There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.
Raise issues at article Talk:
In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
Featured article review (FAR)
In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.
Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.
Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.
For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.
Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.
Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
Place ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.
The article was promoted to FA status in 2008; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship and utilises sources that are not independent of the subject, dated, and / or questionable. Specifically, it relies heavily on:
Speer 1970, 1976, & 1981 (28 citations), and
Fest 1999 (55 citations)
It largely ignores a full-length biography by Martin Kitchen published in 2015, after the article had been promoted. FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. The FA criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...; and (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. Here are comments on Speers memoirs, as well as on Fest. I'm borrowing in part from Assayer's analysis posted on the TP here:
From a review of Germany and the Second World War: "In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role."
From de:Magnus Brechtken: Speer's image was shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny. (...) Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography."
From Martin Kitchen: Fest's biography of 1999 is "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. (...) Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways, they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing."
^de:Magnus Brechtken: Persuasive illusions of the Self: Albert Speer’s Life Writing and Public Discourse about Germany’s Nazi past, in: Birgit Dahlke (ed.): German Life Writing in the Twentieth Century, London: Camden House 2010, pp. 73-4, 85.
In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's account. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article; it does not meet the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Here a sampling of prior discussions:
Parts of the article reproduce the Speer myth and it is thus non-neutral. I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to remove Speer's self-serving POV. However, some of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and because the Talk page does not appear to be well-trafficked, I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Featured article review
I'll probably have more to say later, but these do not seem to be valid grounds, nor that this is a good use of FAR's limited resources when many old FAs have long swathes of unsourced material. If every time a new bio came out, we FAR'd an article, we'd have no FAs left. This seems to arise directly from the content dispute here. You favor Kitchens, who denigrates the author you do not like, so it goes, that's academia for you. Regarding Speer's books, many of the remaining Speer citations deal with direct quotations, statistics, Speer's youth or old age, or matters where Speer was the only surviving person in a conversation to write about it. Where I think you could be most useful with your use of Kitchens is during the WWII/Armaments Miracle section.
The bottom line is that FAR is a poor way to establish the principle you are espousing, that we should not use Speer's books at all. Remember, there was a very widely participated in FAC, and at the time, there were many more cites to Speer; the community found it met the criteria and the criteria are more or less the same today. I would suggest a RFC to try to establish the principle you seek, then try applying it to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not realise that there were so many page watchers. I transcluded the review to the talk page; hopefully, more editors will see it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Agreed that there are many in FAs in far more need of review. This article is comprehensive and well-written. There is no requirement that an article use every available source, or that it be updated whenever a new book is published. If Kitchen contained some ground-breaking research requiring a reappraisal I might be more sympathetic; but to quote a typical review:
In truth, there is not much that is genuinely new about Martin Kitchen’s Speer; he draws liberally on the work of other historians, closer to the coalface, who have published partial accounts and micro-studies. He is not even the first English-language biographer to challenge Speer’s lies; that honour fell to Dan van der Vat in 1997.
Dan van der Vat's The Good Nazi: The Life and Lies of Albert Speer (1997) is used extensively in the article. And I wouldn't have given him the honour of debunking Speer either, when there is Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (1995). Or, to go back further, Matthias Schmidt's Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (1984). All of which are used in the article. Kitchen uses the same sources as the article, so I'm doubtful that much could be garnered. Hawkeye7(discuss) 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. About 10% of the article is using a WP:Primary source. The FAC don't preclude there use, however I don't see Mein Kampf being used to source 10% of Hitler's article. Granted it is a reasonably well written article. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If this article has issues, they should be addressed by improving the article and, where appropriate, seeking consensus on the talk page. I'm worried that this may be just part of an unbalanced, ongoing campaign to discredit, downgrade or remove articles on German people connected with the Second World War. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I was about to initiate a FAR review by myself, because the article does not meet the criteria for featured articles, in fact, it never did. It is neither comprehensive, nor well-researched. During the last four decades major research has been conducted and published on Albert Speer, including Magnus Brechtken’s seminal biography Albert Speer. Eine deutsche Karriere, in 2017.(review in German) Further recent works include Isabell Trommer, Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main 2016; Sebastian Tesch, Albert Speer (1905–1981), Wien 2016; Wolfgang Schroeter, Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos, Paderborn 2019. These works, particularly Brechtken and Trommer, have conclusively shown, that the works by Joachim Fest, including his bio from 1999, and Speer’s memoirs, both of which have been extensively used in writing the article, are unreliable sources. Brechtken also takes issues with the book by Gitta Sereny, arguing that Sereny ignored much of the available scholarship, including Matthias Schmidt’s work. He concludes that the book was a psychological mosaic of quotes and memories rather than a biography and should not be confused with historical scholarship. (p. 550) Brechtken has mixed feelings towards van der Vat’s work. He praises it for its critical approach, but states that it mainly follows Schmidt’s work.
