Talk:Waffen-SS in popular culture/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): {{GAList/check|y It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

My impression after the intial read through is that this is a very intelligent, well put together WP:OR essay. The few sources I was able to access do not discuss "popular culture" at all. I've asked if the Resource Exchange can help provide me with access to some of the sources. Just by looking at how the article is put together, it looks like Smelser & Davies is being used to support original conclusions drawn from a synthesis of sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• One of the sources being used is called The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach devotes a chapter to how the image of Waffen-SS has been shaped into what it's today: in both academic and popular culture. Other authors that the article quotes include discussions on the popular literature that portrays the Waffen-SS; my assumption is that "popular literature" is part of popular culture. How do you think the article can be improved to meet expectations? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a few obvious problems, firstly, the lede image of the USMC. If the sources connected this significantly to the topic—but I reviewed the CNN source and doesn't use the term "popular culture" — linking "related concepts" in an article like this is a redflag for me. USMC is also not discussed in the article, so it doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for a lede photo. As for the rest of the sources, I will have to check how they have been used more closely, so I have asked for some of the pages at the Resource Exchange to help with the review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What I would suggest after reviewing the sources is that this article be moved to Waffen SS in Literature and that the lede photo be replaced with something appropriate. As it is, I have to fail to it for OR. For example the source says "the works of Landwehr and other pro-Nazis have not achieved wide distribution or much academic acceptnace." This is pretty clear that it is not part of "pop culture." For most of the others, we have to guess because the sources are not explicit. The sources are discussing literary themes more then pop culture, so I am going to fail it, and let you decide if you want to move it and renominate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also adding that the lede would benefit from expansion before re-nomination. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are some OR concerns with this article. I've placed a tag on it so that this issue can be brought to the attention of readers and editors until it is addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)