Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Demoted

Demoted

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.

---

La Grande Armée

Closed as Demoted - Cam ^(Chat) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Prior nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/La Grande Armée/archive1

Older promotion, needs re-assessment. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Demote; the article has absolutely no referencing, and it was demoted from Good Article status. The prose is not very good, and the organization of the article is poor (a lot of it is composed of lists and such). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps major editors should be warned? JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Demote - I initially thought this was actually up for promotion, and I was shocked; there are entire sections missing citations, and if it can't even keep a GA nomination, then it surely isn't A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Demote - Massively lacking in citations and referencing. Prose is also a concern. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

---

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group

Reappraisal review: this review has been restarted because the article may no longer meet the A-class criteria and no consensus was reached at the previous reappraisal discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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 At least A1 not met. Also, instead of opening again a review which, to be realistic, will have the same result, we should take care of the other articles in our showcase currently not meeting the criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, and only in this instance, it was re-opened so because several people believe there was no consensus to demote. If the end result is the same as before, but with consensus, all that has been wasted is a few minutes' time in commenting and we have gained by having an outcome that is beyond criticism. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Demote The article is not cited in many places, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria for A4 either (not the prose itself, but the style that it's presented). JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Demote per Jon & Euro. Cam ^(Chat) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

---

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group

Reappraisal review restarted, per consensus at WT:MHCOORD --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Demoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was promoted to A-class in October 2006. However, presently it no longer meets A-class criteria A1 and A5, so I would suggest demotion. Inputs are welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• As the author of the previous A-Class article, I'm just curious as to why an article of this length, with as mant footnotes as it has (70+), was demoted to a start-class article. What, no B? Sorry that some of the images (which were given attributions as U.S. Government produced) have been deleted by whoever (or whatever) gets off on that kind of thing. As to the annotations, nothing I can (or will) do about that. That's just the way they taught me in grad school.RM Gillespie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It was automatically assessed as start class when I opened the A-class review. However, I think it meets all B-class criteria so I'll reassess it. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

---

Tent pegging

Previous nomination

This article is rated A-class since September 2006. However, it does not meet the A-class criteria anymore and it might even not fall within our scope. Opinions whether this article should be demoted or not would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the first time we've done this. Easiest I think is if we simply approach this as a second run for A-Class, with reviewers indicating Keep for confirmation at A-Class or Demote for demotion to Start. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I agree. It has a poor lead and the paragraphs seem more organised on the lines of a listed facts. For example, the three 'paragraphs' in the Essential Rules section are just three run-on sentences. I think that some of the references are misplaced, for example reference 5 - shouldn't it be at the end of the paragraph, to note that it all comes from that source? Even then, some statements are completely unsourced and that is certainly not up to A-class or even Good Article standards. In fact, B-class articles require complete referencing, if I'm not mistaken (according to the WP:MilHist standards). I do think, however, that this falls without our scope since it seems to have been practiced by military cavalrymen. It should, however, probably have a section which specializes on that topic. In any case, it seems as if the article was given a A-class status without a review, and that itself should mean that it was never an A-class article to begin with. It was not even given a Good Article review; it went straight to FAC and did not get promoted. JonCatalan (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It went through a Previous nomination here which was very loose, as were most at the time. It certainly doesn't have to go through GA, which at that time, was not held in high regard, nor was it that active. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote: Doesn't really cut the mustard. Barely adequate prose and not exactly comprehensive. Of only tangential relevance to Milhist. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote Too many short paragraphs, not great prose wise, has large gaps in the topic e.g. cavalry history etc. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote As per Woody. The article has a great many gaps, far too few citations, and the lead is a mess. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Demote --Eurocopter (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

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.