That said, it has been argued that Matthias Schmidt’s and van der Vat’s works have been used for the article. But for what? There are now two references to Schmidt’s work. The first is for the sentence: He wanted to become a mathematician, but his father said if Speer chose this occupation he would "lead a life without money, without a position and without a future". The second is for another quote: Goebbels would note in his diary in June 1943, "Speer is still tops with the Führer. He is truly a genius with organization." That's it. In other words, Schmidt’s work is merely used for quotes by Speer’s father and by Goebbels. But Schmidt’s research is mainly about Speer’s leading role in the eviction of Jewish tenants in Berlin and about Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust. The chapter "Actions towards Jews," however, is mainly based upon Fest’s biography and thus it seems that Speer was merely “aware” of the activities of his (own) Department. Susanne Willems, who has written another study about Speer’s policies (Der entsiedelte Jude. Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau, 2002, 2nd ed. 2018) argues that Speer was responsible for 90% of the deportations from Berlin.  Why is Speer quoted that Himmler tried to have him physically isolated and so forth, but Schmidt's debunking of this legend is not quoted? Van der Wat’s bio is equally exclusively used as a reference for trivial information. That Speer received a twenty years prison sentence, for example, is not the kind of information van der Vat’s work is about. So the whole chapter "Assessment" is at best a lukewarm representation of the current historical scholarship. The chapter "Imprisonment" presents a detailed account of what Speer read. His role in the Holocaust, however, is relegated to a few sentences under "legacy and controversy". That’s completely out of proportion and not comprehensive.
I could go on and on, but it would lead much too far to discuss all the myths and mystifications by Speer that are retold in the article. Just one example, sourced to van de Vat, may suffice.
"Following the publication of his bestselling books, Speer donated a considerable amount of money to Jewish charities. According to Siedler, these donations were as high as 80 percent of his royalties. Speer kept the donations anonymous, both for fear of rejection and for fear of being called a hypocrite." (van der Vat, 1997, p. 348)
Brechtken discusses “Speer and money” at length (pp. 492-506). He argues that it was part of Speer’s strategy to indicate that he would donate money to Jewish charities. In 1971 Speer told the Daily Express that he had donated 200.000 Marks. In fact, he repeatedly donated only three up to four-digit amounts, but, as Brechtken argues, by strategically presenting numbers and spreading rumors Speer effectively won writers over for himself. (pp. 501f.)
Some of the problems have been named in  It is true that Martin Kitchen did not present ground breaking new research in 2015, but he summed up German scholarship, previously overlooked in the English speaking world, and made it easily accessible to the English speakers. As my difflink clearly shows, historical scholarship had not been used for major parts of the article. The article rather fell and still falls for Speer’s tricks, lies and mystifications. Thus it is biased and not well researched. To try to improve it, would mean to completely rewrite it.
To use the bio by Martin Kitchen would certainly be a good starting point but will not suffice. One last example: Speer came up with the idea of "ruin value" while working on a Spiegel interview in October/November 1966. He reiterated it in his memoirs. It has been debunked as early as 1981 by Angelika Schönberger. (Brechtken, pp. 542-544), and there are a couple of German articles about the legend. Kitchen buys it (pp. 34-5), it is presented in the English Wikipedia as fact and there is even a whole article on it. But it is still a legend.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Over-reliance on some sources is neither here nor there; errors of fact are another matter entirely. That is of great concern. Now, you are within your right to say that you are not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. (Although personally I think you are ahead of everyone else here.) Spending a year reading through books on Speer, some of them in German, holds little appeal for me too. So what do we propose to do? As Koffman said, the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through the normal editing process. Hawkeye7(discuss) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The point is not Over-reliance on some sources [my emphasis], but heavy reliance on unreliable sources, which necessarily means over-reliance. Consequently, the article is full of distortions, mystifications and lies. These are not simply errors of fact, but willfully misleading obfuscations by Speer. Wehwalt claims, Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed. Is he? Speer is quoted at length claiming that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. Next, historian Martin Kitchen is quoted, that Speer had intimate knowledge of the Holocaust, as if KItchen was stating an opinion, while historiography has established beyond doubt that Speer did not only know of the Holocaust, but was actively involved. This is  So the problems go well beyond factual errors.
