Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] World War II

I believe that this important article has greatly improved since the last time it was nominated. Much of it has been thanks to the article improvement drive. I truly hope that this time it makes it to featured article status this time. Tarret 14:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak SupportWeak Object The two bulleted items in the Cause should be converted into simple prose. A debated starting date probably doesn't deserve its own section, and could be merged into the participants or chronology sections. Resistance is slightly short, looking at the main article written for it, and the paragraphs can use some development. AndyZ 14:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that my concerns have been addressed, I'm changed my vote to a weak support. AndyZ 23:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object as follows:
I think the casualties are wrong here. The casualties1/casualties2 fields are meant to have information for each side in the war, not a military/civilian breakdown.
  • There are many very specific points given in the article; inline citations, in decent quantity, would be appropriate.
  • Is there some reason why all of the images are on the right side? It's somewhat unbalanced.
  • The see-also template at the bottom is of rather questionable value; is there any possiblility it could be reduced in size?
It seems a good article overall, but the technical points—particularly the lack of citations—need to be fixed. —Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Covers all bases. Well presented. Zzzzz 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support:I added info to the Resistance section, fixed the see also template and the images now seem to be equally distributed throughout the page now. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck
  • Object, no inline citations. Please use any method of inline citations—{{inote}}, Wikipedia:Footnotes, whatever—and cite the facts in this article. There is no lead need for the non-standard "Summary" section—that's the point of the lead section. Condense and move information from the summary section to the lead and eliminate the "summary" section. --Spangineeres (háblame) 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
this article has only a half a dozen sources with no inline citations, but still is an FA. This process is simply biased. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 07:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it uses {{inote}} quite extensively. Go into edit mode and take a look at the end of most of the paragraphs. In principle, though, you're right—many old FAs, and even some new ones, don't have inline citations. Standards are certainly increasing as time goes on, but I think that's a good thing, because it shows how far we've come. See User:Spangineer/inline citations for why I think citations are important. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the summary section has already been elimated. Savidan 20:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object : 1. At ~78kb, this article is huge! It should be written in summary form and details moved to daughter articles. 2. The ToC is bulky. Please reduce the sub-sections. (I have lots of other points, but this has to be done first. ) =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm sure many users understand that World War II spanned seven years, and I'm sure many users understand that the history that was made during that time period was incredible... but the size of this article is ridiculous! The war most certainly was a time of intense action and information, however Wikipedia has a policy, and this article... it's just too long. Attempt to shorten it by at least 20KB. If it decreases to 50KB, then perhaps I'll give it a read-through. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The featured article, Hugo Chavez was 100+ KB. I think is argument is moot. You're saying it isn't worthy of an FA because it has too much information? Wow. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 07:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because an article has slipped through once, it doesn't mean one cannot object on the size. Wikipedia:summary style explains why a summary is needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Therefore, my objection stands. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not about making excuses for why this article should be promoted due to absence of inline notes or size of other articles. It is showing a very bad reflection of Wikipedia, in my opinion, when some instead of all articles are put on such demands. Thus, I see it as getting an FA is like winning the lottery. We are putting standards on some articles, and ignoring others. IN my opinion THIS FEATURED ARTICLE is NOT as good as this one. World War II, given the size of the military campaigns and what not, deserves more room. To cut down info is crazy to me. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You needn't to get so defensive. People do have differing opinions, and for an article of this magnitude, we shouldn't point fingers at other articles. Fixing valid objections will get this article featured, pointing fingers and 'shouting' will not. If you were told to write about WW2 for a printed article, and given precisely four pages to fit it in, I'm sure you would précis it. The article is *not* written in summary style: I'll give you an example: Is there a genuine need to mention who piloted the Enola Gay? or what FDR's opinion on the Home fronts were; details of the battle of Crete etc. ? The history section in article on India effectively summarises 6,000 years of India's chequered history in about 6 paragraphs, leaving details to daughter articles. That's what a summary is all about. Nobody's asking you to cut it down to an exact number. Besides, the article needs a moderate copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Even though the page size is too big, there is no reason to prevent this article from being featured. I don't think encyclopedia Britanica would take out information because it is too detailed. The amount of detail that the article gives is important. I can see the new slogan for wikipedia now, "Give lots of detail, but not too much." RENTA FOR LET? 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you've read the summary style link I've posted above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, I ask the users who are posting beneath my objection to halt from arguing. I have placed a vote, and will not be changing it unless the article is brought down in size. Thank you. And thanks, Nichalp, nonetheless. :) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the right size given the topic. Hydriotaphia 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The problem is that the topic is so extensive, it's oversized even with correct summary style done. Look through the article - you'll see that nearly every section is short and leads to a daughter/fork article already. This article is summary style at its best. I don't see any other solutions (and please note that I'm going to be slightly facetious here), other than making this article out of nothing but headings, or pretending the Pacific theatre never happened. -Rebelguys2 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a "conditional" to my support, as I totally forgot about the lack of references while I was paying attention to size issues. See Wikipedia:Inline Citation; it states that although there are rare exceptions, articles should not use this rarity as a way to dodge the problem. Nobody[1] wants[2] to[3] see[4] this[5], but it's possible to cite facts and figures, contentious issues, etc., inline while keeping the article flowing well.
