Talk:Vito Trause/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 22:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial GA review

@Mhawk10: I will review this article. It looks like the author has done a lot of work and has cited it properly. However, please note that, this article appears to me to be about a person who is non-notable (WP:GNG). The criteria reads, "if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". I realize that the notability guidelines are subjective. Yet, it is my understanding that generals and other high-ranking officers are notable, and perhaps lower-ranking soldiers who performed a special feat (e.g. shot down 5 or more enemy planes, won the Medal of Honor) or later became mayor, senator or CEO. I read the nomination for deletion, and see that the article was not deleted (result: Speedy Keep). I plan to ask other military history editors about notability. Djmaschek (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, my rationale for the notability the person's page is WP:NBASIC, since he's been covered significantly by multiple independent RS, rather than being notable for achieving the minimum threshold of some military-specific subject notability guideline. In addition to already having been kept at AfD, the article was submitted as a draft and accepted at AfC by Theroadislong. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the status to "2ndopinion". I have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators, but so far there is no response from a WPMILHIST coordinator. Djmaschek (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this has already been kept at AfD, and the GA criteria don’t actually include a check on WP:N, what is the second opinion for? There are multiple full-length articles on the individual cited that span several decades, so I really don’t see what the holdup is here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you should complete the review. Desertarun (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for reviewer withdrawing

I've looked carefully at the criteria for a GA article and this article meets all the technical requirements. The author has made the corrections suggested by a peer review. Therefore, I cannot simply fail this article. However, I am withdrawing as reviewer for this article for the reasons listed below, which may or may not be valid under the Wikipedia rules. I'm going to follow the directions for withdrawing so that another reviewer can look at it. Djmaschek (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss notability in general. But I don't believe this individual has done anything notable enough to be included under WP Military History. (Perhaps under Culture or Politics.)
His entire war record is narrated as follows. "As a private first-class,[8][9] Trause fought in the Italian Campaign, where he served as a scout in the 168th Regiment of the 34th Infantry Division.[18][19] He was captured by the SS outside of Florence on September 24, 1944[20] and subsequently transported by boxcar[18] to Stalag VII-A, a camp for prisoners of war run by Nazi Germany, where he was held for much of the duration of the war.[7][11]" The rest of the WW2 narrative is about his POW experience. Even including his list of Service awards, there is not a lot of information for a GA class WP Military History article.
On what date did he arrive in the Italian Theater? For what actions were his 3 Bronze Stars awarded? What battles or operations did he fight in before being captured? What are the duties of a scout? Since he got a Purple Heart, how and when was he wounded? I understand that the answers to these questions may not be in the sources but they are what a reader of military history might reasonably expect in a GA class article.
A relative won the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States), but I would not dream of writing an article about him. I believe my relative's actions were heroic, but compared to an encyclopedic list of WW2 personalities, his contribution was not notable.
I believe that lower-ranking personnel sometimes deserve to be recognized. However, their contributions should be notable (as in remarkable). Examples might be Medal of Honor winners, aviators who shot down 5 or more enemy planes, or a soldier whose actions affected the course of an important battle.
A soldier who had an undistinguished military career might go on to do something remarkable in civilian life. The list of East Rutherford High School Notable alumni is a good example, except (in my opinion) for Vito Trause. The current introduction has this to say about his post-war career. "After the second world war, Trause returned to the United States, living in his hometown of Carlsdadt, New Jersey.[7][13] After moving to Clifton, New Jersey with his wife in 1952, he moved to Washington Township, Bergen County, New Jersey in 1967, where he lived the remainder of his life.[2][7]" There is nothing remarkable listed there.
I tried to get another WPMILHIST reviewer to comment and Peacemaker67 believed the article was not notable and should have been deleted. See discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Notability Question
My feeling is that, if the subject of this article is deemed appropriate for a WP Military History article, then just about anyone's dad, uncle, grandfather, or neighbor deserves his own Wikipedia article.
@Djmaschek: Thank you for writing the above and for giving an extended reason for your withdrawal. I especially appreciate the comment that you've{{tq|looked carefully at the criteria for a GA article and this article meets all the technical requirements{{. This is clearly a reason to mark the article as GA, though your comments indicate that you believe that the article would be mischaracterized within the topic area of military history owing to the individual's limited military contributions. While I've repeatedly emphasized that the individual's actions in World War II alone is not the principle reason for his notability (the diverse and in-depth media interest in the individual is), it makes it clear that there is not much of a WP:GNG dispute here—your statement that I believe that lower-ranking personnel sometimes deserve to be recognized. However, their contributions should be notable (as in remarkable) doesn't cite any existing notability guidelines because this is not how Wikipedia's notability guidelines are structured and is wholly incompatible with the notion that people who were soldiers to gain notability later in life. To the extent that the user may ask more about how he earned the particular stars and medals, the sources that provide this information tend to cite his discharge records but do not go in-depth into how each award was earned. Part of the first sentence in the article is that the individual was a community figure; he was covered as such from the 90s by a newspaper larger than Haaretz and continued to receive such coverage through the 2000s and his death in the 2010s. In the years following his death, the man still receives coverage from mainstream organizations—both for his military service and his status of being a well-known New Jersey figure. While I am disappointed here because I think the substantive reasons given for abandoning the review is not based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I respect your decision along the lines of WP:CHOICE and I'm not going to attempt to make you review a GA against your will. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's notable because he made people feel nostalgic, not because he did anything heroic. He clearly passes WP:Basic because of that nostalgia. Desertarun (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: the GA has been relisted by Djmaschek, and Wikipedia is not mandatory, so there's not really a way to compel a user to review a GA against their will. On the other hand, you or any other user are free to open a new review for the article at Vito Trause/GA2. Seeing as there are no real objections here to the technical aspect of this being a GA, I'd expect that such a review could be relatively easy. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some notes for the GAN (which i'm not doing). Desertarun (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should relist the article into the culture section of GAN - not warfare. He's notable because of his American cultural role not his American military role. If you don't do this you are likely to have another reviewer questioning the notability of the subject.
It will fail on MOS Lead, you should remove paragraph 3 of the lead and replace it with content from the article - semi-pro athlete and local war hero should be the focus of that paragraph.
Adjust the first paragraph to incorporate local war hero and semi-pro athlete, remove "well known" person.
Remove the picture of his wife, she is not notable.

@Desertarun: Thank you for the above; I'll make the changes to the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I have concerns about the rights info for the two photos of Trause. The first photo is listed as coming from the Township of Washington page, which offers no information on the origin of said. The licensing offered is for photos in the public domain because they were published before 1927. Considering that Trause is a full adult in the photo and was born in 1925, this claim is biologically impossible. The second photo of Trause with the other soldier first claims that it was taken in 1945 when the NYPOST makes no such claim, and secondly, it uses the licensing reserved for works taken by fedgov employees (including the military) when prepared as part of that person’s official duties. NYPOST makes no such claim that it is an "official" photo, and by the looks of it it might very well be one privately taken, even if during service in the army. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to the first photo, the web link is to a page that contains the file. The photograph was clearly taken and published during the war, which would require both a printed copyright notice and subsequent renewal for the image to be copyrighted today. Neither of these occurred. The second photo is labeled Vito Trause at 20 years old. A WP:Routine calculation implies that this is either in 1945 or 1946, so I have changed the caption in the article to be "circa" 1945. Much like the first photo, it is not copyrighted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]