I was assuming that there would be a consensus to maintain the highest standards in terms of information. Thus, I assumed that, once the problems were named, there would be an attempt for improvement at some point, i.e., that the article would be cross checked with the most recent biography (at least that one available in English). If that would not happen, the article could not be kept on FA level. I contributed my share, but I am not an expert in architectural or economic history. So, this is where we stand now, and given some of the comments made during this review, it is about time to put the finger on the problems. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that as more than one editor feels similarly, obviously, I think I can work with that. I would like to keep this as a FA. Shall we try and see?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add the third party tag to the page. He's a very interesting character so I'd prefer this to stay at FA too. The tag may encourage editors to WP:BOLD because it needs a lot of work. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I will read through the WP:PRIMARY refs and note those that aren't being used with care. I share the grave misgivings noted above however. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ref 31: Speer surrounded the site with 130 anti-aircraft searchlights. Speer described this as his most beautiful work, and as the only one that stood the test of time.'
Ref 54, 55, 56: As the war progressed, initially to great German success, Speer continued preliminary work on the Berlin and Nürnberg plans. Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
Ref 59: On February 8, 1942, Minister of Armaments Fritz Todt died in a plane crash shortly after taking off from Hitler's eastern headquarters at Rastenburg. Speer, who had arrived in Rastenburg the previous evening, had accepted Todt's offer to fly with him to Berlin, but had cancelled some hours before takeoff (Speer stated in his memoirs that the cancellation was because of exhaustion from travel and a late-night meeting with Hitler). Later that day, Hitler appointed Speer as Todt's successor to all of his posts. In Inside the Third Reich, Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, saying that he only did so because Hitler commanded it. Speer also states that Hermann Göring raced to Hitler's headquarters on hearing of Todt's death, hoping to claim Todt's powers. Hitler instead presented Göring with the fait accompli of Speer's appointment.
Ref 69: On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there (5.7 percent of the work force died that month).
Ref 71: In January 1944, Speer fell ill with complications from an inflamed knee, necessitating a leave. According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.
Comments I agree that this is no longer of FA standard, and substantial work would be needed to restore it to this standard. The article is not neutral or accurate, as it repeats the now long-discredited "Speer myth" about his role in the war and makes little use of the current standard works. It also does not fully cover Speer's life and career. I'd suggest moving to a FARC discussion in the near future. I have the following comments
I agree that the failure to update the article after Kitchen's biography was released is a serious problem. Kitchen's work is a major reassessment of Speer's life.
The article also makes very little use of Adam Tooze's 2006 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, which is the standard work on the German war economy and has extensive (and highly critical) analysis of Speer's role and performance.
When reading this article after reading Kitchen, I was particularly struck by how little attention is given here to Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg. The use of slave labour was perhaps the single most important reason Speer was convicted, and explains why the Allies refused to release him.
It's very concerning that Speer's autobiography is regularly cited - modern historians treat this work with great scepticism (Kitchen argues that Speer deliberately falsified key elements of it, for instance), so I don't think it's a RS. From some spot checks, some of the statements cited to the book are highly dubious - for instance:
"During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions." - an autobiography cannot possibly support such a statement about its subject, and Kitchen and other historians argue that Speer actually dodged responsibility for many of his actions and those of the regime, most notably in regards to the Holocaust.
The account of Speer's appointment to armaments minister is cited only to the autobiography. This is totally inappropriate. Kitchen and several other historians provide somewhat different accounts, with Kitchen expressing doubts over the accuracy of Speer's accounts and suggesting that Todt may have been murdered.
The first para of the "Consolidation of arms production" section is referenced only to this work, and presents only Speer's account of the power struggle which occurred when he fell ill in early 1944. Speer argues that his weak position was due to him being sick and receiving bad medical care but, from memory, Kitchen also argues that it was due to Speer's incompetence as a manager.
"Speer stated he was apolitical when he was a young man, and he attended a Berlin Nazi rally in December 1930 only at the urging of some of his students" - why is only Speer's claims being presented here? Kitchen argues that he was fairly (though not strongly) political in his youth. A central theme of Kitchen's work is that Speer's post-war claims to have been a technocrat rather than a committed Nazi were falsifications. Other historians have reached the same conclusion.
The para starting with "Speer placed his department at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." is wrong-headed. It suggests that Speer was selflessly offering his department for the war effort, despite Hitler trying to stop him. In reality, Speer was a very active participant in the bureaucratic empire-building and duplication which was a key feature of the Nazi regime. Like the other senior Nazis, he ended up with a sprawling and utterly incoherent range of functions, which he was ultimately unable to manage.
"Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe" - he also oversaw the construction of some of the facilities used in the Holocaust, but this isn't mentioned here. When it is mentioned, it's under a claim that Kitchen only "indicates" this - from memory, he explicitly states this at multiple points in the book. Given Speer's sprawling responsibilities, it's entirely credible.
