Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)/archive2


 * 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 18:12, 4 May 2008.

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)
previous FAC (00:02, 25 March 2008)


 * Self-Nomination The article has improved from its previous nomination, I believe the issues preventing its promotion have been addressed. It has also since been promoted from a GA to an A-class article. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
 * http://www.173rdairborne.com/menu.htm
 * http://www.casperplatoon.com/index.htm
 * All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first one, per the "about us" section, the people who run the cite are military pundits on CNN news etc, so they are respected analysts. Some of them also held directorship/high admin jobs in space research, which is also a part of GlobalSecurity. I've tossed off the last one because I found the same info on a better site.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have tossed off the second one as well.... is it still there?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it either, I'll leave the global security one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Globalsecurity.org is a "gold standard" source. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this in the HRC mess, what makes it a gold standard source per WP:RS? We need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the article? GlobalSecurity.org. It's a reliable source according to Forbes.com (linnk in the article), Quantcast, Popsci.com, Alsos.wlu.edu, etc. It's ridiculous that this is even a question. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the article. The forbes link is the ONLY sourced information in the Global Security article. Just having a wikipedia article with one source doesn't make it a reliable source. The other link you gave, wlu. edu, was much more helpful about showing that it's a reliable source. I'm not sure how the other two links you gave established reliability, but the Forbes and the wlu.edu site together satisfy my concerns. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Swatjester, please note that we are all volunteers, everyone here has the same goal of making sure our FAs are the best they can be, no question on a FAC is ridiculous if its goal is to make sure we're using the best possible sources, and reviewers who take their "job" of reviewing seriously are appreciated, as strenuous review enhances the quality of a star once it's bestowed. Thank you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree unless a few more dead-tree sources are found that do not rely on U.S. military sources. The brigade has a long history, and this should not be documented from official sources so close to the subject, but from third-party references. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose The sources are perilously close to WP:COI, coming almost entirely from the US military. This was raised at the Milhist A-class review and needs addressing.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've turfed most of them. The museum appears to be independent of the US Army, and so is Army Times.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed but we've still got a fair number of them. Can this be neutralised further because otherwise it's rather a good article. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - I'm working on it. Down to about 10-12% I think.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The copy looks fine but I haven't had time to give it close scrutiny. Maybe tomorrow, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some way that I can solicit for additional reviewers in the meantime? The commenters have not come back and no one seems to be giving opinions now. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been listed at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents for several days. Perhaps you can post at MilHist (taking note of the WP:CANVASS guideline). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already been posted at MilHist, but that only attracted the project leader to the GA. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose — It's a really nice article with plenty of wonderful graphics and photos, but I'd really like to see a few more citations from different sources. I'm particularly concerned about so much reliance on those first two cites — the GlobalSecurity one in particular. The prose is good, but I'd like to see some of the red links stubbed out or removed altogether; the battalions and "Iraqi gold" in particular are of questionable utility. The prose is good, but it's too limited by the sources you have. I imagine that as you add more sources, you'll be able to expand the detail of the article more than it is right now — thus resolving a minor issue. By all means, keep it up! It's an interesting topic, and I can't wait to see what you do with it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Extra redlinks removed. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are not a valid oppose; any article that could meet notability should be left as a redlink. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just realized that I said "the prose is good" twice in rapid succession. Doh! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing notes; After two unsuccessful FACs, I suggest opening a peer review and following all the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, including inviting all previous opposers and peer review volunteers to visit and help sort things out. Good luck!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.