Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Rolling Thunder
- 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 still meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)
Operation Rolling Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). As such, I am requesting opinions as to whether it should be delisted. If interested members are able to alleviate my concerns by editing the article, I am more than happy to change my opinion. I don't mean to discourage the article's contributors, and I can certainly see that a lot of hard work has gone into it...just seems that our standards have evolved since its original ACR in 2007 (link here). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Delist- per nomination. This is by no means a bad article, indeed there is much to commend it. However, our standards of referencing have changed quite a bit since it passed ACR in 2007 and there is a quite large amount of unreferenced material in it. I believe User:RM Gillespie was one of the main contributors but unfortunately he seems to have ceased being active in 2011, so I think it is unlikely that this one is going to be salvageable in the short to medium term. I would attempt to add the missing citations myself but I just do not have the sources available to do so. Anotherclown (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)- Keep - The majority of concerns regarding referencing now seem to have been addressed by a number of editors. There remain a number of more minor issues (such as multiple reference formats), but these can be addressed fairly easily and don't warrant it being delisted. Its good to see that there is still some fight left in the project after all. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delist - as per nomination. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose delist: Reading over the article I cannot see any reason for a delist. It appears that the concerns about citing, which are not detailed here so I can't be sure, are the number of cite needed tags. Looking these over, I consider all the ones I examined to be spurious, posted by someone that has confused what cite needed means and believes it requires a cite at the physical end of every para. In all the examples I chose, the para in question was not just cited, but if anything over cited. If the OP, @AustralianRupert: can be more specific I'm willing to take a crack at it, but as it stands I can't see a major problem that warrants delisting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, Maury, thank you for taking part in the review and for sharing your opinion. My concerns about referencing do indeed relate to the missing citations at the end of the paragraphs that have been marked with "citation needed" tags (which I added in mid-September [1]). Apologies for the indistinct nomination statement. I placed these at the end of the paragraphs that appeared to be unreferenced due to my concern that the article does not meet the project's A-class criteria (found here) which requires all claims in the article to be referenced. This criterion, I believe, requires at bare minimum a citation at the end of every paragraph. Indeed, the project's B-class standard (lower than A-class) also asks for this. If there are any citations earlier in a paragraph that cover the following sentences, it would be ok, IMO, to simply move them to the end of the paragraph. That would solve the issue as it would allow a reader to easily verify where the information came from. Project-specific guidance can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/When to cite. Happy to discuss further if you wish. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is simply not true. There is a good reason for this. For instance:
This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work. This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5
- Would, according to such a rule, pass muster. Yet if I insert a single non-printing character...
This is a statement that is cited on page 5 of a reference work.
This statement is also cited on page 5.A cite tag to page 5
- Would now fail. This is precisely the sort of thing we need to avoid at all costs. It would mean that even trivial edits to the article could result in its delisting, after what normally amounts to weeks of work. The wikipedia is about the information, not the formatting of that information. If a user is capable of reading the text, and can can find the citation with reasonable ease, that is enough, IMHO.
- Then we come to confusing statements like the one in the B-class FAQ. I interpret these to mean that a paragraph otherwise lacking direct citations on statements within the paragraph will require one covering the entire text at the end. But that does not apply in this case; every example you posted is in a paragraph that is very well cited. Would you agree, overall, that this article has many high quality citations?
