Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Mullen, III


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

William F. Mullen III

 * ... that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. soldiers such as William F. Mullen III (pictured) depended on forging good relations and trust with the local Iraqi population in order to fight the Iraqi insurgency?

Created/expanded by Jdanbeck (talk). Self nominated at 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Reviewed DYK Snezhnika
 * Reviewed DYK Love and Friendship (film) Jdanbeck (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , your comments at Snezhnika are not a review. Please refer to DYK Reviewing guide. — Maile (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the review, it should be good to go this time. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the review, it should be good to go this time. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure what you did that you believe "fixed the review". I'm guessing you meant that you substituted the Love and Friendship as a QPQ.  I struck out the Snezhnika above, thinking you now mean Love and Friendship. You did a little better on Love and Friendship and I'm not sure if anyone would argue on that one or not. When a promoter wants to move an approved review into the prep area, the promoter basically needs this.
 * Articles do need to be checked for copyright violations or close paraphrasing againt the sources, and the "Dup detector" tool is provided in the upper right hand corner of the nomination template when opened in the edit window.
 * Is the hook stated in the article and sourced?
 * Is there adequate sourcing in the article, rule-of-thumb is one inline citation per paragraph?
 * Are the hook and the article both written from a NPOV (neutral point of view)?
 * Does the article meet the standards of minimum length in prose characters?
 * Different criteria on "newness" and length exists for different types - Newly created; Expanded 5X; Good Article.
 * Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed. My comments are not a review of this nomination, only trying to clear up the QPQ done. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did two DYK reviews, one for Snezhnika which I updated ("fixed") and the other for Love and Friendship (film). I was told that I should review more than one article, hence the two reviews. I'm not sure if you meant that the reviews made the cut. But I'll go through my reviews again and make sure they fit the criteria you just listed. Thank you.Jdanbeck (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I updated my review for Love and Friendship according to the criteria. Hopefully that one is correct. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It must have been correct. The nomination is now in Prep Area 4. You did good. — Maile  (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether this subject is notable per WP:MILNG. The bulk of information comes from a biography about him on an Army forum; the other independent refs are a one-line mention on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy page and a short discussion of his book on the Pritzker Military Museum & Library page. More reliable, independent, third-party sources are needed. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a general officer and former president of Marine Corps University, he is notable under criteria 3 of people per WP:MILNG. I have added more reliable third party sources to the article.  I'll see that more get added, too by . TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg OK, thanks. I removed the notability tag. I also formatted the new references and removed the dead link. For a DYK nomination, not every sentence has to be sourced. However, the hook fact does have to be sourced, and with an inline cite (right after the sentence in question). This hook fact is not cited, nor does it appear in the source given at the end of the paragraph.
 * Otherwise, the article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, neutrally written, and no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. The image is public domain – would you like to add it to the nomination? Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. The very last sentence of the article lists and cites the hook. I will note that the citation comes from a website which then cites the book. Is that appropriate? Jdanbeck (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Yes, that works. Hook ref verified and cited inline. I'm adding the public domain image to this nomination – that chest full of medals is very impressive! Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, pulled from prep because the closest thing to the hook I could find in the article is
 * The authors present a strategy by U.S. military planners to work with the local population in order to resist the insurgents, who were seen as a common enemy.

Also (re notability) can someone point me to something confirming that a Marine Corps Brigadier General is a flag officer? (I know nothing about that stuff and the WP articles on ranks are, um, very confusing.) I will say in passing that this is one scary-looking dude for sure and if I were pinned down in a firefight somewhere I would definitely feel better knowing it was his job to get us out. EEng (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Since this was pulled from prep due to hook issues, I'm marking it with an icon that indicates it is not currently approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Updated hook to reflect the sentence it refers to. Now the hook should be good according to DYK nom requires. Jdanbeck (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. soldiers such as William F. Mullen III (pictured) worked with the local population in order to resist the Iraqi Insurgency, who were seen as a common enemy?


 * Um, where in the source (cited in the article) is that? EEng (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"As Anbar Province’s tribes began to turn against al-Qaeda, Fallujah’s residents were waiting for the movement to push eastward to help them eliminate al-Qaeda but they needed the help of U.S. forces. A concerted pacification campaign, in coordination with tribal efforts, was implemented by U.S. and Iraqi security forces that fundamentally altered local security conditions in Fallujah." Jdanbeck (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the reference. Also, why did you cross out my hook at the top and copy it down below?
 * I know this seems picky but everything in the Mideast is so complicated, with alliances made and broken for much more subtle reasons that "common enemy", that I'm gonna have to suggest that the hook track the source's statement more closely. Also, does al-Qaeda = Iraqi insurgency? EEng (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A hook is supposed to be accurate and interesting. Many Americans think that most Iraqis did not want American soldiers there in the first place. Yet Mullen's story shows that that was not always the case. Regardless, how about this:
 * ALT2 ... that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. soldiers such as William F. Mullen III (pictured) worked with the local population in Falluja, al-Anbar in order to resist al-Qaeda?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Perfect. Now we need a reviewer. EEng (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda is given as an example of one of the insurgent groups. This tweak is verified and cited inline:
 * ALT3: ... that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. soldiers such as William F. Mullen III (pictured) worked with the local population in Falluja, al-Anbar to resist insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda? Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you! I think ALT3 is he best hook. So and  the review is approved? Jdanbeck (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah and I are just busybodies who dropped in to tinker with the hook. We'll now need an independent reviewer. I'm summoning my friend, who rarely has much to do with his abundant free time, to maybe get off his keester and review this for you. EEng (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * alas, too busy fannying about with audio samples....but phew, that's what I call a guy with a head like a soldier's! (so maybe later)Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

for ALT3 per another random busybody - it matches the article and matches the source linked in the article. That's all you need, right? 184.147.117.34 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all that was needed was ALT3 checked, so GTG. EEng (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)