Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1945)/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 promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [1].
Black Friday (1945) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an unsuccessful Allied air raid on Norway in 1945 recently passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. The raid's claims to fame are that it was both the largest air battle ever fought over Norway and the worst day of the war for the Royal Air Force's Coastal Command. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could do with a Template:About at the top, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments:
- Are you sure about goNorway.com as a source? It's basically a tourism advert, and it seems at odds with the quality of the other sources.
- I think it's OK as all the article says is that the museum exists and the tourism website supports this (there are lots of others with similar information). I've added a link to the local government's page on the museum as well though as this provides a non-commercial confirmation that the museum exists and is a going concern.
- Koop, Gerhard et al: This is out of alphabetical sequence.
- Fixed
Otherwise, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- All external links appear fine.
- Black Friday is a dab link but in this context I'm not sure that one can avoid that.
- All images have alt text apart from the World War II portal link, and that's not your problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- reviewed, performed a light copyedit, and supported this in its MilHist A-Class Review. Structure, prose, coverage, referencing and supporting materials all appear satisfactory for FA -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- the google book links are effectively just (unintentional) spam since they do not lead to any preview text, and should be removed.
- I think that their functionality depends on where you live. They show the text which I've quoted here in Australia, so they seem useful on WP:V grounds.
- How do we know that the action images were taken by Australian airmen? Is it just assumed because they are in the Oz archive, or is it documented, in which case it should be added to the image descriptions.
- The AWM database doesn't explicitly state that they were taken by Australian airmen, but states that they're PD. Almost all the photos in its collection were taken by Australians.
- Images are appropriately licensed
- Why is Milson publisher in parentheses?
- It's a journal article, and 'Wartime' is the name of the journal - the cite journal template adds the italics. The Australian War Memorial is the publisher
- Link for "flak" or "flak gun"?
- Done
- In lead, In exchange sounds a bit cosy for a bloody battle, is there something more appropriate.
- Removed
- the google book links are effectively just (unintentional) spam since they do not lead to any preview text, and should be removed.
- I would have supported this on first read if it were not for the Google books link issue. Links to Google versions of copyright publications are unstable, or have differential access depending on country, and are best avoided Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems better to me to include links which work and add considerable value for many readers (and help verify that the text is in line with the source) than to exclude them outright because they don't work for everyone (particularly as when they don't work they still provide some useful information in the form of the book's publishing details). Is there a standard practice for this? - I've linked to Google books text in my previous FAs without any concerns being raised. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fair enough, and in fact one of the links does indirectly link to useful text. Some of my FAs also contain Google Book links, although never added by me! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: generally looks fine to me, I just have one comment:
- in the Background section the squadrons are presented as "144 Squadron", "404 Squadron", "455 Squadron" etc., but later in the Preliminaries section as "No. 455 Squadron". For consistency I think they should be presented the same. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed (by adding 'No.' at the front). Thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Background section the squadrons are presented as "144 Squadron", "404 Squadron", "455 Squadron" etc., but later in the Preliminaries section as "No. 455 Squadron". For consistency I think they should be presented the same. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.