Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo/1

Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Rescue_of_Bat_21_Bravo/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples: BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Hambleton pulled the ejection seat handles and had a moment to make eye contact with the pilot as his seat rocketed out of the dying plane."
 * "Hambleton was due for some R&R, and his wife Gwen was planning to meet him in Thailand the next week."
 * "The Air Force did not put limits on what it took to rescue a downed airman."
 * "Hambleton decided that with only nine months to go until his retirement, he was going to survive and return home."


 * As long as that text is appropriately footnoted I don't see the problem. Yes it is not strictly encyclopedic style but it seems quite readable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean explained in a footnote or covered by a citaton? I did trim some of the "eye contact" text in the article. (I have not been involved with this article before, just trying to help a little.) -Fnlayson (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the nomination; the tone is generally unencyclopedic. As the article also contains significant uncited material, thus violating GA criterion 2b), I think delist unless improvements are made. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delist - also cites unreliable sources such as an angelfire website, imdb, and a self-published AuthorHouse book. I additionally have reliability concerns with some of the other web sources used. Hog Farm Talk 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)