Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker II

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 no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Linebacker II edit

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore, unfortunately (specifically on referencing). Unfortunately it appears that the article's main contributor is no longer active, so as such, as per the Operation Rolling Thunder re-appraisal, I am listing this here in the hopes that editors will become involved and hopefully bring the article up to scratch. If this does not occur, then I believe it should be delisted. Unfortunately, I do not have any references that can be added, but I am happy to get involved and help in other regards. I have highlighted this issue on the talk page, and requested citations previously, but so far they have not been forthcoming. I am listing both this article, and its twin, Operation Linebacker, now as it seems to make sense to work on these at the same time. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination here.

Comments

I have the following points for the ACR; if references can be added, I will gladly work on the other aspects: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead probably should be expanded to be at least two or three paragraphs;
There are many citation needed tags in the article due to information being unreferenced, or appearing not to be covered with a citation (which I added, in order to mark where I feel refs are needed as per the A-class criteria) - this is the main issue, IMO, that impacts upon the article's A-class compliance;
The US aircraft lost and US order of battle sections appear to be completely uncited;
The bare url citations/notes should be formatted to include page title, publisher, accessdate (at least) and an archivelink (if the original is dead); Done
“George Herring, pp. 248–249”: appears in the Notes section but there is no corresponding full citation to help the reader find the work; Done
Same as above for “Toperczer #29 2001"; Done
The notes are inconsistent in terms of style (e.g short and long citations);
Images: the Vietnamese air defences image description page probably needs to state where the original photographs came from in order to be considered adequately sourced/and to determine if the licence is correct. If not, it will need to be removed from the article (as it was from the Rolling Thunder article);
In the References section, several works are missing OCLC or ISBNs. Done

Per my comments on the Operation Linebacker ACR above I'm also of the opinion that this one doesn't meet the standard currently expected of an A class article. Same, same I'll try to assist where I can but am limited in my sources to what is available online. This article also uses an editorial tone in places which probably needs to be addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the bulk of the identified issues remain with this article remain over a month after being listed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As with Linebacker, fully agree with Rupert, the obvious things again being missing references and short lead -- latter is not a showstopper for A-Class but referencing is; structure seems reasonable but haven't gone through prose or image licensing, if someone could take care of the citation problems first then I'd be happy to assist with any prose issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: per AC, unfortunately the main issues remain after over a month so I believe it should probably be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- as AC/AR have mentioned, the issues (including, crucially, referencing) have not been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.