Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Commando Hunt

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Operation Commando Hunt
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review on behalf of, who raised the concern that "I do not feel like the article meets the A-class criteria anymore (or GA criteria) due to uncited passages." On reading through the article myself, I agree with this assessment, and generally think that the sourcing would need to be improved for this to remain an A-class article. Pinging the long inactive original nominator, as a courtesy. The original A-class review is here: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Commando Hunt/archive1. For clarity, please note that this is essentially an A-class delist (or save) review. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Harrias summarises my thoughts accurately (thanks for opening this!) Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delist The article has lots of long-standing citation needed notes, which indicates that it's not being maintained. The sourcing is also rather narrow, and the article would benefit from sources covering the Ho Chi Minh Trail from a Vietnamese perspective (I've seen several accounts by North Vietnamese personnel of the air attacks against the trail - from memory, women were prominent in the effort to move supplies along it). Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delist due to sourcing concerns. There are CN tags outstanding from several years ago; and I'm concerned by the heavy use of US government reports on the Vietnam War, particularly given the controversial nature of the conflict and some of the military claims related to it. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delist I am not too familiar with the MilHist criteria for A-class, but my impression is that an A-class article is higher in rating than a GA. However, I do not think this article would pass GA status today because of the numerous uncited statements. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for this article to be reevaluated at a lower rating. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delist The article is lacking adequate sourcing and has not been well maintained. I did not look for an earlier version to see whether it was assessed during a time when the standards were lower or whether it has been degraded by changes and additions. In either case, it needs considerable work to be A-class. In fact, despite its length, and presumed importance of the topic, it may be no better than a C as it now stands. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)