Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1st Filipino Infantry Regiment/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].
1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been peer reviewed, passed GAR, and passed MILHIST Class A Review. It has been checked by others and using MS Word for prose, it is as comprehensive as can be given the research that can be found. To the best of my abilities it has been written in a way that it neither praises the unit that is the subject or makes negative statements regarding how it was utilized; it is also stable. Lead, structure, and citation style was checked in MILHIST Class A Review, as was the media. Also the background, and legacy sections are not the majority of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- Don't italicize publishers
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers, and if so what information is included and how it is formatted (for example, "New York, New York" vs "New York, NY" vs "New York")
- Check formatting of quotes within quotes, and don't include consecutive double-quotation marks
- this link doesn't appear to be going where you want it to be
- FN 4: are you citing page 591 or the whole book? If the former, use "p." ("pp." is for multiple pages); if the latter, please specify a page or small range. Check for other uses of "pp." where "p." is intended
- Retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
- Check for small inconsistencies in reference formatting like doubled periods
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or unhyphenated
- Provide page numbers for multi-page sources, for example FN 17
- FN 28: need full bibliographic details of sources being cited
- Fn 63: is this one author or two? Check formatting
- Use a consistent formatting for multi-author citations
- Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website names, base URLs or publishers
- Be consistent in how editors are notated
- FN 51: "London, UK" or simply "London" is preferred to "London, England". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments. I am beginning the process of improving the references above. As for the everyculture.com reference it is written by a Professor of History from San Jose State University, H. Brett Melendy. The professor got the material from a book written in 1982 that the professor reviewed. Thus I have instead replaced the reference with that book. See the change here.
- As for the esubject source, the page since first accessed appears to have become a WP:DEADLINK; however, the book itself is still accessible in print. Should I remove the URL to the now inaccessible dead link?
- Unfortunately, due to real life, it will take me sometime to make the changes requested. Please be patient with me, and I will post changes and responses as they come. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I wonder if the MILHIST A-class reviewers actually read the article when I come across prose problems like these:
- "By August 1945, operations came to a close".
- "Soldiers of the Regiment that had been detached to the Alamo Scouts ...". Using "that" rather than "who" makes that sentence ambiguous. Was it individual soldiers or a Regiment that had been detached? Was it the soldiers or the Regiment subsequently reassigned? Why "detached" rather than "attached"?
- "Others married women under to the War Brides Act".
- "Many younger soldiers connected to a culture to which they had previously only had a distant relationship". What does "connected to a culture" mean?
- "Soldiers of the Regiment who did either not qualify to return to the U.S ...".
- "Filipinos were allowed to immigrate freely to the United States as U.S. nationals." You don't immigrate to.
- "The Regiment was made up of three battalions". I find the capitalisation of "Regiment" throughout the article a little strange, but I can see no logic for capitalising "Regiment" yet not "battalion". Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems OK to me - the article is about the Regiment, so the capitialisation is OK (though perhaps not necessary). Regiments comprise several battalions, and there's no need to capitalise them unless they're being specifically named. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I'll be buying that I'm afraid. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems OK to me - the article is about the Regiment, so the capitialisation is OK (though perhaps not necessary). Regiments comprise several battalions, and there's no need to capitalise them unless they're being specifically named. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.