Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Morotai Mutiny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
Self-nom for an article that's been around for a bit and garnered some favourable comment from colleagues. It describes a little-known but fascinating episode in Australia's military aviation history. Believe it meets the B-Class criteria pretty easily and could well be worth a nod for the next level. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Fascinating stuff. Is there anything about MacArthur's reaction to the incident, if he had one? If not, what was the Australian public's opinion, or was the incident too small to get wide coverage? JKBrooks85 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't come across any recorded reaction from Macarthur before and after rechecking refs today, still nought. However, as noted in the final para, the incident was reported at the time - will see about incorporating a quote or two from the Australian press. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some press reaction now incorporated. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't come across any recorded reaction from Macarthur before and after rechecking refs today, still nought. However, as noted in the final para, the incident was reported at the time - will see about incorporating a quote or two from the Australian press. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There is an infobox you could use for this article if you want to. It's the infobox that's used for military accident or friendly fire articles like the 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident. Otherwise appears to meet the criteria and is a very interesting article. Cla68 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks mate. I suspected there might be an infobox that could suit but never discovered one in my occasional searches - will check that one out. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent article which does a great job of explaining a complex and somewhat ambigious topic. --Nick Dowling 09:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeIt is a well written article, but an A class article is supposed to have almost all the requirements of an FA article, and I'm afraid this one doesn't quite qualify. As mentioned earlier, the infobox would be a good addition for the article. Also, it needs more in line citations, as the first isn't until half way through the 'Background' section. I would also suggest breaking down multiple citations by page number where available. Finally, are there any related articles that can be listed at the bottom?Cromdog 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It's worth pointing out that infoboxes are not a requirement for FA candidates, and the presence of see-also links is actually a common objection to them. Kirill 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of that...however, I think it still needs more inline cites. If others think that's not enough to hold it back from A-class, so be it, but I think it's enough.
- Regardless of it not being a requirement, I did check out the infobox and appropriate parameters and I really don't think it adds much to the article that isn't succinctly put in the introductory paragraph. The request for citations for the first para of Background was perfectly valid and I've added a couple. I do think the article is well-stocked with citations; on the odd occasion that only one is used for an entire para, that's simply because one source covers all that info. Re. page numbers, again I think the granularity is pretty reasonable, many being individual pages or fairly narrow ranges. The main exception is Alexander's "Cleaning the augean stables" which has no page numbers but is available online. Given the above, Cromdog, do you still have serious/specific objections that I can try and address? Cheers, Ian Rose 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of that...however, I think it still needs more inline cites. If others think that's not enough to hold it back from A-class, so be it, but I think it's enough.
- It's worth pointing out that infoboxes are not a requirement for FA candidates, and the presence of see-also links is actually a common objection to them. Kirill 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the improved citing. I don't see any problems right now...I'll re-read the entire article when I'm a bit more awake to double-check the grammer and prose. I checked that info-box and agree, it's useless here (possibly everywhere...seems pointless), however, since this incident was related to WWII, are there any category boxes that might be added? Just curious, and I withdraw my objection. It seems to me that the whole thing has been fully explained out, fairly well.Cromdog 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Well worth the reading. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:36, 1 November 2007 (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.