- All of this repeats ad nasueum, which is why the page on citations has this to say:
| “ | Editors should attempt to take a reasonable approach when requesting citations. Unless the accuracy of a statement is in significant doubt, it is generally better to start with a request for citations on the article's talk page, rather than by inserting [citation needed] tags—particularly large numbers of such tags—into the article. | ” |
- I believe this has not occurred in this case. Quite the opposite, it seems you are saying that you have violated this principle, which was added to the guidelines specifically to avoid events like this one. Somewhere the wiki stopped being about the content and became a game about rules, and now we have to adjust the rules to address this. That strikes me as a wonderful illustration of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
- So, I make the same offer as below. If you can demonstrate that each and every one of the tags you placed in this article do not actually appear in any of the citations already in the article, I will go and find one myself. I don't think asking you to read the references is unfair; the original editor put significant effort into getting the article to A-Class in the first place, the least we can do is respect that effort by putting in a little effort on our part to try to keep it there, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot help but think your oppose is more a philosophical one about what you think Wikipedia used to be and what you wish it still were. I for one agree with the nominator that this article does not meet the referencing standards expected at A class in 2015 and I cannot see how this article would pass an A Class Review if it was nominated for one today (hence why I stated my opinion that it should be delisted). The work that has gone into this article to get it to A Class back in 2007 was indeed commendable and no doubt it was sufficient for the standards that existed then but that doesn't mean that standards haven't changed significantly since then, and its certainly no reason why we shouldn't act to ensure we maintain those standards now. There are 9 cn tags (including entire paragraphs) which are without a citation and all of which in my opinion contain significant information about topics which are not self evident (to me at least). In fact by my count there are 760 words in this article which are unreferenced (out of a total word count of 6400 odd - therefore approx. 12% of the article is unreferenced). There are a number of policies (which given your tenure I know you are aware of) that make it clear why citations are needed here, not least of which is WP:PROVEIT: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". This material has clearly now been challenged (the very fact that a cn tag was added makes this beyond argument). You have offered to find citations - great! Why make the offer contingent though? If you wish to see this article retain its A Class status why not just go ahead and provide the citations that have been requested? It seems like that would be ultimately to the benefit of the article and the project. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I think you missed the entire point of my post. What you say would be correct if that was what happened here, but as AustralianRupert notes above, the CNs were posted simply because there were paragraphs that didn't end in one. The material was not being challenged, the formatting was. But that's academic now, because the actual problems are being addressed, and it seems the delist effort had died. Which is my philosophical point actually, we should be improving things, which I would say would not have happened if not for my intervention. I now see people actually working on the article to keep it A-list worthy, my own major edits included, which strikes me as a far superior outcome, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with the first part, but agree with the last. Its immaterial though as we seem to have got there in the end. I've changed my !vote as promised. Thank you for the work you have done on the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I also disagree with these comments and frankly I'm pretty offended by the attitude. Using words like "delist effort has died" implies bad faith on my part. Maintaining our standards is an important part of maintaining the project, in my opinion particularly as we mature as a project. My intention was never to simply delist the article. I requested citations because the article did not meet the A-class or even B-class criteria and they were not provided. When I looked into who the main editor was, I discovered he had been inactive for years. As such, I requested a re-appraisal in the hope the interested editors would get involved and help bring the article back up to standard so it can be kept. That has in fact happened. Would you have gotten involved if not for the re-appraisal? I don't know, but I suspect not. Anyway, as AC said, thank you for your efforts, you have most certainly greatly improved the article. Nevertheless, I stand by my actions, as I believe standards maintenance to be part of my role as a project co-ordinator. If people disagree with that interpretation, I'm more than happy to stand down. