Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker

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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Linebacker

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker II, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time.AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination here.

Comments

I have the following points for the ACR; if references can be added, I will gladly work on the other aspects: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the lead probably needs to be expanded
there are many sentences and or paragraphs that are missing references (as marked by the citation needed tags) - this is the main issue, IMO, that impacts upon the article's A-class compliance
the US order of battle seems completely uncited
the References section is inconsistent in its presentation (e.g. compare Palmer to Morocco) Done
The notes are inconsistent in terms of style (e.g short and long citations)
Images: the Vietnamese air defences image probably needs to state where the original photographs came from (it seems doubtful that they were taken by a US government employee). If they can’t be sourced in this manner, the image will probably have to be removed (as it was from the Rolling Thunder article)
Inconsistent presentation: some References have isbns but the majority don’t Done

Whilst the article is of a fairly good standard, I agree it doesn't meet the standard currently expected of an A class article. I'll see what I can do to assist with dealing with some of the issues listed above but realistically it won't be much as my sources are limited to what is available online. From a quick read through one other issue that probably needs to be addressed is the editorial tone it sometimes uses. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - unfortunately the bulk of these issues remain over a month after being listed so I don't think this one is going to be improved sufficiently to meet our current standards. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Fully agree with Rupert, the obvious things for me were missing references and short lead -- the latter is not a showstopper for A-Class but the referencing is. Structure seems reasonable but I haven't gone through prose or image licensing, if someone more knowledgable than I could take care of the citation problems first then I'd be happy to assist with any prose issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: per AC, regretfully the main issues remain after over a month, so I believe that the article should be delisted. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- the crucial issue of referencing has not been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2016 (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.