Content deleted Content added
Line 1: {{Talk header}} {{GA|09:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)|topic=World history|page=2}} {{GAR request}} {{Copied|from=Rommel myth|from_oldid=717174441|to=Erwin Rommel|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erwin_Rommel&type=revision&diff=717176554&oldid=717173375}} {{WikiProject banner shell|1= Line 371 ⟶ 372: :I've just removed the extensive tagging at the top of the article - such blanket tagging should be avoided in any article, and this is especially the case for those assessed as GA. As the substantive proposal is to merge the article, I've left that tag in place. Regarding the comments above, a wide number of sources do in fact analyse Rommel's reputation and how this has changed over time, so the article seems viable. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC) ::I wouldn't use the term "blanket," I've demonstrated each item of concern on the talk page and requested input here and at MILHIST before making any substantial changes. Still, since there's concern it's overkill, I've trimmed the number of tags and reapplied a more judicious number of them. I've been gone a long time so I may be missing something but, as far as I'm aware, GA status doesn't preclude article tagging in any way shape or form. GA status doesn't confer any real enduring community consensus of anything or provide any form of edit protection, it just means it's been reviewed by at by one additional editor. It's not a shield to criticism or reexamination. Our guides on tags are unambiguous in their support of retaining tags placed in good faith until the issues in those tags are addressed and an enduring consensus has been formed. If you are aware of any policy relating to GA status and tagging that I'm missing please let me know. As for sources treating Rommel's reputation, you're absolutely right, something which I tried to make clear that I was aware of in my initial post. That is not the concern, not at all; it's a important component of his biography. The issue is that of content forking, original research, weight, improper use of references, tone, POV, and the introduction of a neologism in the form of advocacy. There is no recognized independent scholarly subject of "The Rommel Myth," it is entirely the synthesis of editors here. This article is pretty, but it's not in compliance with our standards. [[User:LargelyRecyclable|LargelyRecyclable]] ([[User talk:LargelyRecyclable|talk]]) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC) | |||