Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2016/Demoted

Demoted[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 no longer meets A-Class criteria - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

102nd Intelligence Wing[edit]

Nominator(s): Lineagegeek (talk)

Previous A-class Review

Reviewing this article to determine the accuracy of a bot generated request to review links, I noted that several paragraphs lack references (partly, not entirely, due to link rot), so the article no longer meets even B Class criteria). It, therefore, needs a new review. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made a few tweaks to try to rectify some of the issues that I found, but unfortunately can't help with other aspects. If these can be rectified, I am of the opinion that the article could retain its A-class status, otherwise it should unfortunately be demoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are numerous paragraphs that do not end in references, which is as noted above the main issue for this article to overcome
in the References, the Williams source - is there a specific article within the journal that relates to the unit? If so, this should be added to the citation
what makes the Middleton website reliable?
for the Rogers citation (currently # 16) is there a page number that could be added?
currently, I think the article potentially has too much room devoted to the 9/11 incident, when compared to the space devoted to other topics, so I think it might be best to reduce this a little
"File:Too-102fw.jpg": is there a link to a website where this was obtained from? Currently the only source is "US Defense Department".
- Delist/demote: it doesn't appear that these issues will be resolved, so I think it best that the article be delisted as an A-class article for the time being. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

History:

"The 102d Intelligence Wing traces its roots to the 318th Fighter Group" The cited source does not support this statement (and without an idea of what "traces its roots" means it may be inaccurate. The 318th Fighter Group became the 102d Fighter Group, which is not the 102d wing, but a subordinate unit. The article as a whole confuses the group and the wing and compounds it by stating that the wing was also "previously the 69th Fighter Wing". Later the articles refers to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the three fighter units were not assigned to it, but to the 102d Fighter Group. One of the squadrons as well as other units listed are not supported by the cited reference (probably in part because one fighter squadron was in the Connecticut National Guard and the source is a Massachusetts National Guard website). This kind of sloppiness permeates the article. I question whether either B1 or B2 would pass a B class review.

"Guard units were generally neglected . . . Not supported by cited source (although this could be edited to do so)

Although the MA ANG wasn't mobilized for the Korean War. Per source cited, elements of it were, but not the 102d Wing (which was only established in 1950), so this is extraneous information. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to delist/demote -- I concur that without reliable sourcing for the uncited elements this can't remain A-Class, and since there's still a lot outstanding after almost three weeks (the USAF isn't my area of expertise unfortunately) I don't hold out much hope for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think even one book from in the Bibliography section was ever referenced in the text. Please either change that section header to "Further reading", or delete the section. I very strongly urge the latter, since we have little way of knowing whether these sources provide meaningful amounts of useful/relevant information. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:53, 7 December 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.

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) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Linebacker II[edit]

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, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 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) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead probably should be expanded to be at least two or three paragraphs;
There are many citation needed tags in the article due to information being unreferenced, or appearing not to be covered with a citation (which I added, in order to mark where I feel refs are needed as per the A-class criteria) - this is the main issue, IMO, that impacts upon the article's A-class compliance;
The US aircraft lost and US order of battle sections appear to be completely uncited;
The bare url citations/notes should be formatted to include page title, publisher, accessdate (at least) and an archivelink (if the original is dead); Done
“George Herring, pp. 248–249”: appears in the Notes section but there is no corresponding full citation to help the reader find the work; Done
Same as above for “Toperczer #29 2001"; Done
The notes are inconsistent in terms of style (e.g short and long citations);
Images: the Vietnamese air defences image description page probably needs to state where the original photographs came from in order to be considered adequately sourced/and to determine if the licence is correct. If not, it will need to be removed from the article (as it was from the Rolling Thunder article);
In the References section, several works are missing OCLC or ISBNs. Done

Per my comments on the Operation Linebacker ACR above I'm also of the opinion that this one doesn't meet the standard currently expected of an A class article. Same, same I'll try to assist where I can but am limited in my sources to what is available online. This article also uses an editorial tone in places which probably needs to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the bulk of the identified issues remain with this article remain over a month after being listed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As with Linebacker, fully agree with Rupert, the obvious things again being missing references and short lead -- latter is not a showstopper for A-Class but referencing is; structure seems reasonable but haven't gone through prose or image licensing, if someone could take care of the citation problems first then I'd be happy to assist with any prose issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: per AC, unfortunately the main issues remain after over a month so I believe it should probably be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- as AC/AR have mentioned, the issues (including, crucially, referencing) have not been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 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.

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[edit]

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.