![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Much of the content was uncited ( diff); pls see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The verifiability policy states that the onus is on whoever adds or restores content to provide sources. As some of the statements in the article have been challenged, they should not be restored without a source. I'm particularly concerned about the large "Early life" section which had no sources at all — where did all this information come from in the first place? Brad v 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
I'm surprised that editor Nug is not familiar with how the refimprove template is supposed to work. To avoid "citation bombing", the template can and should be placed at the top of the article if the article is largely uncited, as was the case at the time of the content disagreement and the WP:3O request: Jan 1 version. As the article only contained one citation, the uncited material had been "challenged and removed", in accordance with existing guidelines and policies.
In any case, I see that editor Jaan has added several citations. However, this still leaves portions of the article uncided. To accommodate editor Nug's request, I re-added the cn tags within the article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the non-notable units from the infobox, as the Service/branch section within outlines Maitla's allegiance by year:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Is www.kool.ee a reliable source? The home page lists sections:
What makes this site RS for WW2 bio info? K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The article contains 3 citations to http://wehrmacht.rindeleht.ee/fotod/maitla/maitla.html. This is not a reliable source -- more of a fan page. I tagged the article accordingly. The same applies to the citation to http://www.eestileegion.com/. The source www.delfi.ee also looks suspect, appearing to be a blog.
Rather than tagging each instance of this citation, I put the tag at the top of the article. The tags applies to all instances of where the unreliable sources are used. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Two paras are cited to 1944 newspaper, which is by its nature is unreliable wartime propaganda. The source may be suitable to confirm the date of the award, but not much else, especially in Wikipedia's voice.
I tagged the article accordingly: diff. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Much of the content was uncited ( diff); pls see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The verifiability policy states that the onus is on whoever adds or restores content to provide sources. As some of the statements in the article have been challenged, they should not be restored without a source. I'm particularly concerned about the large "Early life" section which had no sources at all — where did all this information come from in the first place? Brad v 01:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
I'm surprised that editor Nug is not familiar with how the refimprove template is supposed to work. To avoid "citation bombing", the template can and should be placed at the top of the article if the article is largely uncited, as was the case at the time of the content disagreement and the WP:3O request: Jan 1 version. As the article only contained one citation, the uncited material had been "challenged and removed", in accordance with existing guidelines and policies.
In any case, I see that editor Jaan has added several citations. However, this still leaves portions of the article uncided. To accommodate editor Nug's request, I re-added the cn tags within the article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the non-notable units from the infobox, as the Service/branch section within outlines Maitla's allegiance by year:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Is www.kool.ee a reliable source? The home page lists sections:
What makes this site RS for WW2 bio info? K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The article contains 3 citations to http://wehrmacht.rindeleht.ee/fotod/maitla/maitla.html. This is not a reliable source -- more of a fan page. I tagged the article accordingly. The same applies to the citation to http://www.eestileegion.com/. The source www.delfi.ee also looks suspect, appearing to be a blog.
Rather than tagging each instance of this citation, I put the tag at the top of the article. The tags applies to all instances of where the unreliable sources are used. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Two paras are cited to 1944 newspaper, which is by its nature is unreliable wartime propaganda. The source may be suitable to confirm the date of the award, but not much else, especially in Wikipedia's voice.
I tagged the article accordingly: diff. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)