Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tent pegging

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

---

Tent pegging

Previous nomination

This article is rated A-class since September 2006. However, it does not meet the A-class criteria anymore and it might even not fall within our scope. Opinions whether this article should be demoted or not would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the first time we've done this. Easiest I think is if we simply approach this as a second run for A-Class, with reviewers indicating Keep for confirmation at A-Class or Demote for demotion to Start. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I agree. It has a poor lead and the paragraphs seem more organised on the lines of a listed facts. For example, the three 'paragraphs' in the Essential Rules section are just three run-on sentences. I think that some of the references are misplaced, for example reference 5 - shouldn't it be at the end of the paragraph, to note that it all comes from that source? Even then, some statements are completely unsourced and that is certainly not up to A-class or even Good Article standards. In fact, B-class articles require complete referencing, if I'm not mistaken (according to the WP:MilHist standards). I do think, however, that this falls without our scope since it seems to have been practiced by military cavalrymen. It should, however, probably have a section which specializes on that topic. In any case, it seems as if the article was given a A-class status without a review, and that itself should mean that it was never an A-class article to begin with. It was not even given a Good Article review; it went straight to FAC and did not get promoted. JonCatalan (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It went through a Previous nomination here which was very loose, as were most at the time. It certainly doesn't have to go through GA, which at that time, was not held in high regard, nor was it that active. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote: Doesn't really cut the mustard. Barely adequate prose and not exactly comprehensive. Of only tangential relevance to Milhist. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote Too many short paragraphs, not great prose wise, has large gaps in the topic e.g. cavalry history etc. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote As per Woody. The article has a great many gaps, far too few citations, and the lead is a mess. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Demote --Eurocopter (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.