The account of the improvement in armaments production repeats the "Speer myth" of him having revolutionised the war economy. Tooze utterly demolished this myth in his book, demonstrating that Speer inherited a rapidly improving armaments industry and then falsified figures to exaggerate the scale of the further improvements. Kitchen confirms this, and also states that Speer emphasised the production of obsolete weapons to keep production numbers up despite these weapons often being useless. Both Tooze and Kitchen argue that Speer was competent during this period, and helped guide further improvements, but that the expansion in output was not due to him.
The positive account of the system of central management and committees Speer instituted in the para starting with "Speer overcame these difficulties by centralizing power" was also demolished by Kitchen, who demonstrates that Speer's ministry was actually quite weak, and the vast numbers of committees which ended up being established were unworkable.
"Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing more slave labour from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods" - this implies that Speer was opposed to the use of slave labour. Quite the opposite was the case - while he was not as an enthusiastic a slave lord as some of the other Nazis (for instance, he intervened to have some war production take place in France rather than enslave the French civilians needed for these factories), he was a central figure in this vast crime.
"On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there " - Kitchen demonstrates that he was not actually shocked, and did nothing substantial to improve conditions.
"By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany" - this is incorrect. The Allies gained air superiority over Germany in early 1944.
"However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer was able to overcome bombing losses" - also false. Tooze and other historians have demonstrated that the Allied bombing substancially suppressed German war production (e.g., that it would have been much higher if the bombing had not taken place). This claim is a central element of the "Speer myth".
"production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months" - not sure that the scale of this improvement is correct, but both Tooze and Kitchen demonstrate that the "improvement" to the speed of submarine construction was largely a statistical mirage - Speer had submarine production moved to facilities which had no idea how to build submarines, and the completed boats were often unseaworthy, with many never entering service or being rapidly destroyed when they did. Speer was also a key player in the fiasco that was the development of next-generation submarines, by pushing an immature design into mass production in inexperienced facilities: almost none of the hundreds of these submarines entered service. The story of German submarine production is actually one of failure.
"with allied bombing destroying just 9% of German production" - 9% of economic production being destroyed in a month is actually rather a lot. More importantly, the Allied bombing in 1944 crippled the German oil and transportation industries, which crippled the rest of the war effort soon afterwards.
" Production of German fighter aircraft was more than doubled from 1943 to 1944" - also part of the Speer myth. Multiple historians note that Germany emphasised quantity over quality during this period, and this had disastrous results - the huge number of aircraft which were produced were largely obsolete, and were slaughtered by Allies (which were turning out even larger numbers of better aircraft). The scale of the production also came at the cost of the production of spare parts, which meant that the Luftwaffe had a low serviceability rate.
"The task force oversaw the day-to-day development and production activities relating to the He 162, the Volksjäger ("people's fighter"), as part of the Emergency Fighter Program" - this project was a fiasco, but this is not noted
More generally, there seems to be much too much emphasis on the production of aircraft. Other elements of the war economy performed even worse, with Kitchen arguing that Speer never paid enough attention to the production of ammunition (leading to frequent shortages).
The article repeats Speer's account of his efforts in stopping the "Nero decree". This is also part of the "Speer myth", and Kitchen demolishes it by demonstrating that Hitler soon rescinded this directive, and it was largely ignored by local commanders anyway (modern historians tend to stress the collapse of central command and control in Germany in 1945, with experts such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans arguing that Hitler was largely irrelevant by the end of the war)
"Eventually, 75,000 Jews were displaced by these measures" - they were then sent to concentration camps, something not noted. Kitchen argues that Speer was aware of this.
"Much of the controversy over Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust has centered on his presence at the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943" - Kitchen takes a different approach, and demonstrates that Speer was both aware of and actively involved in the Holocaust from an early stage. Kitchen dedicates relatively little attention to Posen as a result.
"The debate over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust" - I don't think that there has been a "debate" over this. Rather, the claims Speer made were initially believed, but were demonstrated to be false. I don't think that any historians argue that Speer was not aware of and involved in the Holocaust, though they do differ over the timing and extent of this.
The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
There's nothing on Speer's private life. Kitchen covers this usefully, demonstrating that he pretty much deliberately alienated his wife and children. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have used that language in my work on the WWII section. I've also gotten hold of a copy of Tooze though I have not yet looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I may as well get this show on the road so I've downloaded the e-book of Kitchen and will be reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment much of Kitchen's work is available as a free preview on Amazon UK. It is rare for a new bio on an old subject to add much, but this one does. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I added a little on his joining the party. I'm not a FA writer so it could probably do with some copyedit.Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I made some deletions today and took out what I think is POV, fabrications or undue weight content. There are several paragraphs I can see which need reworking, they just can't be deleted because there is too much content and it would unduly affect the readability of the article. They will have to be looked at later, perhaps by someone else. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I'm going to remove the third party tag, many of the refs have been updated so it is no longer valid. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, yes. I've removed the last of the Speer sources, we no longer use any of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop misquoting sources
Certain members have been quoting the book "Speer: Hitler's Architect
By Martin Kitchen" as proof of some conspiracy, but not listed pages or proof from the book. After reading the book I have found that it says almost none of the things being claimed in this article. In fact, it portrays Speer as someone who routinely fought with other leaders in order to protect slaves and to avoid killings.
