Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Chaplain-Medic massacre

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.

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplain-Medic massacre edit

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

Featured article candidates/Chaplain-Medic massacre/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I know war crime-related articles are more sensitive than the standard battles, but the discussion on my Hill 303 massacre FAC seems to indicate all but one of the sources I used are good and I have cross-referenced all the information anyway. —Ed!^(talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what is the etymology of the article's name? Do the references refer to it as such? If not, I think it may be better to call it Massacre of July 16, 1950. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not quite sure what to do about that. The only place that has assigned a nomenclature to this event was the McCarthy paper, which called it the "Chaplian-Medic massacre" and is sourced. However at my Hill 303 FAC it was determined last night that McCarthy is a non-HQRS so I had to cross-reference his work with others. A quick search of the internet reveals other mentions of "Chaplain-Medic massacre" derive the name directly from McCarthy. —Ed!^(talk) 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I originally reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria (found here). I still think that footnotes are subject to overlinking; the reference should be linked to its respective book in the bibliography only the first time (in my opinion). Also check the disambiguation link (posthumous needs to be disambiguated). JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: McCarthy and others (1954) is used appropriately for events which happened in the commission (the naming) and for the opinion of the US Government. The prose is great. Publications need publisher locations. If you can find sources citing McCarthy for the first use, then substitute those, otherwise, you could double up that citation if the sources directly cite McCarthy on the point (they're allowed to more than we are :). Given that the most popular social name in English will be derived from McCarthy, I don't see a problem with the title. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good follow-up to the Hill 303 article. Made a few minor tweaks for repetition mainly, but generally prose is excellent and referencing, detail and supporting elelements all seem fine. Well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree this as a very good article and my only comment is that the lead seems a little repeative. Specifically you mention the "Twenty critically wounded US Army soldiers" in two places. IMO this is probably not required and might be reworded to be a little more succint. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point post script... do you have the location of publishing for the references used? It appears to be missing from most if not all the references used and probably should be added. Anotherclown (talk) 19:50, 26 October 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.