Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight 19/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 19:48, 21 March 2008.

[edit] Flight 19

Check external links
Anynobody 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose (you had got one week) - more references (the ref 2 is composed to 25 points?), only 8, if it's possible add the bibliography (facultatif), the graphic isn't very good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 08:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
more references (the ref 2 is composed to 25 points?) Yep, it's simply the most detailed source located thus far. Most sources discuss it in the context of the Bermuda Triangle and don't go into detail about the specifics of the flight itself.
if it's possible add the bibliography Which bibliography, a list of every book to mention it? There are so many books about the triangle, mentioning Flight 19 listing even a good portion of them would probably necessitate a spinoff while books only about Flight 19 seem to be non-existent.
the graphic isn't very good Which one and why? Anynobody 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed you support The Last Temptation of Krust, which also has eight sections, prompting the question: Is there something you think is missing or should be repeated reiterated? Anynobody 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(you had got one week) Umm ok, in the future you may find editors conforming to your suggestions within your timeframe if you 1) Say there is a timeframe 2) Answer questions posed to you about said suggestions. Until you said time expired I had wondered if you were too busy to reply or just forgot. Anynobody 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fair Use concerns regarding Image:NYTflight19.jpg
    • Image has incomplete rationale (see WP:RAT), which may be moot given the next bullet.
    • Image does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding (required by WP:NFCC#8). The only relevant, reasonably legible text is “Great Hunt on for 27 Navy Fliers Missing in Six Planes Off Florida”. Why is a Fair Use image needed for this? This text could be included in the article prose. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've never been very keen on that image myself for the exact reasons you've cited. However it was there before I started editing and nobody else seemed to have concerns. Knowing that I'm not the only one I ditched it. Anynobody 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not a problem, and thank you :) Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • References need to be formatted consistently. Usual form is to put author first. Some of the sites need publisher information given also. I can't tell from the references what is the publisher, what is the author, etc.
    • Not quite sure that http://skepdic.com/bermuda.html is the best source possible for "meant that there was little hope of rescue, even if they had managed to stay afloat"
No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't tell from the references what is the publisher, what is the author, etc. Indeed for some sources that information isn't available, such as the excerpt from Flight 19's board of inquiry. However I've endeavored to clarify them a bit more.
      • Not quite sure that... That was misplaced, it was supposed to be a citation for the Argosy article, and now is. Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please use the {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} templates for referencing? The current referencing format is inconsistent and does not include information like publisher or author. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • While I certainly understand the need for consistency and will try to address it, I actually prefer not to use the templates you mentioned because they can make editing sections difficult. Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It'd be easier to illustrate than explain I think, check out the lead section of L. Ron Hubbard for example of the mess they can contribute to. (I don't mean to imply it makes it difficult for me or other somewhat experienced editors to edit, but I've seen newbies and anons get discouraged by them.) Anynobody 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I understand. In that case, could you just format it manually to conform with the output of cite web, cite book, cite journal? You would just need publisher info, accessdate, date page was created, etc. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Absolutely :) I'd planned on doing exactly that ASAP Anynobody 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment

MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

www.history.navy.mil is the website run by the Naval Historical Center. Some of us from WP:SHIPS have been in contact with them about website outages over the last couple days; they are aware of the problem and working on it. This is an official website of the United States Navy, so I'm confident these links will be available again shortly.Maralia (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.