Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iowa-class battleship/archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
- Withdrawn by nominator -MBK004 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I have recently come upon this article, come upon some comments about the heavy reliance of this article on the web, as well as its status as a FFA. I have overhauled the refereneces, and I am now trying to see what comments I can get on this article before this article goes to FAC. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
- I'm not in a position to criticize anyone for taking partial credit for an article for technical fixes ... but, just to be clear, your only additions to the text have been "located aft on the superstructure" and 2 dates, right? I see you've edited the references, and thanks for your work, but I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for the people who worked on this article over the years to decide whether the current article meets their standards for A-class, whether they have time to devote to the review, and whether they want to co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified them, and if they tell me they believe this article still needs some work, I'm in a position to withdraw the nomination. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - reactivation proposals section needs to be updated still. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated with data from where? No data is currently available from my web searches so far. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFL Brad (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFL? What does that mean? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ROFL over the absurdity of this nomination. This is a warmed over presentation of a waved through GAR to prevent the Featured Topic from crashing down. There is an entire talk page full of conversation over what is missing from the article and why and what to do about it. There are even paraphrased excerpts of research with page numbers by Dank. Did you not notice these? This article in its current state is missing a lot of research and comprehensiveness and is not A-class material. Go read the talk page and the last FAR and educate yourself. Try opening a book. Brad (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just took a read-through of the article, and I'm surprised. It's not in quite as bad of shape as I thought, but there is certainly superfluous or unneeded fluff along with missing/needed info. It also should be reorganized to correspond with common OMT style (I think there are two major ones, mine and Parsec/Sturm's; too many second-level headers, order issues), and like I said above, the "Reactivation proposals" section has some major issues and might even need to be removed – is the debate still ongoing, given the financial crisis? I'm going home tomorrow, so I might grab G&D and use it to knock some of these issues out (though I'll use Dank's page numbers when possible, as he has a more recent edition). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I have left to say about this article is read the talk page and the last FAR Brad (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just took a read-through of the article, and I'm surprised. It's not in quite as bad of shape as I thought, but there is certainly superfluous or unneeded fluff along with missing/needed info. It also should be reorganized to correspond with common OMT style (I think there are two major ones, mine and Parsec/Sturm's; too many second-level headers, order issues), and like I said above, the "Reactivation proposals" section has some major issues and might even need to be removed – is the debate still ongoing, given the financial crisis? I'm going home tomorrow, so I might grab G&D and use it to knock some of these issues out (though I'll use Dank's page numbers when possible, as he has a more recent edition). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm ROFL over the absurdity of this nomination. This is a warmed over presentation of a waved through GAR to prevent the Featured Topic from crashing down. There is an entire talk page full of conversation over what is missing from the article and why and what to do about it. There are even paraphrased excerpts of research with page numbers by Dank. Did you not notice these? This article in its current state is missing a lot of research and comprehensiveness and is not A-class material. Go read the talk page and the last FAR and educate yourself. Try opening a book. Brad (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFL? What does that mean? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: seems premature. The heavily involved contributors have been hesitant to expose this article to more review until some guideline is more formalized about the referencing (specifically, the self-published source to be deemed an RS), and it seems wise to me to withdraw this nom until that happens. If not, I hope you are really committed to this process. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What SPS are you referring to? (FAS?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presicely the point. We do not have a SPS. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that navweaps debacle? I thought this was one of the articles whose referencing took a hit from it. If I'm mistaken, then pardon me, but my point still stands that there is still much work in progress. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presicely the point. We do not have a SPS. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What SPS are you referring to? (FAS?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose, move to close without prejudice When I nominated this article for FAR low these many monthes back it was with the understanding that the article could not simply be tweaked and then returned to the general population such as it were. If you look at the FAR it was not just bad referencing that BRad pointed out; there's information that is poorly cited, information cited to sources that may or may not be reliable, information that isn't cited at all, and that was just one of the issues with the article. Others, like uneeded/misplaced information, outdated info, overworded secations, and so forth still need to be looked at. In short, adding citations is not going to get this article back to FA-class or for that matter A-class, the whole article needs a top to bottom rewrite. At a minimum, that is going to take 2-3 months to do, and that number needs to be taken with a grain of salt since it assumes that all of us - WikiCopter, Ed, MBK, Parsecboy, me (TomStar81), and the rest of the OMT team drop everything and work exclusively on this for the next 8-12 weeks. Its not that WikiCopter shouldn't be congratulated for for being bold and for attempting to get the article back on its feet, its just that the nature of the problems in the article require a highly specific degree of information to fix the issues, and that kind of precision is not so much difficult to attain as it is time consuming to attain. If you want to help bring the article back up then lets close this ACR and instead open a Peer Review, then ask Brad101 to start the peer review commenting by listing all the known problems with the article. We can start with those issues and then move to fix the other issues as editors bring them up. In the long run, that will be more productive for everyone. -TomStar81 (talk · contribs), editing under the isp id code 75.26.17.172 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - per Tom and Bahamut above, just adding in additional references is not enough to bring this article back to A/FA standard, and nominating this article after this discussion shows pure arrogance to the collaborative collegial editing environment which should be paramount on Wikipedia and especially in OMT. The primary contributor's rule at FAC applies here as well and this nomination clearly flaunts that rule. -MBK004 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. 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.