Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article fails Good article criteria 1.b. It is basically a set of lists. There is not enough prose to be an article. Lists should be converted to prose form as much as possible. See Embedded list.

The sets of list do not all have lead in prose explanations as required by MoS Lists

Also, the use of tables is discouraged in lists. See Lists. See When to use tables.

Perhaps this article can be reworked by turning many of ths lists into explanatory prose. Another suggestion would be to create Lists (stand-alone lists). Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, see Featured lists. Perhaps you can make a featured list. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the article's narrative, with the accompanying tables serving to supplement that narrative. All major operational highlights have been included in this revision.  As an aside, my intention was to provide a highly comprehensive encyclopedic entry on this subject.  Tables are useful because of the deployment patterns for this subject.  Please provide specific examples and remedial actions, as needed. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur&mdash;see this diff. Also, keep in mind that the air wing had times when it simply embarked upon a ship and didn't do anything behind routine training flights!!! &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that your work is not a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. I think it is. However, I believe that it still does not fullfil the definition of an article because it is primarily composed of lists and tables. I reread the definitions and examples in Embedded list, Lists, When to use tables and Lists (stand-alone lists). If you still disagree, we can present the article to WP:GAR to invite wider input into this issue.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... My idea is to ask the people at the Military history WikiProject. While they tend to have higher standards than most projects (and might call this a list too), I feel that the military knowledge they have might be helpful in determining how much prose can be added.
 * Also, with all of the sourced statements, I think that this would stand a chance of passing GA if we removed the tables...but just because they are in there doesn't mean that it is a list!
 * See my sandbox at this moment. This is the quick, two minute, article without the tables (all I did is remove them, but obviously a "List of aircraft used" would have to be added somewhere.) IMHO, that would pass a GAN (with a "list of aircraft somewhere!). However, I feel that the tables help enormously for people who are looking for what aircraft they used. &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. In fact, I meant to suggest the Military history WikiProject myself. They have experience passing articles at GA and FAC. Also,  at Featured Lists - Military and military history. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. The statement that "it is not about quality" is meant to be informative to people there (trying to get them to follow the link!)...sorry if it seems like I meant that in bad faith. =/ &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)