Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo[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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:

  • "Hambleton pulled the ejection seat handles and had a moment to make eye contact with the pilot as his seat rocketed out of the dying plane."
  • "Hambleton was due for some R&R, and his wife Gwen was planning to meet him in Thailand the next week."
  • "The Air Force did not put limits on what it took to rescue a downed airman."
  • "Hambleton decided that with only nine months to go until his retirement, he was going to survive and return home."

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as that text is appropriately footnoted I don't see the problem. Yes it is not strictly encyclopedic style but it seems quite readable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean explained in a footnote or covered by a citaton? I did trim some of the "eye contact" text in the article. (I have not been involved with this article before, just trying to help a little.) -Fnlayson (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nomination; the tone is generally unencyclopedic. As the article also contains significant uncited material, thus violating GA criterion 2b), I think delist unless improvements are made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - also cites unreliable sources such as an angelfire website, imdb, and a self-published AuthorHouse book. I additionally have reliability concerns with some of the other web sources used. Hog Farm Talk 14:18, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Rescue_of_Bat_21_Bravo/1&oldid=1193672491"