Unless someone can provide actual sources I will remove these claims. Provide actual page numbers and details. Just naming the book is not acceptable.
DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Kitchen uses the exact words "By the time that Sereny and Fest had published their biographies of Speer, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, historians had provided ample evidence that Speer had lied through his teeth". It is on p.361. Maybe it would be better to attribute that statement to him rather than deleting it altogether as you have done.
Kitchen uses the words "It was not until the journalist Heinrich Breloer presented his biographical film on TV in 2004 that the process of public demystification began." I don't really understand why you've added the "examples" tag because the reference uses the word "demystification" and discusses the topic.
You added a "who" inline tag after the statement the myth has been discussed at length by historians. The section uses Kitchen, Schmidt and Tooze so that can be attributed to them too.
You added an "example needed" tag after the statement Speer lied to Fest. It needs a reference to Kitchen for page 360. He uses these exact words "Fest failed to mention Schmidt’s startling revelations in his biography of Speer published in 1999, in his notebook he wrote that while Schmidt’s book was ‘prejudiced,’ the evidence he produced was ‘considerable’. It showed that Speer had kept secrets from him and Siedler."
As the content I added was a first "draft" I really have no problem with additions, deletions or changes. However I'm not convinced your tags and deletions are improving matters. Szzuk (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I have copied this recent discussion from the talk page because it pertains to the FAR. I added content and changed the section heading to The "Speer Myth" a few days ago. Szzuk (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This characterisation of Kitchen is not the slightest bit correct. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a single one of the claims posted above actually have examples or proof or documentation of his assumptions. These kinds of claims must have sources, yet it seems the only sources are his opinions. This does not meet wikipedia standards.
Kitchen provides no actual examples and just states these things as if they are fact. For instance, how could he have know what Speer was thinking? There is no way, and yet he believes he can read Speer's mind. His mind reading abilities are not an acceptable source.
It is completely clear that his assumptions do not meet wikipedia standards, as he provides no evidence whatsoever except his own opinion, and does not name a single source for his information. Even his examples he simply lists events and then makes statements of those events with no actual evidence or documentation to back his claims.
For instance, his war production claims blatantly disagree with all other available sources. If he cannot even agree with very well accepted production numbers then everything he states is in question. Especially since he cannot provide any actual examples to prove his claims.
DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No, we're not going to dismiss a very well reviewed book written by an academic historian who specialises in the World War II era and was published by Yale University Press. You appear to have missed the 49 pages of citations at the end of the book in your haste to dismiss it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Its not well reviewed at all. Its one of the worst written books Ive ever read. It reads like an opinion piece from a tabloid. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards.
The book is filled with overdramatic statements that are physically impossible to even know. It repeatedly claims to know the mental state of not just Speer, but everyone around him, and even strangers. It rarely sticks to facts and relies instead on his personal opinion.
He often makes claims such as "Speer's Audience was obviously bored by his low key delivery" and "Speer then played his Trump card by mentioning "vengeance weapons" that would soon turn the tide", or "the men at the front knew this was untrue". The men at the front didnt even know the conversation was even taking place. They arent mind readers, unlike the author. Or at least his claims. It is completely clear from his writing style that he is exaggerating everything he says for dramatic effect, and that THEY ARE HIS PERSONAL OPINION. 174
Literally everything in the book is overdramatized and unprofessional. Not a single page does not have some dramatic overstatement. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards.
DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Unless you can find others that agree with you then the changes you want to happen won't. Szzuk (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I've re-read all of the comments above and everything has been covered apart from the things noted below. I don't think there is much to add, a few sentences dotted around. The only other things to do are polish and copyedit unless more changes are specifically requested. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
There's nothing on Speer's private life.
Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
I can add stuff on most of that over the next few days, though I'd like clarification on when private life, that is, are we talking post-Spandau? Or about his basically unhappy marriage? But first I'd also like to hear from everyone, how they feel with respect to answering the concerns that prompted this FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding private life, I'd suggest covering his unhappy family life - his marriage before and after prison and Speer's relationship with his children. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the gaps identified above (use of slave labour; Speer's enriching himself during the Nazi era). I would add that Speer's activities as the head of Organisation Todt are not covered; in fact, Organisation Todt is not mentioned in prose at all. Also, since the article has been largely rewritten, the lead needs to follow suit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to get a response to what Szzuk and I were talking about, since you initiated the FAR. I'd like to get a sense of what is needed to close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
If I were reviewing the article for GA, I would be close to passing it (with the lead re-write, which I assume is coming). Checks for close paraphrasing should probably also happen. I generally don't participate in FA reviews, so I'm not as familiar with the FA procedures, MOS requirements, etc. I would like to hear from others as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I will do the lead rewrite over the next few days. I'm not bothered if someone else does it. If it were done quickly an un-involved editor might hop in unexpectedly or I might err too much. I'd be happy to leave close paraphrasing checks to Wehwalt. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see if there would be consensus to close the FAR if we do these things, as set forth in the FAR procedures. The goal of such a review of this is, if possible, to maintain the article as a FA. I am simply enquiring as to procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Since you indicated your view it did not meet the criteria, I do not see any reason you cannot opine on that further, if your concerns as to the criteria have been addressed, or would be by the proposed work.==Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I"d also like to, if possible, hear from Assayer as well. I'm trying to see if we have broad agreement where we are so we may move to consensus as to what remains to be done. Szzuk, myself and others have done considerable work on the article and I'd like to see if it made a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My understanding of the general rule of thumb is that every issue brought here should be addressed. So everything mentioned (even inadvertently) should be done. This gives editors the opportunity to change the goalposts and forever find new things that need to be done. Szzuk (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I see what you mean. My npov & sourcing concerns have been largely addressed by the recent rewrites. The comprehensiveness concerns can be addressed by adding content identified in the bullets above by Szzuk. With these items addressed, I would not object to closing the FAR at this stage, with the FA status retained. But it seems that other participants need to weigh in as well, so it's not completely up to me as the FAR nom. That's in part why I inquired at the FAR talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. I'm hoping to finish the additions in the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
There's nothing on Speer's private life.
Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
Mention Operation Todt
Copyedit and paraphrase spot checks
Continued discussion (2)
I updated the lead and made a to do list above. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I note another user has copyedited the lead and this version was reverted to my original. I prefer the copyedited revision and will put it back in place. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I plan to do the remainder as soon as possible but I've been under the weather. Someone else should do the close paraphrasing since I've added things though I would be happy to do that for others--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am happy for you to look for close paraphrasing in my additions, and I will reciprocate for your additons. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It isn't practical to go through all of your additions because there are so many. However I spot checked half a dozen and there is none. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
That's about what would be expected at FAC, at most.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. On his anti-semitism, neither Kitchen, Tooze or Schmidt have direct quotes or specific writings from Speer that I have seen. We are left to understand his anti-semitism from his actions. I think the article reflects this. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Comparing the article history before the FAR and now I estimate 35% of the article has been updated. I can't see much of anything left to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if people would look it over and also take out any remaining prose issues. In the absence of specific requests, I think we're done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The concerns that have prompted this FAR have been largely addressed. It would be fine with me to close at this stage, retaining the FA rating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections against a source in German, I would use the bio by Brechtken to add his perspective.--Assayer (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the bio available in English? Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it is not. It is a 900+ pages long biography published in June 2017 by Siedler publishing house.--Assayer (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've translated some of the newspaper reviews. It appears he follows on from Kitchen and pretty much says Speer was a fabulist and that Fest and Siedler were co-fabulists. I think the bare minimum is to mention the bio and the fabulist angle. I could probably patch something together but it is a far from ideal to use translated newspaper reviews for this purpose. I would obviously have no issue with the book being used for sourcing of other material but...we'd need someone on en.wiki being able to speak German, having an interest in the subject, access to the book, spare time and the skill to write FA material. It is possibly setting the bar too high. Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, Brechtken is quite picky about Kitchen and offers some cutting remarks, namely that Kitchen did not research central documents in the archives and mainly summarized already well known arguments. He even thinks that the title Hitler's architect is misleading and downplaying Speer's role in Nazi Germany. Siedler has been Wolf Jobst Siedler's publishing house. Nowadays it is part of Random House. Its current CEO, Thomas Rathnow, who previously directed the publishing program of Siedler publishing house, liked the idea to publish a book critical of Wolf Jobst Siedler, and Thomas Karlauf, who had co-authored political memoirs for Siedler publishing house in the 1980ies, served as a literary agent for Brechtken. --Assayer (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand now. I wrote a big chunk of the speer myth section so I may aswell ask you if you can assist with quotes from Brechten and page numbers. You could copy and paste from a pdf the odd paragraph and drop it into the talk page associated with this archive page and I will sort through it, if you prefer. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I had a problem defining the "speer myth" - I had to rely upon Tooze's concept when I'd have preferred something more global
