Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/archive 2
Complete, well written, good featured article candidate. The main objections last time were that there was a major rewrite underway at the time. →Iñgōlemo← talk 08:06, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- Where are the inline cites? Three are not enough to verify the information in this article. --mav 12:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously this article can only be an overview of a massive topic, with specific detail to the myriad of sub-articles. The kind of thing that needs inline external citations tend to be in those more focused subtopics. In this article the wikilinks to other articles themselves act as the "cites". The important thing is whether the breadth and depth of courage is even and appropriate. I think this article achieves that sufficiently to get my support. Stylistically, there is quite a lot of variation in section length and this makes one wonder if the short sections are a) inappropriately sectioned and should be merged or b) appropriately sectioned but missing detail of a level included in other sections. At 60k, this article is already at the upper limit of "comfortable readability" though! Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is on the long side and I'd like to see better organization as well. Since it is already so long (IMO, longer than comfortable read) I'd like to see more condensing of longer sections and an effort to make sure the removed detail is still covered by the daughter articles. Object until then (I'd like to throw my hat in and help this weekend ; I don't think it will take too long to fix). --mav 11:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously this article can only be an overview of a massive topic, with specific detail to the myriad of sub-articles. The kind of thing that needs inline external citations tend to be in those more focused subtopics. In this article the wikilinks to other articles themselves act as the "cites". The important thing is whether the breadth and depth of courage is even and appropriate. I think this article achieves that sufficiently to get my support. Stylistically, there is quite a lot of variation in section length and this makes one wonder if the short sections are a) inappropriately sectioned and should be merged or b) appropriately sectioned but missing detail of a level included in other sections. At 60k, this article is already at the upper limit of "comfortable readability" though! Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Judging by the refence section, one could easily get the impression that only British historians (and the occasional token German) have written anything on the subject. If just for show, could we try to balance this a tad? Peter Isotalo 16:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - One of my reference articles in wikipedia. The main stages of the war, in the 3 main fronts are very well selected and covered. Perhaps some more info about the homeland resistance movements, such as in France, in Yugoslavia (that freed himself from the fascism) or Greece should be covered. Also the role of neutral countries, such as mine, Portugal, could be covered, however the article is already big enough, and the info about the war per se is very good and almost all little issues have the link to the greater article they expand into, this works almost like a huge lead section to the excellent articles that Wikipedia has about this huge historical fact. Afonso Silva 21:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What happen? There's only a "former FA" template on the talk page, and it links to the present nomination. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I would like to be able to read the old FAC discussion.I don't want to sound churlish about this in some ways amazing article, but it does need a style and grammar copyedit. I can try to provide that in a day or two, if nobody else offers, but a better historian than me would really be better. Bishonen | talk 01:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC) P.S., Never mind about the old FAC discussion, I see Ingoolemo links to it above. Bishonen | talk.- Object. A very important subject, if - when - we FA this, it should be *perfect*. Each section needs a pic. There are quite a lot of one sentence paragraphs - they should be merged or expaned. I agree with Afonso, there are entire sections missing - resistance movement is definetly vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object. I totally agree with Piotr here. This is an article that needs to adhere to ridiculously high standards of verifiability, neutrality and overall quality. Though I am in general quite skeptical in promoting yet more war articles to FA status, I really like how this is for once a much more general subject, and not just an individual battle, general or piece of equipment. It needs to be turned inside out and upside down in a truly grueling PR before it can be featured on the main page, and it needs to be the perfect model of how to summarize major topics. I also feel that the broader social and political implications need to be focused on a lot more; this is not just military history, but one of the defining aspects of 20th century history. / Peter Isotalo 12:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I just noticed the major rewrite in progress (which so far looks a lot better than the current article). This article is nowhere near finished. It needs some major work before even allowed back as a PR, let alone an FAC. / Peter Isotalo 12:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- With the last edit from over a month ago, this rewrite seems dead. I wouldn't call it better then main article anyway, although some if the non-war (aftermath, impact, etc.) sections should be incorporated into the current article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa! I have no idea what happened. I actually checked World War II/temp to see what was going on, and I came up with a tiny page that had a comment on it. What's going on? →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:18, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
- Tiny? It's over 40k and still being worked on. The current World War II is a structural mess that needs major copyediting and it's far too warcrufty. There must be hundreds of major sub-articles on WW II right now, and new ones being created every day. It's about time we wrote an article on a really major subject that was a model example of a good summary instead of being a huge, unwieldy mass of minutiae. / Peter Isotalo 23:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- No! I mean that when I checked the /temp rewrite page before nominating this article, the page was, for some strange reason, a comment. Maybe I did something wrong, like accessing /Temp or something like that. →Iñgōlemo← talk 01:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
- Tiny? It's over 40k and still being worked on. The current World War II is a structural mess that needs major copyediting and it's far too warcrufty. There must be hundreds of major sub-articles on WW II right now, and new ones being created every day. It's about time we wrote an article on a really major subject that was a model example of a good summary instead of being a huge, unwieldy mass of minutiae. / Peter Isotalo 23:23, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Whoa! I have no idea what happened. I actually checked World War II/temp to see what was going on, and I came up with a tiny page that had a comment on it. What's going on? →Iñgōlemo← talk 06:18, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
- With the last edit from over a month ago, this rewrite seems dead. I wouldn't call it better then main article anyway, although some if the non-war (aftermath, impact, etc.) sections should be incorporated into the current article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- I just noticed the major rewrite in progress (which so far looks a lot better than the current article). This article is nowhere near finished. It needs some major work before even allowed back as a PR, let alone an FAC. / Peter Isotalo 12:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- There are tons and tons and tons of media files (audio and video) already on Wikipedia that could be incorperated into the article. I'd think this article needs to be beefed up with them before it can be promoted. →Raul654 05:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)