Talk:Gustav Gerneth/@comment-33034960-20180212004325

Is it really necessary to emphasize the fact that his age is not (yet) validated/verified for almost every record in the first part of the article ("If verified, he would also be /.../ " If validated, he would be" etc).

Is it not enough that it is written in the first sentence of the article, that he is an "unvalidated supercentenarian"?

First of all, such pedantry makes the article really exhausting and stylistically boring for the reader. Secondly, if we enforce these criteria, they must be applied to all unvalidated (super)centenarians in all articles on Gerontology Wiki.