Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2007/Failed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Ironclad warship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating this for A-class reassessment because of concerns still not addressed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1. Way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose byDelist - Gog the Mild

[edit]
Ha, no, thanks; I missed the "reassessment". I shall have a more detailed look, but it is still up for delisting unless someone has access to sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through it properly and could add quite a bit, but I see no need to - it is clearly a long way from A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

MilHistBot went through and re-assessed this as c-class last week and I am in agreement with the venerable bot. Per Gog, one need go no further than the twenty-eight(!) citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - HF

Besides the uncited text, a statement that I flagged as dubious during the 2022 FAR is still present. This needs major work. Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No longer meets A-Class criteria at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)


Current A-class assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War/Archive2.

This article was awarded A-class by a WP:MILHIST review on 28 March 2007 (see above). It went through a few GARs and was kept, but was later delisted as a GA on 28 July 2012 (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2). Despite this it looks like it kept its A class rating by default. The article would seem to fail our A class criteria on referencing alone as there are quite a few paragraphs without citations. As such I request this be reassessed / demoted. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demote as it stands on, as AC indicates, referencing alone. Formatting-wise, there's also lots of Harv errors to be tidied up. I'd love to see someone rescue the article before next year's sesquicentennial of the end of the war but it doesn't do WP any good to claim it as a MilHist A-Class article in its current state. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demote on A1, there are sections with no citations at all. Which is a shame given the importance of the topic. Agree that the number of Harv errors is very ugly, and the See also section is not MOS-compliant. I haven't checked the images, but doesn't even look B-Class in its current state. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demote: per nom and others, this doesn't meet the A-class criteria at the moment. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demote: I did some copyediting, but it really didn't make a dent. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


For your perusal. RM Gillespie 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to see a few more citations to cover a couple places that are pretty bare. Specifically, the first paragraph of "Pinball Wizards" and the first two paragraphs of "Conclusion." Other than that, it looks good. Carom 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In general well-written and well-cited, good flow. However:
  1. Needs a proofread. There are missing quotation marks, many broken citations that appear as question marks in the references section.
  2. Every book-scanned image is completely crooked. Look at the margins of the images compared to the margins of the surrounding boxes.
  3. Lacks depth. I was expecting a much more technical article with descriptions of the sensors, this is a nice overview but it left me wanting for more info. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose there are to many question marks in the reference section. When these question cites are replaed with cites that have meaningful information I will reconsider. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm gonna have to go with oppose also for alot of the reasons that Emt147 listed, specifically the depth of the article and the images included in the article. It is a well organized and well written article, however it lacks detail and depth. The image issue is secondary, but better images would only enhance the article as a whole. Spot87 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article was been extensively reviewed and sourced, is comprehensive, follows guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and this project. Hoping FAC is next. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It does appear to be long, detailed, thorough, and well-written. The introduction, while concise, accurate, and also well-written, somehow seems a bit off to me. Maybe a bit too short. Maybe if you could add a sentence or two? Or smoosh the whole thing together into one paragraph, eliminating the line breaks, to make it look more solid on the page? Just an appearance-on-the-page thing, not really a content of the writing thing. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. While the article is well-written and well-referenced, it lacks comprehensiveness. Specifically:
  1. The lead section is too short (at least by FAC standards), and also contains some gushing POV (B-17's most notable features were high cruising altitude and durability, its payload, speed, and range were small compared to its contemporaries like the B-24 and the Lancaster). "One of the most significant" and "devastating payload" could be done away with.
  2. The development section is too short. B-17 was a fairly unique design. The section essentially only deals with the prototype crash.
    1. I agree, and have tried to add content, but I find it just overlaps with whats found in the "Variants/design stages" section, so I've kept the development section to just the development up to the YB-17s and the entry into the war, and everything afterwards to the later section. Should this be changed? How about if we change the variants section to just a list and short description of each variant and move the current content to the design section? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Comment No, you have the right time span for development (conception to entry into operational service) but a lot more can be said about B-17 development. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        1. 'K, I'll work on it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The operational history section is too short. There is no comment at all on the poor operational accuracy of B-17 formations, on the fact that only the lead aircraft actually did the aiming due to mid-air collisions early in operational career resulting from all bombardiers looking down on the ground while maneuvering their aircraft. There should be some discussion on B-17's advantages and disadvantages compared to its contemporaries as well (see above, and of course without violating WP:NOR).
  4. The post-war section is longer than Development and as long as Operational history and deals primarily with the few surviving warbirds.
  5. The section on foreign service is non-existent. What about German-captured B-17s shadowing American formations? What about all the other countries in the "Operators" list (number serving, anything notable?)
    1. Foreign service operators (specifically Germany and Israel) are mentioned under the "Operators" section, but since Germany used them during the war I'll add a bit to the "Operational service" section as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Survivor does not equal Notable B-17. Most of the warbirds are late-war built cargo/hack aircraft with no notable history. Perhaps the section should be split up into Survivors and Notable aircraft.
  7. IMHO nothing demonstrates the B-17 durability better than the photos of "All American" after it was rammed by a German fighter. http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm
    1. I'd love to add a pic of this but I can't find a source (although I'm sure it'll end up being an Airforces pic) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a good start but I think it needs a lot more contents. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.