Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hispanic Americans in World War II/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [1].
Hispanic Americans in World War II[edit]
Review section[edit]
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks appropriate sourcing (many sources are not RS), POV due to boosterism and out of context for focusing on profiles of successful soldiers instead of a holistic picture Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is - There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic-American contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writing such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope will continue to deserve FA status. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marine 69-71: We aren't deleting the article, just discussing if it meets the FA criteria --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Review - at minimum the sourcing. I've come across issues with use of RS in other articles like this (Military history of Puerto Rico being one), and a quick look at this one shows similar challenges (a Yahoo groups list being used as a source, for one example). I agree the subject is of value, but that value is undermined by the use of non-RS and potential POV issues. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did some work on this based on the comments on the article's talk page. You can review here. One challenge with this article, as with some others, is you have to go to other Wiki pages to find the sourcing for sections that seem to have been copy and pasted, and often the sourcing on those pages is poor. The amount of work involved is higher than it might at first appear. Intothatdarkness 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I have done some minor editing, but am unable to address the main concerns, sorry. These are my edits: [2]. I don't believe I will be able to do much more due to work commitments. Apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my primary concern here is that this seems to be more of a collection of anecdotal stories in places, rather than a unified topic. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I've also discovered in many of these articles (both the main ones and often the linked individuals) that the sourcing is often suspect. You can't really go after one without looking at the other. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing does need some work. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to spot check, but the following sources probably aren't high-quality RS:
- The (now broken-linked) Yahoo Groups page
- Not familiar with Aerofiles, but have some doubts about this one
- A World To Win describes itself as A World to Win is an international revolutionary group that is opposed to the capitalist political and economic system globally. We work with others to develop visions and strategies that can take humanity beyond capitalism. That's not a good source for biographical information about Manuel Llopis
- ntlworld.com is someone's personal website
- What is valorosos.com?
- What makes neta.com relaible?
- What's motorbooks.com?
- The reliability of biography.com was hotly debated at RSN in 2018. If it engeders that much debate about relaibility, should we be using this in a FA? I'm not convinced we should.
- What makes designshare.com a reliable source
And there's a couple other marginal ones I just didn't get around to bringing up. This needs considerable sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've encountered that valorosos.com site on other articles like this one, and it's mainly a personal research site as far as I can tell. However, it is often possible to replace it (so long as it's information relating to the 65th Infantry Regiment) with the Center of Military history publication listed in the 'Further Reading' section (Honor and Fidelity: The 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea). I discovered this while trying to do similar work on the Military History of Puerto Rico article mentioned earlier. I also discovered with that article (and many of the associated ones relating to individuals) that cleaning these up is a major undertaking. You pretty much have to check every source, as things are often misattributed or pulled out of thin air. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: I don't know at this point. Some are, but given the methodology used with this article pretty much every source has to be checked and reviewed both for RS status AND to make sure what's said in the article actually exists in the cited source. I hate to say it, but I've found instances where that is not the case. I think it might be better served moving to FARC. It suffers from the same issues found in Military history of Puerto Rico, and that had to move from FAR to FARC. Just my $.02 having worked on some of these and the linked articles (which often need to be reviewed at the same time for the same issues). Intothatdarkness 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, I guess. Needs a top-to-bottom sourcing check, and I still have questions about the scope with sections being more anecdotal stories than a unified topic. This would probably benefit more from work outside of the FAR constraints and then a new FAC once ready. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC: When a reviewer working on the article suggests moving it to FARC, I tend to defer to their judgment. I am concerned that Intothatdarkness has found several instances where the article's prose is unverified by the sources they are cited to and this needs to be actively checked by editors with experience in this field. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started working through some of the sourcing issues, but it's slow going. And the question raised above still remains: the organization of the article. Right now it's much more a collection of anecdotal narratives about people...many of whom have articles of their own (some of which are problematic in terms of sourcing) which are essentially duplicated in this article. I'm sticking to trimming and source verification for now. Intothatdarkness 21:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the information in this article is duplicated in Military history of Puerto Rico, and the information there is actually better-sourced than what's here. This is especially true when you hit the unit information. Not sure how we want to approach that. Intothatdarkness 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal opinion is that this article would be better as a general concept article, rather than more focused on the anecdotes. As an example, the content like the part in Home front that says "Hispanic women were discouraged from working outside the home prior to World War II, even more than other American women.[5] During World War II, the broad changes in the role of women caused by a need for labor on the home front affected the role of Hispanic women,[5] who worked as secretaries and nurses, helped build airplanes,[103] made ammunition in factories, and worked in shipyards" is good overview content, but then it's unclear why the stories of Ledesma and Solis and Solis-Thomas are presented specifically. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is especially true as so many of those anecdotes have articles of their own (which will likely need to be reviewed as well). As many of the general overview items are echoed in the World War II section of Military history of Puerto Rico it may be possible to fold some of that information into this article instead, or link appropriate sections from this one to that article. I've been trimming some of the anecdotal content down, but didn't want to get too aggressive until a broader consensus formed. Intothatdarkness 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal opinion is that this article would be better as a general concept article, rather than more focused on the anecdotes. As an example, the content like the part in Home front that says "Hispanic women were discouraged from working outside the home prior to World War II, even more than other American women.[5] During World War II, the broad changes in the role of women caused by a need for labor on the home front affected the role of Hispanic women,[5] who worked as secretaries and nurses, helped build airplanes,[103] made ammunition in factories, and worked in shipyards" is good overview content, but then it's unclear why the stories of Ledesma and Solis and Solis-Thomas are presented specifically. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the information in this article is duplicated in Military history of Puerto Rico, and the information there is actually better-sourced than what's here. This is especially true when you hit the unit information. Not sure how we want to approach that. Intothatdarkness 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Work has stalled for more than three weeks and I did a spotcheck of the section on the Pacific War. More than half the section is unsourced or had sources that did not align with the material. The Rodriguez profile has a few sentences that were barely even paraphrased, and that's before we even question the sources, many of which are hobby websites Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Intothatdarkness: - Do you think this can be overhauled within the course of a FAR, or should this be moved through and repaired outside of the FAR constraints? Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking it might be best repaired outside of FAR. The same thing happened with Military history of Puerto Rico, and I haven't had enough time to work on that article or this one to the extent they need. Given the sourcing work and additional style adjustments you identified, moving it outside FAR might be the best option. Then it could be reviewed again once it hits the standard. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Some sections are lists of people, rather than information of the group's involvement in WWII as a whole. These will need to be summarized and evaluated for their inclusion. A close paragraphing banner will need to be resolved as soon as possible. Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.