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: thoughts? Beyond that, I'm fairly comfortable with the efforts I've made over the past six years to help others achieve their A-class goals. Also happy to stop doing that, too, for awhile if that is what others want as frankly it's not as fulfilling as it used to be. I'll also note that reappraisal is a key part of the ACR process (as it is for the GA and FA processes), although it hasn't really been used much in the past few years within MILHIST. If you have ideas about how to make the review or reappraisal process better, I encourage you to do so. Either the WP:MHCOORD or WT:MIL pages would seem to be appropriate venues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have a better reply on these points, AR, after about a month has gone by. I'm busy with wiki-work and writing projects of my own, so I probably won't have time for A-class for a month, though I'm happy to keep covering PR and FAC. I see that you'd prefer to step back from A-class as well. If the A-class articles sit around without promotions for a while, then we may need to take another look at the A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd try not to let it bother you AR. The article was clearly well below ACR standards when it was quite rightly nominated for review and has now been significantly improved as part of the process through the efforts of yourself and a number of other editors (even if one of them was a somewhat unwilling participant). It is now a much stronger article as a result which is a good thing, and it is obvious that this improvement would not have occurred had you not nominated it for ACR (this is of cse the very point of ACR). I'm unsure why this results in allegations of hidden motives on your part (which clearly don't exist), but perhaps some editors have been here too long and now presume the worst of everyone. Personally I'm surprised the article was able to salvaged but am happy to be proved wrong. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have a better reply on these points, AR, after about a month has gone by. I'm busy with wiki-work and writing projects of my own, so I probably won't have time for A-class for a month, though I'm happy to keep covering PR and FAC. I see that you'd prefer to step back from A-class as well. If the A-class articles sit around without promotions for a while, then we may need to take another look at the A-class process. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I also disagree with these comments and frankly I'm pretty offended by the attitude. Using words like "delist effort has died" implies bad faith on my part. Maintaining our standards is an important part of maintaining the project, in my opinion particularly as we mature as a project. My intention was never to simply delist the article. I requested citations because the article did not meet the A-class or even B-class criteria and they were not provided. When I looked into who the main editor was, I discovered he had been inactive for years. As such, I requested a re-appraisal in the hope the interested editors would get involved and help bring the article back up to standard so it can be kept. That has in fact happened. Would you have gotten involved if not for the re-appraisal? I don't know, but I suspect not. Anyway, as AC said, thank you for your efforts, you have most certainly greatly improved the article. Nevertheless, I stand by my actions, as I believe standards maintenance to be part of my role as a project co-ordinator. If people disagree with that interpretation, I'm more than happy to stand down. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: thoughts? Beyond that, I'm fairly comfortable with the efforts I've made over the past six years to help others achieve their A-class goals. Also happy to stop doing that, too, for awhile if that is what others want as frankly it's not as fulfilling as it used to be. I'll also note that reappraisal is a key part of the ACR process (as it is for the GA and FA processes), although it hasn't really been used much in the past few years within MILHIST. If you have ideas about how to make the review or reappraisal process better, I encourage you to do so. Either the WP:MHCOORD or WT:MIL pages would seem to be appropriate venues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with the first part, but agree with the last. Its immaterial though as we seem to have got there in the end. I've changed my !vote as promised. Thank you for the work you have done on the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I think you missed the entire point of my post. What you say would be correct if that was what happened here, but as AustralianRupert notes above, the CNs were posted simply because there were paragraphs that didn't end in one. The material was not being challenged, the formatting was. But that's academic now, because the actual problems are being addressed, and it seems the delist effort had died. Which is my philosophical point actually, we should be improving things, which I would say would not have happened if not for my intervention. I now see people actually working on the article to keep it A-list worthy, my own major edits included, which strikes me as a far superior outcome, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot help but think your oppose is more a philosophical one about what you think Wikipedia used to be and what you wish it still were. I for one agree with the nominator that this article does not meet the referencing standards expected at A class in 2015 and I cannot see how this article would pass an A Class Review if it was nominated for one today (hence why I stated my opinion that it should be delisted). The work that has gone into this article to get it to A Class back in 2007 was indeed commendable and no doubt it was sufficient for the standards that existed then but that doesn't mean that standards haven't changed significantly since then, and its certainly no reason why we shouldn't act to ensure we maintain those standards now. There are 9 cn tags (including entire paragraphs) which are without a citation and all of which in my opinion contain significant information about topics which are not self evident (to me at least). In fact by my count there are 760 words in this article which are unreferenced (out of a total word count of 6400 odd - therefore approx. 12% of the article is unreferenced). There are a number of policies (which given your tenure I know you are aware of) that make it clear why citations are needed here, not least of which is WP:PROVEIT: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". This material has clearly now been challenged (the very fact that a cn tag was added makes this beyond argument). You have offered to find citations - great! Why make the offer contingent though? If you wish to see this article retain its A Class status why not just go ahead and provide the citations that have been requested? It seems like that would be ultimately to the benefit of the article and the project. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
