Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011.

102nd Intelligence Wing

 * Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...after three years of work and hundreds of edits to this page, I feel as though the reason that I became a Wikipedia editor is finally good enough to become a Featured Article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are many instances of close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
 * 102nd Intelligence Wing is a direct copy-paste from this page.
 * Article: "The War Department agreed The Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard."
 * Source: "The War Department agreed that the Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard."
 * Article: "Within weeks, fifteen World War I veteran pilots were commissioned into the squadron and placed under the command of Captain James K. Knowles."
 * Source: "Within weeks, 15 veteran World War I pilots were commissioned and assigned to the 101st under the command of Capt. James K. Knowles."
 * Much of 102nd Intelligence Wing section is close-paraphrased from source
 * Article: "In 1940, the 101st was separated from the 26th Infantry Division and in November was ordered into active federal service for intensive training. The 101st’s 25 officers and 133 enlisted men initially remained at Logan until July 31, 1941 when moving to Otis Field at Camp Edwards. Otis Field was named after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis, Jr., MD, a 101st flight surgeon killed in a flying accident in 1938. The 101st participated in the North Carolina maneuvers in the fall of 1941 and returned to Otis on December 6, 1941."
 * Source: "In 1940, the 101st separated from the 26th Division and in November was ordered into active federal service for intensive training. The 25 officers and 133 enlisted men assigned to the 101st remained at home station until July 31, 1941 when the unit moved to Otis Field, Camp Edwards named in honor of 1st Lt. Frank J. Otis, Jr., 101st flight surgeon killed in a flight accident in 1938. The 101st participated in the North Carolina maneuvers in the fall of 1941 and returned to Otis Field on Dec. 6, 1941."
 * Article: "By then, many of its original members had been reassigned during the expansion of the Army Air Forces."
 * Source: "By then many of its original members had been reassigned during the expansion of the Army Air Forces."
 * Article: "From 1995 to 1998 the wing deployed to Iceland for 45 days of air defense duty"
 * Source: "During the years 1995 through 1998 the Wing has deployed to Iceland for 45 days of air defense duty"
 * Article: "In 1999 the wing participated in Operation Northern Watch when it deployed with its F-15s to Turkey to patrol and enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th Parallel in northern Iraq"
 * Source: "In 1999 the Wing participated in Operation Northern Watch when it deployed with its F-15 Eagle aircraft to Turkey to patrol and enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in northern Iraq"
 * Article: "Fire trucks were on hand when the team landed a half-hour later, giving the planes and the pilots the customary ceremonial hose-down for the last time."
 * Source: "Firetrucks were on hand when the team landed a half-hour later, giving the planes and the pilots the customary hose-down for the last time."
 * Article: "On his radio, he called pilot Major Daniel Nash, the pilot who was sharing alert duty, and told him to get ready for a coming alert call. He also told him to suit up and get ready for a scamble call."
 * Source: "On his handheld radio he calls Major Daniel Nash, who along with Duffy is an “alert” pilot on duty at this time, and instructs him to suit up ready for any scramble call"

