Talk:Clayton Knight Committee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clayton Knight Committee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pritzker Military Library High‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Problems with Article[edit]

umm isnt "several pro-war German emigres" ambiguous - they could have been pro-war as Hitler was? Victuallers (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that I have found very long phrases that are identical to unattributed sources. I think this needs further re-wording of a substantial nature. Victuallers (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victuallers I've been trying my best to fix the close paraphrasing. It's tough since originally the whole article was copied and pasted from another source. It'll take time to fix everything and get the percentage down from 98% to at least 39%. Mchuedem (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: @Mchuedem: I've located better sources and we are using them to improve the article. The close paraphrasing had been a long standing problem with this article possibly since its creation that wasn't known until the DYK review process started for the Clayton Knight article. The upside is that this is a much better article now and will only get better as it continues to be updated. One of the ILL requests I put in for a source is unable to be filled. But I have a few other irons in the fire. TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources for improving this article: [1] and [2] TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work you two, but Im wondering how this gets to DYK. Articles have to be new GAs, or articles less than 7 days old when nominated or expanded by a factor of 5 in 7 days. I don't think this article fits in any of those categories. I suggest you remove this one from the DYK nom. Am I right? Victuallers (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers:I was of the understanding that only one article in a DYK nom had to be new. In this case, it is the Clayton Knight article. I have no objection to pulling the Clayton Knight Committee from the nomination. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]