Talk:Claude J. Crenshaw

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Claude J. Crenshaw shot down four enemy aircraft in a mission with only three of the six guns in his P-51 Mustang working, during World War II? Source: Fighter Bases of WW II US 8th Army Air Force Fighter Command USAAF, 1943–45 P-38 Lightning, P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang Squadrons in East Anglia, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire
  • ALT1: ... that with only three of the six guns in his P-51 Mustang working during a dogfight, Claude J. Crenshaw managed to shoot down four enemy aircraft? Source: Fighter Bases of WW II US 8th Army Air Force Fighter Command USAAF, 1943–45 P-38 Lightning, P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51 Mustang Squadrons in East Anglia, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Takahiro Nishikawa

Created by Toadboy123 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Claude J. Crenshaw; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

•  Reviewing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• The article is new enough and long enough. Everything looks referenced. QPQ is done.
• The source confirms everything except that the plane has six guns, but I was able to confirm that separately.
• Earwig turns up a concerning amount of similar text from Veteran Tributes (which doesn't look like a reliable source)
• The article does not need the long paragraph at the bottom quoting his award. If there's relevant information there, it should be summarized in the article with everything else. Otherwise it should be removed.
• Personally, I would prefer if there wasn't a section with only a single sentence. It makes it look incomplete.
• I prefer ALT1, as ALT0 is wordy and difficult to parse. I'd like the hook even better if it said "only half of his guns worked" or "half of his guns did not work" or something to that effect rather than providing exact numbers. But that's just my personal preference.
• There are some issues to be addressed before this can be approved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Thebiguglyalien: Regarding Veteran Tributes reliability, it seems to be well-researched in the bios of military personnel and does not seem to have an issues regarding its reliability. Other than that, should I remove the DSC citation at the bottom of the awards section? -Toadboy123 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    • At the very least, there shouldn't be a loose paragraph at the end of the article like that. But that's hardly the most significant problem here. The possible plagiarism issues need to be addressed, and Veteran Tributes has yet to be confirmed as a reliable source. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like a personal website. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
      • @Thebiguglyalien: For most of my articles which was in DYK, I had used Veteran Tributes as a source. I strongly feel that it has no reliability issues and if so, then it's up to the users to reach a consensus on if it is so. Regarding plagiarism, please elucidate on which aspects of the article have that issue. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
        • That is not how we evaluate sources on Wikipedia. Reliability has to be proven, not the other way around. Who wrote it? Who published it? Is there an editorial team? Is it cited by other reliable sources? As for the plagiarism, the Earwig results shows that parts from the first few sentences of the Veteran Tributes source were copied directly into the article. It's still plagiarism if a few words are added or shifted around. WP:CLOP has further information on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
          • @Thebiguglyalien: The site has been used in some articles regarding American military personnel and according to the site, its bio about military personnel are created through emails containing their biography which are sent by the military personnel's family members or someone with their information to the webmaster 1. If you have doubts regarding its reliability, I will remove parts which cite it as source or try to find alternative reliable sources for the information. Regarding plagiarism, I made edits to reduce the percentage of it in the article. - Toadboy123 (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
            • A source based on user-generated input is pretty much automatically unreliable. A source maintained by one guy who isn't an established expert in the subject area is also pretty much automatically unreliable. So unless this guy is a published military historian, it's going to need to be replaced. The close paraphrasing looks good now, so the source is all that should be left. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
            • In the meantime, given the use of the source in other articles, I've opened a discussion at WP:RS/N to see whether my evaluation of the source is correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
              • @Thebiguglyalien: Could you confirm the status of the hook? Should I make any updates regarding the source? Toadboy123 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
                • Toadboy123 The RSN discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Veteran Tributes, and other editors agreed that it's unreliable. I don't feel comfortable accepting a DYK nom when much of the article is attributed to an unreliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
                  • @Thebiguglyalien: I have edited the article to remove the source and information associated with the source accordingly. Confirm if hook is good to go now? Toadboy123 (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
                    • Toadboy123 You've added Together We Served as a source. At the bottom of the page, it says that its sources include Find a Grave and Veteran Tributes. Random websites found online are rarely acceptable sources. If it is not written by an accredited subject matter expert or published by a reputable institution, it should not be used as a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
                      • @Thebiguglyalien: I have edited the article to remove Together We Served as a source and removed information reflecting the source. Confirm if now its good. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
                        • All sources now appear to be reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)