Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2023/Demoted

Demoted[edit]

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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Commando Hunt[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review on behalf of Z1720, 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, RM Gillespie as a courtesy. The original A-class review is here: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Harrias summarises my thoughts accurately (thanks for opening this!) Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer IV[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

A-class reappraisal of this article.

This article failed a GA review in 2011 and another in 2021. At the time, both reviewers User:Sturmvogel 66 and User:Nick-D noted major concerns over the verifiability of the text. There still exist unresolved citation needed tags from 2009 and multiple unreferenced sections and paragraphs. I've gone through and deleted some references to hobbyist sites and deleted some statements that violated WP:SYNTH.

We could delete the problematic sections but the resulting article would not be as comprehensive. Schierbecker (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This should have been delisted over a decade ago; not sure why I didn't do this when I failed the GAN. The sourcing problems mean this isn't of A-class standards and the article isn't being maintained to address these problems. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Needs substantial work, not just on sourcing but text/structure as well. Zawed (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heuschrecke 10[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Featured article candidates/Heuschrecke 10/archive1

A-class reappraisal of this article.

I mean no disrespect to the original author but this article is terrible. Most of the content is cited to Achtung Panzer, an enthusiast military history site. Does not pass muster even remotely.

No safe version to revert to. Schierbecker (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist; when Osprey is one of the higher-quality sources in the article that is a bad sign. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too brief, and many of the references are not reliable. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Major issues with sourcing. Zawed (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.