Talk:Four Chaplains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeFour Chaplains was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 6, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 3, 2007, February 3, 2008, February 3, 2009, February 3, 2010, February 3, 2011, February 3, 2012, February 3, 2013, February 3, 2014, February 3, 2015, February 3, 2016, February 3, 2017, February 3, 2018, February 3, 2019, February 3, 2020, February 3, 2021, February 3, 2022, February 3, 2023, and February 3, 2024.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Four Chaplains/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 00:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Currently, the article meets the quick fail criteria. It has at least seven cleanup tags that have not been resolved. In addition, significant parts of the article are not cited to reliable sources, failing the verifiability criterion. Use of questionable and unreliable sources is rampant, such as imdb, this blog, 404 page on a stamp website, no indication of reliability, etc.

In addition, I would urge you to make sure the lede adequately summarizes the article content (i.e. it needs to be beefed up a bit). The Remembrance section descends into (uncited) trivia in places and needs to be seriously cut to meet encyclopedic standards.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 00:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fiamh: I took a whack at fixing what you noted. I'm at a loss for how to deal with the Remembrance section. --evrik (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Evrik, The idea is not to have a list of every plaque that has been put up in memory of the Four Chaplains. Keep the list to significant memorials that have received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 05:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fiamh: I hate losing the content. I could strip all of that items out and make a list in a separate article ... --evrik (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Evrik, it wouldn't be appropriate even in a list; see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials with no citation[edit]

--evrik (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Cultural Impact and Remembrance sections[edit]

evrik, discussion per your revert. I'd like to trim those sections down significantly - to me they're listcruft (in the sense of "indiscriminate list of information") and basically a couple of "in popular culture" sections. Most of the sources for the entries aren't great and in my opinion don't show that the entries belong. I see this came up during the GA review a couple years ago; I agree with Fiamh's comment above that [t]he idea is not to have a list of every plaque that has been put up in memory of the Four Chaplains. Keep the list to significant memorials that have received coverage in reliable secondary sources. I also feel that the sections are just huge compared to the rest of the article - more vertical space is spent on these two sections than on the event itself. Obviously, you feel differently, so let's talk - how can we come to some kind of agreement? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would okay if instead of deleting everything, you moved it to a section on the talk page, so at least people can look to it to see what can be salvaged. --evrik (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]