Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing

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 - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

102nd Intelligence Wing edit

Nominator(s): Lineagegeek (talk)

Previous A-class Review

Reviewing this article to determine the accuracy of a bot generated request to review links, I noted that several paragraphs lack references (partly, not entirely, due to link rot), so the article no longer meets even B Class criteria). It, therefore, needs a new review. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made a few tweaks to try to rectify some of the issues that I found, but unfortunately can't help with other aspects. If these can be rectified, I am of the opinion that the article could retain its A-class status, otherwise it should unfortunately be demoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are numerous paragraphs that do not end in references, which is as noted above the main issue for this article to overcome
in the References, the Williams source - is there a specific article within the journal that relates to the unit? If so, this should be added to the citation
what makes the Middleton website reliable?
for the Rogers citation (currently # 16) is there a page number that could be added?
currently, I think the article potentially has too much room devoted to the 9/11 incident, when compared to the space devoted to other topics, so I think it might be best to reduce this a little
"File:Too-102fw.jpg": is there a link to a website where this was obtained from? Currently the only source is "US Defense Department".
- Delist/demote: it doesn't appear that these issues will be resolved, so I think it best that the article be delisted as an A-class article for the time being. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

History:

"The 102d Intelligence Wing traces its roots to the 318th Fighter Group" The cited source does not support this statement (and without an idea of what "traces its roots" means it may be inaccurate. The 318th Fighter Group became the 102d Fighter Group, which is not the 102d wing, but a subordinate unit. The article as a whole confuses the group and the wing and compounds it by stating that the wing was also "previously the 69th Fighter Wing". Later the articles refers to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the three fighter units were not assigned to it, but to the 102d Fighter Group. One of the squadrons as well as other units listed are not supported by the cited reference (probably in part because one fighter squadron was in the Connecticut National Guard and the source is a Massachusetts National Guard website). This kind of sloppiness permeates the article. I question whether either B1 or B2 would pass a B class review.

"Guard units were generally neglected . . . Not supported by cited source (although this could be edited to do so)

Although the MA ANG wasn't mobilized for the Korean War. Per source cited, elements of it were, but not the 102d Wing (which was only established in 1950), so this is extraneous information. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to delist/demote -- I concur that without reliable sourcing for the uncited elements this can't remain A-Class, and since there's still a lot outstanding after almost three weeks (the USAF isn't my area of expertise unfortunately) I don't hold out much hope for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think even one book from in the Bibliography section was ever referenced in the text. Please either change that section header to "Further reading", or delete the section. I very strongly urge the latter, since we have little way of knowing whether these sources provide meaningful amounts of useful/relevant information. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:53, 7 December 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.