Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Coast Guard City


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Coast Guard City

 * Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This need some significant work to be A-class. Some comments below:
 * Reference for the list of cities.
 * There are only seven sources. An A-class article is supposed to have broad croverage. More sources needed.
 * Footnotes in lead are unnecessary.
 * Footnotes go after the period.
 * DAB link to "The Day"
 * This could be helpful.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * An A-class and GA review should not be run simotanuously. I suggest holding off this review until that's finished. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tomandjerry211; I've now fixed these issues:
 * references for list of cities added
 * sources increased from 7 to 12, or approximately 1 RS for each 35 words of text
 * removed footnotes from lede
 * copyedited positioning of footnotes
 * DABed link to "The Day"
 * LavaBaron (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to still keep it at an oppose for coverage and accuracy. MILHIST A-class standards are set close to FA standards. Good luck taking this article further, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, and welcome to Milhist A-Class Review. Thank you for your efforts with this article so far. I've had a quick look at the article and a couple of things stand out to me as potential issues at A-class. The main one, for me, is that the article is currently very short. This indicates that potentially there isn't depth of coverage/it isn't comprehensive. The ACR process aims to produce articles that are very close to Featured Articles in terms of quality. In this regard, the standard expected is quite high. As such, I'd recommend withdrawing this ACR and focusing on the GAN that you have also submitted for this (I note Tomandjerry's comment above in this regard, and concur with this). Once that is done, you will potentially have a better idea of where this article sits on the assessment scale. Additionally, if you would like ideas for expansion, perhaps the peer review process might help. I hope you won't be discouraged by these comments, though. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.