Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2009/Demoted
 | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |  |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Demoted -MBK004 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reappraisal review: I am nominating this article for reappraisal because it may no longer meet the A-class criteria Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.
- Agree; lacks references, contains MoS breaches, and is written rather choppily. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Remove due to referencing YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - would only need a few more references, but the primary reference lacks page numbers, and the guy who wrote it, Emt147 (talk · contribs), hasn't edited in roughly a year. I notified him of this review; if he responds and plans to work on the page number issue, please change my !vote to "hold". Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - I'm in the odd position where I have one book that mentions the Tupolev in a few sentences, giving its weight, speed and that it was the first all-metal bomber, and footnotes from that book that mention two other books in english that could be used as sources, but no way to access those sources. So, regretfully, I must vote to remove it as A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Demoted -MBK004 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reappraisal review: I am nominating this article for reappraisal because it may no longer meet the A-class criteria DrKiernan (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.
Demote: Doesn't meet A1 in several places. A2 is also violated because it goes into unnecessary details, has dubious statements, NPOV issues and no section discussing the sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demote Its full of [citation needed] tags fails A1 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. Fails A1. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demote - far too many citation needed, dubious and factual accuracy tags; thus failing A1 and A2. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Demoted - as this only has one demote !vote, I feel that I should explain why I am demoting this. As the article stands now, it is obviously not up to our A-class standards; there are reference issues, a couple of tags (including neutrality), and many MOS issues. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reappraisal review: I am nominating this article for reappraisal because this is an older promotion, which was recently reviewed at featured article review and delisted. There is now a proposal to merge the article with Caucasian War. I think it merits a re-assessment by the project. DrKiernan (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.
- Comment - is it just me, or is the 2007 version of this article (when it passed FAC) better than this current article? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. Three external links are reported as having either connection issues or as being dead links, and need to be fixed or removed from the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments it doesn't meet A-1 with many references needed tags. It doesn't meet A-2 by not presenting the Russian and Circassian POV evenhanded. (For example Circassian losses of sheep and men, but not a single dead Russian until the Circassians put up a heroic fight and then it doesn't get mentioned whether they themselves took heavy losses besides the Russians). All the other criteria are met. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Demote Issues concerning A-1 and A-2 haven't been fixed. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.