are there any quotes along the lines of "fabulist" that succinctly describe his extensive lying, relying solely on Kitchen for that is POV
I'd like a simple refutation of speer as the "good nazi", Kitchen has a whole chapter called the "good nazi" but doesn't summarise well
There are more recent monographs explicitly on the "Speer myth" by Isabell Trommer and Wolfgang Schroeter, both PhD. theses (I mentioned them elsewhere). From my reading Brechtken is more critical than Kitchen and goes at great lengths to demonstrate Speer's lying. In fact, recent German scholarship has been very critical of Speer and his biographers (Fest, Sereny). It is Kitchen's acchievement to make those findings more easily available to the English speaking world.--Assayer (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw a book by Trommer a while ago, but as it is in German I couldn't assess it. As a featured article pretty much every sentence has to be sourced directly to a book with page number or reputable website. I'd be more or less aware of much that is written in Brechtken, but I can't just go and write it into the article because someone will say what I've written is WP:OR. And perhaps without the source I might accidentally cross into OR. Is there a German wiki project we could ask? I'm not sure how to proceed with the language barrier. Or do you know where I could get hold of the Trommer/Schroeter theses? Szzuk (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ Probably English language sources, academic book reviews and so forth, would be acceptable, if they are out there. While these theses sound useful, they do not sound game changing in the way Kitchen is.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Bretchken's book was released in 2017, Trommer's in 2016, Schroeter's in 2018. Kitchen in 2015 does predate them. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I think they should be added through normal editing, as they become available, and need not be through a FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think we should add un-sourced or poorly sourced material - even though I'd agree with most of it. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Largely agree. I have some ideas for further development (outside this FAR), which I will post to the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
To do list (2)
Based upon the above conversation we are still too uncritical of Speer. What other instances of speer lying do we need? Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
defining the "speer myth" - preferred something more global
succinctly describe his extensive lying
a refutation of speer as the "good nazi"
mention the money myth, i.e. he was poor when the opposite is true
Comment: key portions of the article have been rewritten since the FAR opened and I'm confident that further edits can be accomplished through normal editing. I believe that the FAR can be closed. Thank you to the participants for a collegial discussion and constructive editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I have updated the speer myth section to complete the to do list. I've struck the money myth, someone else can unstrike and add that if they wish. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: Looks like we're getting close to closing this, but I'd appreciate if someone could do some reference cleanup first - lots of harv errors and general inconsistencies at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I've checked all of the references and cleaned where necessary. Some of it was accumulated leftovers, some needed moving. All of the remaining references and external links are usable and useful. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are still 10 harv ref or citeref errors. Georgia (Talk) 21:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Nikki: I think that's fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Minor notes. A whole lot of the page ranges in citations use hyphens rather than endashes. Please do a check for the overuse of however. Could "note a" not be cited? Could some of the images be removed? The images overwhelm the text, and text is sandwiched between images in multiple points.
It is so nice to see FAR working to save featured articles ! Georgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
This is incorrect punctuation; perhaps a check throughout is needed:
The armaments miracle was a myth, Speer had used statistical manipulation to support his claims. Georgia (Talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't "headquarter" a verb?
and Wilhelmstraße as a headquarter for the SA, Georgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I started at the bottom and just did a very few, random checks, but this list indicates a thorough going-over might help. This, for example, indicates a copyedit, or independent set of eyes, could help:
Speer denied he knew they were going to their death and claimed that those displaced where "Completely free and their families were still in their apartments".
A lot of single pages are labelled as "pp." in the cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fixed. Also found a few with the opposite fault, also fixed. I've standardized the multiple page number formatting as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I've reduced the picture count and deleted note (a) as it no longer had any context in the article. I think we're waiting on a copyedit for grammar/punctuation and someone to sort out the hashes/hyphens (That isn't something I can do). Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work. Isn't there a script for fixing hyphens?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I put the text into microsoft word and did a find and replace, it was a lot easier than i'd imagined. The article has been switched to en-dash only and the hyphens in the cites are now en dash. I also fixed a few others so as far as I know the hyphen issue is done. Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Good thought, that was basically how I did the p vs pp thing, though I went through manually. A copyedit is always useful but I'd question whether that really needs to be done prior to closure because is there really much chance of demotion now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this could close. A user above has requested an independent copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. I note K.e.coffman has requested a copyedit from the guild of copyeditors who will adjust grammar/punctuation, howevers etc. It could be several weeks before that happens and I can't see anything else to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. @Wehwalt. Do you have any plans to send this to WP:TFA? I note you are a coordinator there. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Not of my own initiative, but if someone nominates it for a date once it's clear of FAR, I imagine it would run.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I copyedited the article. I found a program which greatly automated the process. Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Szzuk, concerned that this (which I noted above) is still present:
... claimed that those displaced where "Completely free and their ...
so it's not so much that a copyedit is needed, but that someone just needs to read through the entire article with a fresh set of eyes. I think most of my quibbles are addressed, except that someone unfortunately altered the page ranges in the wrong direction. (Where the article earlier had, for example, 324–26, it now has 324–326. This is not a big deal, just unfortunate that what was there before was better and the page ranges were unnecessarily changed, but at least they're consistent.)