I appreciate that Kevin Rutherford has spent much time working on the article. However, the close paraphrasing and plagiarism indicate that this article is not ready for FA. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: I previously encountered the nominator at DYK here, where I pointed out copyright violations and plagiarism in his article. Cunard (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Cunard: I really appreciate the work you did on this. I've alerted the coordinators at MILHIST to the problem, in the hope that we never have a copyright problem in articles that pass our A-class review again ... although I want to point out that the article has changed a lot in the last 10 months, and I haven't checked who said what when. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't saved it yet, but I have fixed all that Cunard has noted above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Kevin, I've seen you make intelligent, insightful comments for a long time, so I can't figure out what's up here. I only had to look at the first link Cunard points out. This seems like obvious POV to me: "Yellow refers to the sun and the excellence required of Air Force personnel." And how could large blocks of copy-pasted text from a unit's self-description be anything other than POV ... and even when it isn't, be perceived that way by reviewers? Facepalm: I see this passed an A-class review last May ... I don't understand how that happened; I need to ask around for how the reviewers are handling these problems nowadays. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote this all mostly years ago, when I was still quite a new editor so a lot of things in that that I wouldn't do now. I had an editor run a review independently (if you want, I can provide the site) and I thought I addressed all the issues. In terms of the POV thing, I think I was more in a rush and copied it since it was in the public domain. I'll go and fix this later on today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kevin, I'm sure the sea of opposes must be an unwelcome surprise. It's possible that the problems could all get fixed during the FAC, but it will mean a lot of rewriting, and sometimes it doesn't happen fast enough for FAC.  If this fails FAC, I'd recommend going back for a MILHIST peer review to handle all the new material, and if all goes well there I think you can be optimistic about bringing this back to FAC.  I see the part that I objected to wasn't in the article 10 months ago when it passed the MILHIST A-class review; we need to add something to the instructions at A-class about being careful about making significant changes before going on to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, that's life. I do like this process though because it usually allows for me to do a better job when I address issues that need addressing. I do agree with you on the new rules part and I think a lot of this can be tied into recent events when we realized that some of our articles need help. I definitely don't identify with the editor that originally wrong this article in the past and I am more than willing to fix every blaring issue that is out there immediately. Additionally, I did put those things of text in blockquotes for now, but if you think that they just need to be re-written, I can do that as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I haven't checked the close-paraphrasing concerns raised by the above reviewer, but that's a big red flag and needs to be addressed immediately
 * Organization needs work. Several very short paragraphs and subsections that could be merged or expanded as appropriate. "Description" section reads like the alt text for the related image, not as actual prose.
 * Tone is a problem in several areas - should always be neutral and encyclopedic. "the unit has consistently excelled"? "rich heritage"?
 * WP:OVERLINK - for example, World War I linked twice in quick succession. Also, should be consistent in whether you refer to it as World War I or the First World War
 * "The War Department agreed The Guard should organize aviation squadrons as an organic part of the 18 infantry divisions assigned to the National Guard." - appears twice, one after the other
 * Needs some general copy-editing for flow, tone and clarity
 * Need much more consistency in reference format.
 * Book and journal citations need page number(s)
 * Several sites are potentially concerning in relation to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me what those sites are so I could look into it? Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, now for this one. I have fixed the paraphrasing, the overlinkage, and repeating sentence issues. In terms of the organization thing, I feel as though the separate paragraphs would be akward if they were merged up, but I could be quite wrong. The tone issue was just addressed as becomming part of a direct quote as well. If I can grab a few people, I can get the copyediting done within the next day or so. I think the citation issues are due to the fact that this article has citation templates from a time when we had a bit of a transition in doing them, although I don't see anything wrong with them right now. The Air Forces magazine thing will only get a citation if someone has a subscription to it so I feel like that will be an impossible task at the moment. The World Airpower Journal is on every air force unit Wikipedia page and it is a virtual holdover from the time when the article first was created. I really can't address the reliable sources thing until someone notes them because I have a hard time telling them apart sometimes. Otherwise, I feel as though I haven't forgotten anything blaring but you can correct me if I am wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks everyone above. I'm going to address these issues late on today. If the above editors could respond to me, that would make this process a whole heck of a lot easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MILHIST's peer review and A-class review are, and are intended to be, more supportive than FAC. Even though many of the most active FAC reviewers will in fact be pulling for you, and will give you all sorts of information, there are limits on how many fixes they can make before people will start complaining, "Well, I see you fixed that in his article, why didn't you fix it in mine?"  So ... if reviewers give you what you need, great, and if not, we should be able to fix everything in a MILHIST review.  I apologize that most of the problems mentioned are things I don't generally handle. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I am used to how things work here so nothing suprises me that much anymore. Almost three and a half years of this produces a great level of apathy sometimes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.