DelistI agree with the nominator, who appears to have added citation needed tags last month. The first example that occurs is:
- By the end of August, the Joint Chiefs had drawn up a list of 94 targets to be destroyed as part of a coordinated eight-week air campaign against North Vietnam's transportation network.[18] Bridges, rail yards, docks, barracks and supply dumps were all targeted. Johnson, however, feared that such a campaign might trigger a direct intervention by Chinese or Soviets, which might, in turn, cascade into a world war.[19] With Robert McNamara's support, the President refused to endorse such an unrestricted bombing campaign.[citation needed]
- The lack of a source for the fact that President Johnson refused (although his concerns are cited) the JCS request and that the Secretary of Defense opposed the Chiefs is not supported. This is more than just spurious. I'll concede that the previous notes could support this as well, but as written there is no support for two very important events. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: So we're going to delist because of two examples? Here, how's this sound, if you are willing to find all examples of such, I volunteer to find cites for each. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- No there are 9 cn tags so it has been proposed to delist it because of 9 examples. If you can take care of those I will quite happily change my !vote (and I have no doubt that the nominator would withdraw it if you did so too). All that said if you want some examples how about the entire "Legacy" section which contains not a single reference, or the "SAMs and Wild Weasels" section which has three whole unreferenced paragraphs? FWIW I have now dug up a book on the topic so I will see if I can add some of the missing refs. If other editors choose to do likewise maybe it could be improved to the point where it meets our current standards, or maybe they wont and it will be delisted. Simple as that. Lets not waste our time arguing about this. If you have sources and wish to volunteer your time improving the article, pls just go ahead and do so. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be more than happy to vote to keep the article's A class rating if the citations can be added where I've tagged. As there were 15 tags when the article was first nominated, and now there are only nine (or in fact now eight), I can see some progress has been made in this regard already. I think that the article also needs an image licencing check and a quick prose review, but overall these aspects seem in reasonable shape. Two images possibly need more information on their description pages, though: File:VPAF MiG-21 landing with chute.jpg (source link seems to have been moved) and File:North Vietnamese Antiaircraft Weapons.jpg (page is missing some details). But with some guidance from @Nikkimaria: and @Dank: or anyone else who's keen on taking a look, we can probably fix any issues in these areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I was only able to find a few refs so there are still 6 cn tags remaining, including the completely unreferenced "Legacy" section. I don't think I will be able to find any more given the sources I have so I guess its up to others. Another issue I see with the article, albeit a minor one, is the presence of multiple ref formats. If no one is opposed to it I intend to standardize using short citations (which seem to be used predominately). Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having had another look, one more concern regarding referencing comes to mind. The US losses/casualties in the infobox. The figures "1,084 killed, captured, or missing; 938 aircraft lost"...I couldn't find these elsewhere in the article (unless I missed something). Is there a reference for these that could be added? Equally, these figures don't seem to match those provided in the body of the article where the following figures are provided: "Due to combat and operational circumstances, 506 U.S. Air Force, 397 Navy, and 19 Marine Corps aircraft were lost over or near North Vietnam.[106][107] During the operation, of the 745 crewmen shot down, the U.S. Air Force recorded 145 rescued, 255 killed, 222 captured (23 of whom died in captivity), and 123 missing.[108] Figures on U.S. Navy and Marine Corps casualties were harder to come by. During the 44-month time frame, 454 Naval aviators were killed, captured, or missing during combined operations over North Vietnam and Laos". Is there a reason for the discrepancy, do we know? If not, perhaps the infobox figures should just be adjusted to match these cited figures. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the infobox to match the figures provided in the body, with the refs in the body. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having had another look, one more concern regarding referencing comes to mind. The US losses/casualties in the infobox. The figures "1,084 killed, captured, or missing; 938 aircraft lost"...I couldn't find these elsewhere in the article (unless I missed something). Is there a reference for these that could be added? Equally, these figures don't seem to match those provided in the body of the article where the following figures are provided: "Due to combat and operational circumstances, 506 U.S. Air Force, 397 Navy, and 19 Marine Corps aircraft were lost over or near North Vietnam.