Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of active duty United States four-star officers

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of active duty United States four-star officers

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Neovu79 (talk)

List of active duty United States four-star officers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am re-submitting this list article for AL-Class status. Neovu79 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: - I feel like we should probably do something so that we don't have this ACR and the old one on the same page, but I'm too tired and busy to figure that out right now. Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the precedent for articles with multiple ACRs? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Vami IV: See step 2 of the instructions above. I have archived the old review and created the new one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment by CPA

Hi Neovu79, I don't think this list is ready for an ARC. There are still a lot of sentences that don't have citations. At the current rate, this would be a C-class and would be definitely opposed by other reviewers. Maybe add these citations and then we can have a better look into the list. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

CPA-5, this article is already listed as a BL-Class from the previous nomination several years ago. Many of the concerns from the previous assessment have been addressed. I'm confused on why every sentence would need a citation. That would seem to be more WP:OVERCITE at this point. Thanks for your input. Neovu79 (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Harrias

I concur with CPA-5; this is a fair way off A-class. Some of my main issues:

• The lead is far too short for the length of the article.
• The A-class criteria requires that "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources", but there are lots of uncited claims throughout the article.
• A lot of the information given about the bottom seems to be beyond the scope of the article, and borders on trivia.

Two more 'nice to haves' that would be a requirement for Featured list status, but aren't part of the A-class criteria:

• The tables need coding to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, more detail is given in MOS:DTT.
• Consider adding alt text for the images.

I'm not going to do a detailed review, and I feel there is too much, and the issues go too deep for it to be necessary. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Per CPA and Harrias's comments above, I've archived this one. Hog Farm _Talk 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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.