Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Juskalian/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 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

George Juskalian

 * Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article contains photographs are directly from the family archives. He was an interesting man who received a lot of page views since the article was created. The information in the article is very well sourced and highly detailed. I believe it is a great fit for FAC. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest collapsing long lists in infobox
 * All Institute of Heraldry links appear to be broken - not sure if this is a temporary problem or not, should recheck later
 * File:Us_legion_of_merit_rib.png and File:Us_silverstar_rib.png should use PD-USGov-Military award (on Commons)
 * File:US_Army_Airborne_basic_parachutist_badge.gif: source link is dead, and as badge is 3D, should clarify whether the given license applies to badge, photo, or both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll collapse the infobox a bit. Which link exactly is broken? I couldn't find an All Institute of Heraldry references. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sorry, but the article appears to have had very little  preparation for FAC prior to this nomination. It seems to have undergone no formal review process or any discussion with the large and highly knowledgeable WP MilHist contingent. Here are some basic issues that should be addressed:
 * The article's presentation looks completely shambolic. Main points: the profusion of single-sentence paragraphs preventing any prose flow; the repeated insertion of quotation templates into the prose; too many sections and subsections with very little content; the use of level-six section headings (which I've never encountered before), producing the absurd "Escape tunnel" heading, etc.
 * There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article.
 * There is no justification for listing and illustrating the many awards and decorations both in the infobox and in the main body. This is pointless repetition.
 * What is the purpose of including geographic coordinates? How does this information advance the reader's knowledge of the subject.

My own recommendation would be to withdraw this nomination pending discussion with the MilHist people and perhaps a Class-A review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.