[106][107] During the operation, of the 745 crewmen shot down, the U.S. Air Force recorded 145 rescued, 255 killed, 222 captured (23 of whom died in captivity), and 123 missing.[108] Figures on U.S. Navy and Marine Corps casualties were harder to come by. During the 44-month time frame, 454 Naval aviators were killed, captured, or missing during combined operations over North Vietnam and Laos". Is there a reason for the discrepancy, do we know? If not, perhaps the infobox figures should just be adjusted to match these cited figures. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I was only able to find a few refs so there are still 6 cn tags remaining, including the completely unreferenced "Legacy" section. I don't think I will be able to find any more given the sources I have so I guess its up to others. Another issue I see with the article, albeit a minor one, is the presence of multiple ref formats. If no one is opposed to it I intend to standardize using short citations (which seem to be used predominately). Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be more than happy to vote to keep the article's A class rating if the citations can be added where I've tagged. As there were 15 tags when the article was first nominated, and now there are only nine (or in fact now eight), I can see some progress has been made in this regard already. I think that the article also needs an image licencing check and a quick prose review, but overall these aspects seem in reasonable shape. Two images possibly need more information on their description pages, though: File:VPAF MiG-21 landing with chute.jpg (source link seems to have been moved) and File:North Vietnamese Antiaircraft Weapons.jpg (page is missing some details). But with some guidance from @Nikkimaria: and @Dank: or anyone else who's keen on taking a look, we can probably fix any issues in these areas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- No there are 9 cn tags so it has been proposed to delist it because of 9 examples. If you can take care of those I will quite happily change my !vote (and I have no doubt that the nominator would withdraw it if you did so too). All that said if you want some examples how about the entire "Legacy" section which contains not a single reference, or the "SAMs and Wild Weasels" section which has three whole unreferenced paragraphs? FWIW I have now dug up a book on the topic so I will see if I can add some of the missing refs. If other editors choose to do likewise maybe it could be improved to the point where it meets our current standards, or maybe they wont and it will be delisted. Simple as that. Lets not waste our time arguing about this. If you have sources and wish to volunteer your time improving the article, pls just go ahead and do so. Anotherclown (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Images
- All USAF Museum links need updating
- Thanks, Nikki, I've gotten all the one's I could find an archiveurl for. I couldn't find one for File:A-7Bs VA-25 during Ironhand mission 1969.jpg, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- File:North_Vietnamese_Antiaircraft_Weapons.jpg needs more info on the original source - is it credited in the given book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, I've found the book and located the page the images have been taken from, but it doesn't seem to have any details in the book crediting who took the images and when, unfortunately. [2] Do you think it best to replace this image in the circumstances? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, Nikki, I've done this now. I have looked through Commons for a replacement, but haven't as yet been able to find anything suitable. There are some here: [3], but many of those potentially have the similar licensing issues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, I've found the book and located the page the images have been taken from, but it doesn't seem to have any details in the book crediting who took the images and when, unfortunately. [2] Do you think it best to replace this image in the circumstances? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: All CNs addressed, major portions re-written, lots of new refs, rewrote "Legacy" and major portions of the intro material. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: as nominator, following recent changes. There are still some formatting issues, but not enough IMO to prevent the article from keeping its A-class rating. Thanks for your work on the article, Maury and Anotherclown. @Lineagegeek and Hchc2009: Could you please take a look at the recent changes and state whether you are happy the article now meets the A-class criteria? If you are, this review can probably be closed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Change to Keep. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
At A class, I'd normally expect the citation style to be consistent; at the moment, it doesn't appear to be (unless there's a pattern I'm missing, which isn't impossible). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- G'day, Hchc, yes you are right - that was the formatting issue I highlighted above. I'm working through this, but it's slow going and I'm not feeling well of late. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Hchc2009: G'day, I think I've rectified this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Rupert. Happy now to support its continuing status. Hope you're feeling a bit better! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, mate, a bit better...I've listed this for closing over at WP:MHCOORD. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Rupert. Happy now to support its continuing status. Hope you're feeling a bit better! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Hchc2009: G'day, I think I've rectified this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (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.