Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Midway/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [1].
- User:Jparshall inactive. Notified: WikiProject Military history
- WP:URFA nom
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in three cleanup categories: Wikipedia articles needing page number citations (tagged September 2010, June 2013, July 2013, October 2014, June 2015), articles with unsourced statements (tagged March 2015), and articles with dead external links (tagged July 2015). DrKay (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look at it and see what needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a start on fixing up the references. I hope to complete this tomorrow. Can you read through the article and look for any gaps and errors? One that is sticking out for me is that there is a section on Japanese casualties, but not on the American ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the references are repaired, but there is a pile of uncited material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed one broken cite, but there's a fair amount of work to be done. Nothing too onerous, but it will take me a week or two to add the missing cites, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the references are repaired, but there is a pile of uncited material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a start on fixing up the references. I hope to complete this tomorrow. Can you read through the article and look for any gaps and errors? One that is sticking out for me is that there is a section on Japanese casualties, but not on the American ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sturmvogel 66: Update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. Thanks for the changes and work so far, but the article is still tagged for citation needed, clarification and pages needed. DrKay (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]Moved here now - I note the [citation needed] tags still present, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Unsourced statements from July and August 2015; tagged as needing clarification and page numbers. DrKay (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Doesn't look too serious. I will do another pass over the references on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have corrected all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article now looks to be up to scratch as far as I can see following the recent work that has been done to it. Some minor points:
- The notes next to the references don't really seem to be in-line with current practice and some seem to be a little judgmental / opinionated re sources. I'd suggest removing them.
- There are some minor inconsistencies in the references and further reading section IRT presentation of the Naval Institute Press (sometimes also presented as "United States Naval Institute Press", "U.S. Naval Institute Press" or "US Naval Institute Press" etc.) I fix it myself but I'm unsure which is the preferred style here.
- I did a minor copy-edit, added some bibliographic details / formatted some refs, made a few other changes [2].Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is the United States Naval Institute, the publishing arm is Naval Institute Press. Set all the references to this.
- I have removed some of the footnotes, and merged some into the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Query I have started creating Category:Aircraft carrier units and formations after noticing that USN and IJN carrier divisions were redirecting to each other (eg. Carrier Division 5). Currently the Japanese carrier divisions are at ordinals, eg Fifth Carrier Division, rather than the numerical-at-end-of-designation USN style. I think that it's possible that IJN carrier divisions started off their wiki-existence in USN style. So my query is is ordinals correct (5th Carrier Division, *not* Carrier Division 5) for the IJN? In that case, the article links need to be updated. Meanwhile the USN World War II divisions will eventually end up as Carrier Division Five (United States) etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we close this now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrKay: if you opine, then I will keep coordinator hat on to close. Just like to get a tiny bit more comments before closing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thank you. My only (trivial) comment is that there is a mixture of integers and words used for numbers; ideally, it should be one or the other (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words). DrKay (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrKay: if you opine, then I will keep coordinator hat on to close. Just like to get a tiny bit more comments before closing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.