Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Martin Luther/1

Martin Luther

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

Result: Delist This has been open long enough and even though the uncited sentences have been removed new issues have been brought up. Broadness and reference reliability concerns are probably the most pressing and will take some time to sort out. AIRcorn (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge paragraph (Starting with "According to scholars") in the "The start of the Reformation" above "Justification by faith" that attempts to discredit a bunch of commonly held ideas about the circumstances of the 95 thesis. I added in a liberal sprinkling of ^{[citation needed]} since this was a huge blob of psuedo-"facts" that hadn't been verified in any way for almost a year. This wasn't meant to be a menace, I am just trying to clarify the large number of claims in this paragraph without tag bombing it.

I find it interesting that this was listed as a featured page in October 2011 when this huge, fact-laden paragraph only has a single citation - the first sentence - and then makes many more claims with no citations to back them up. Some good soul put in a single ^{[citation needed]} dated May 2011, so I can only assume there are more facts that need to be carefully rechecked and properly cited -- or removed entirely?

I bring this up because this has been a heavily used page for the front page "on this day" feature, ten times in fact, and we are pointing to this page as a good example of what Wikipedia is, while at the same time not citing the facts. Hopefully someone can decide to remove this paragraph completely, or a student of god can go back and verify these claims?

Therefore, it fails criteria 2b - (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged

Thanks Hadlock (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley: I passed the article for GA (not, of course FA, as stated above). If the three sources at the start of the paragraph in question did not cover all the statements that follow them, further citations would be needed. Is it suggested that they do not do so? Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to check those citations when you did the review? AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have the resources to check the first three citations, although considering the layout and abundance of the other sources within the article I find it unlikely that they support the rest of the paragraph. Walter Krämer, Götz Trenkler, Gerhard Ritter and Gerhard Prause are the authors of the citations, however they are not mentioned in the rest of the paragraph, which lends more weight to the idea that these sources don't apply to remainder of the paragraph. Furthermore in the passed version a cite to this website was present near the bottom, correctly removed with this edit in June 2011. The citatinon needed tags have been requested for a while with no action being taken despite a lot of edits to the page. If someone could resolve those tags (or removes the uncited information) soon then this can be kept, otherwise it will have to be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, regretfully. If the citation needed tags are taken care of before this is closed the closer can disregard this !vote and consider me a keep. AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I have removed the contentious unsourced material and replaced it with a short summary. The source I used to cite it is a travel book, so it's not top quality, but it's better than nothing for the moment. I would strongly support a delist - it appears the sources have not been checked; the lead does not cover the article adequately per WP:Lead; the presentation isn't clear - his decision to drop law was the result of his thunderstorm experience, though this is presented in a separate paragraph; there are a number of short paragraphs giving a choppy, awkward feel; there are a number of short sections contrary to WP:Layout; the contents are unbalanced: there is a large section on antisemitism, and nothing on his legacy or significance (which is standard in encyclopaedias on Luther, given his importance), so failing 3(a) and 3(b); there are images cluttering the article, failing WP:LAYIM; captions are variable, sometimes too long, sometimes not clear enough, failing 6(b) - WP:Captions. The article needs a decent peer review, and a period of work before being nominated, and then, given the topic - its size, importance and complexity - it would benefit from an experienced reviewer prepared to track down and read sources. Fails - 1(a) and 1(b); 3(a) and 3(b); 6(b). It needs to be checked for 2(b) and 2(c), and 4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - there are a vast range of academic sources available on Luther, and I don't think the content is adequately presented or referenced. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is written from the prospective of a Catholic. Martin Luther said that we will be known by our 'good works alone' not as the article suggests. this is slanderous material that is only intended to skew history! Making it un-editable only suggests to me that those at Wikipedia are biased and have motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystals (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]