My policy is to not enter a declaration on articles I promoted, so I am unwatching now, quibbles addressed, but do suggest a read-through to pick up minor issues like the typo above. Happy to once again see FAR saving stars! Georgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment The work put into re-writing this article is very impressive, and it now reflects the tone of the modern literature concerning Speer. I don't think that the balance is right though in the "Minister of Armaments" section though - there's too much emphasis on aircraft production, and no discussion of the collapse of the war economy and the decline in Speer's powers over 1944. The article seems to no longer note that Speer was on medical leave for a month or so during a key period or the impact of Allied bombing, for instance. Speer's key role in the fiasco that was the production of a new generation of submarines (which was a major effort whose total failure crippled the Navy) could be noted. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I was aware of this so I will try to add material. I'm not sure who deleted mention of his illness. Perhaps it was me because I can remember reading coverage in the article and the importance wasn't apparent. My interest is more in the myth and the Holocaust, the politics leaves me cold but the weaponry can be interesting. So it will be a lot slower. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I will try to get to it but given the review commitment's I've made it may take a few days. Is there any particular source that would be best for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added a para covering both Speer's expansion of powers and the submarine building fiasco. Kitchen is probably the best source on Speer's illness and subsequent loss of authority, and Tooze is good on the collapse of the economy. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I checked the diffs to see about his time in hospital. It was referenced to Speer himself so that'd be why it was deleted. Basically he said Himmler tried to kill him. Kitchen buys it but I don't want to. It just looks myth-like. I wouldn't object to someone else adding it if they want, because it is interesting. It is possible he was in hospital at another time and I've misunderstood the timescale.Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It was me who removed the 1944 illness when I was culling the Speer POV from the article: . I will have a look in Kitchen. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I've now added the material in question: . --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I added some material on the rocket program but it doesn't seem to fit in the section properly. Maybe the sections need renaming? Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I've re-worked the material on the war's final months, and added material covering both Speer's opposition to the 20 July plot and his false post-war claims to have been sympathetic towards it. I've also trimmed the material on aircraft production from 1944, but it's still too long and unfocused: it would probably work best as about 2 paras focused on Speer's role, especially in regards to the expansion of powers and his role in the extensive use of slave labour and the brutal working conditions. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you are right about the length of aircraft mention, 2 paragraphs is fine, it would also leave room for more material to go in there. I think the rocket mention should be in there rather than the section above. I will try to pare it down if i think i can do so sensibly. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.
Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.
There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. titan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with
Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. titan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. titan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. titan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs", that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The following books are currently cited without page number:
Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M (ed.). The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN978-1-85471-648-4.
Cited with page number, but the range is too large:
Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth (eds.). Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN978-0-253-35087-9.
Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth (eds.). Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary line break
I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all
An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict." – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying take it all out apart from the first sentence, I agree and have done so. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. titan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? titan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of synonyms that aren't discussed, for example Stygivenator, though some are discussed under classification, it might be better under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are omissions like you say then perhaps those should be included. I'm doubtful I would have the competence to add this content myself, it is just too far out of my experience. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
On the history section. I've just been reading through it and noting the earlier comment (that it looks like info is missing) I think it should be re-worked. I removed the mano section and merged it with earlier finds, then added a new section name for skeleton discovery. I'd say now the specimens section name should be changed so the timeline flows. Doing that would mean we're missing 1960s to 1990s (as there were no discoveries 1910 to 1960 or thereabouts). Did anything big happen in those decades? What exactly is missing? And what could the the notable specimens section be called to cover the time period 1990 to modern day? Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. titan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems this could be wrapped up? Not sure we really need that maintenance tag under description. And not sure if the recent image placement rejig was really an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy for this to be wrapped up. I don't think there would be m(any) votes to demote this if it went to FARC. I'm not convinced we need the tag under description either. I've looked for better pictures on commons, the article deserves some knockout pictures. Sadly we just don't have them available. I've no opinion on their placement. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
In some pretty significant news, the "Scotty" specimen has now been described, which should give us something to expand the description section with (perhaps LittleJerry wants to have a look). The big deal here is that it is apparently the most massive Tyrannosaurus (or even theropod?) specimen known... FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3. --> still no specific page cited. In addition, the description part has a maintenance tag and it remains to be solved. Mimihitam (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)