folly's 2010 article in History are slightly different from those you give.

You're probably right; I'm seeing "volume 95, issue 320" here: [1], so I changed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• A minor point, "the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht": the MoS suggests avoiding slashes. Would it be possible to reword to avoid this?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "contains biographical sketches of the thirty leading members of the SS". Did you mean to include "the", or would the phrase be more accurate without it?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Smelser established the annual Holocaust "Days of Remembrance" programming at the University of Utah". 'Programme'?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Optional point. "high school aged children". I consider myself an educated person but I honestly don't know what age range this is. (And I used to work in education.) I realise that Smelser was probably aiming at an American audience, but it may be useful to rephrase, or bracket an explanation, to make the meaning more accessible.

Changed to "teenagers" for clarity. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "explaining their impact on the popular culture." Is "the" necessary?

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "The Foreign Affairs magazine called the book" Again I don't think that a definite article is necessary.(The one introducing the sentence.)

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Minor point. "from the popular history writers and the World War II enthusiasts." Again, IMO, the article would be the better for losing the two definite articles.

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A fine article. Really good work. Nice to see these sort of "back room workers" getting the credit they deserve. (Especially stalwarts like Smelser; but that's POV.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. A fine article there. Good to see. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

"good article"

Not only is this article being listed as good a complete joke but I am 90% sure this coffman character is either smelser or related in some way to him

What a guy

This man now appears in half of the nazi related articles on wikipedia, thanks to the excellent k.e.coffman, he's almost a christ like figure. How is it I never heard of him, he should be the most celebrated historian alive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scznc (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)