Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel
- 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Withdrawn at nominator's request -MBK004 05:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John S. Loisel edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
Second nomination, the previous A Class Review is here.
The article has subsequently gone through a Good Article review and was promoted and a peer review. Hopefully it has been improved enough for an A-Class article. Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No dabs, links check out with link checker. Alt text is present, but I'm not sure it's needed on all the emblems. Someone who knows more about alt text please check that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Involved Support
- I supported previously during last ACR and have done a bit of tweaking during that process, so I may not be impartial anymore;
- IMO though it is a well written, well referenced article and is probably as comphrensive as it is going to get due to a number issues that Greg mentioned during the last ACR (i.e. the fire etc);
- Also one of the main sticking points from last review as I recall was the way that the article dealt with Loisel's victories in a separate paragraph, making it a little disjointed. This has now been rewritten into the prose and incorporated into the narrative, so hopefully this is no longer an issue;
- The awards and decorations have now been fully cited also.
- Good work Greg and good luck. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, leaning to oppose
- My initial thought is that this does not contain enough meat for A-Class. Its level of detail is probably appropriate (just) for GA, but no higher IMO. As a particular example, his career from Korea until retirement -- almost 20 years -- is dismissed in a couple of sentences.
- I'm also not sure about the prose quality. For an example, again in the post-war career section, Later assignments included tours as the Commander, 83rd Fighter Group and Deputy Commander, 4th Tactical Fighter Wing reads like a bullet point, not something I'd expect to find as the first sentence of a section in an encyclopedic article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning oppose - I completely agree with Ian, but further issues include:
- The prose could use a good copyedit in general, but a major issue is that there is a significant amount of close repetition. A prominant example is the use of "assigned" and its variants, particularly in the first two paragraphs of the "World War II" section.
- Again, agree with Ian about the Korea and Poat-war sections. Given the length of the two, they should be combined which is what I recommended in the previous ACR and raises some concerns about whether suggestions have been taken on or even considered.
- Still not happy about the presentation of honours. These medals, and particularly those honours mentioned in the "Other honors" subsection, should be mentioned in the prose, not in a bullet list at the end.
- Some of the citations and references do not appear to be formated quite correctly, particularly cite #16. I would recommend you have a look at using Template:Cite book for those books listed as references (the citse for these are fine, though, but you could have a look at using Template:Harvnb for these), Template:Cite web for the internet sources and Template:Cite news for newspaper articles.
- Also, what makes acepilots.com and adamsplanes.com reliable?
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - based on the time that this has run, and my inability to find addition information to further improve the article, I would like to withdraw the nomination. I don't see how I could get past the oppose comments right now - I do appreciate all of y'all taking the time to look at this again. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg, of course that is your right if thats what you want, but I think there are still improvements that can be made to the article even if you cannot add any content. For instance there are a number of valid points raised above that are a good starting point at least. I have had a chop at the references so far at least. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.