Other arguments cite the existence of older articles that do not meet the standards we find here. I think we can all agree that standards for FA have rapidly become tougher and tougher - and I think we should all agree that this is a good thing. If there's truly a problem with an old article (and we all know that some of the older ones would never survive an FAC today), take it to Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Becoming a FA is hard, becoming a FA should be hard, and we should not use old examples to dodge valid issues and prevent this article from becoming the best it can be. -Rebelguys2 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object My objection is the references. Contrary to Spangineer's comment, I see no inote entries (maybe I don't know what to look for here). I find a 2 entry, but it does not link to anything (try clicking on it, I can't tell where the link should move to). On the other hand, I agree with Spangineer that the same standards are not applied to all FA/FACs. One of the most common points of contention is referencing. This article has references listed, but they are not linked to the body of the article. I can only try be consistent myself in the FACs I look over. For this WWII article, I'd like to see the references linked to the body of the article and the problem with the 2 fixed. As for article length, WWII is a massive subject and the writer(s) did a superb job of handling it, as noted by Rebelguys2. I also think it is well written and layed out well. Rlevse 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Spangineer is talking about Military history of Puerto Rico when he says {{inote}} is used substantially, not this article, which has no inline citations that I can see. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, re inote. But I do not prefer them as one does not see the ref unless he goes to the edit mode. While it is a ref method, I feel it's better to see it on the article's page, like the ref/note method. Bottom line, I can support this is the refs are fixed. Rlevse 18:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object per others. I can stand the length for a topic this complex, but the lack of detailed inline citations is unacceptable for an article with so many editors. It is difficult to believe that all the contributors to this article really used just the few references listed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, echoing Chistopher Parham: The length is not a problem for me; I think it's absurd to suggest that the parent article on the largest war in all human history should be kept under 50k or some other arbitrary length. That said, the lack of proper citations prevents me from supporting it. Andrew Levine 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: no inline citations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
From my point of view everyone is saying that they are objecting because of inline citation. This can be fixed. But do you really think that this great article should be prevented from being an FAC now just becuase of that. Why can't we get it to be FAC now and the fix the inline citations later. This FAC process could be too quick to change the inline citation so just FAC it now, work on the citation and then once it is FAC we can deal with it then. Oh and also Wikipedia:Inline citations says that for FAC there are exceptions, "rare exceptions," but I think this article is worthy of being a rare exception. I mean I think it is the best article on Wikipedia so doesn't that make it rare?? RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you. In theory, no article should be promoted until it fulfills all of the criteria. Otherwise the concept of FA loses it credibility. FA is for what represents the best of Wikipedia, not what could represent the best with a bit more work. Also, if this fails FAC now, it can still be brought up in the future once all the problems are addressed. And I doubt that one person's opinion that this is the best article on Wikipedia would qualify this article as a "rare exception". - The Catfish 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the writers of the inline citations page were thinking when they wrote that, but I can't think of any examples of articles that don't need inline citations. Perhaps an article on a topic so obscure that there's only one reference. Here, however, with so much published on WWII, it's imperative that citations be added. It's simple to reapply for FAC status later—I'd suggest adding copious citations and coming back when you're done. It's a hassle, I know—in my first FAC, I had to add 40 inline citations before the article got promoted. Also, I agree with the others who say that footnotes are preferable to inote. --Spangineeres (háblame) 04:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Writer, I am the one who wrote the Wikipedia: Inline Citation article from the ground up, although others have since added to it. To answer your qestion as to what I was thinking, some articles on this site exist almost entirly on rumors and speculation, or on word of mouth reports. Such articles could conceivably run through the FAC prossess and pass, but they would have to do so without alot of source citing because the sources for such articles would be speculating themselves, or would have strong feelings one way or the other. I apologize if that was unclear originally, and in light of your question I have taken to nailing that part down some for future reference. TomStar81 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem at all; I can see what you mean. Even so, the classic "rumor" based article (GNAA) has numerous references and inline citations, and some claimed that it should have had more. Furthermore, it was still not granted FA status, largely for not being verifiable enough. In practice, therefore, I'm not sure that there is any FA that doesn't need inline citations. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will see about rewording that at some point today to reflect this discussion. And for the record, one good example of an article I had in mind would be the Montauk Project: awesome to read, but its attached to speculation the way an unborn child is attached to its mother, so trying to confirm or deny any of it would be virtually impossible, and thats at best.TomStar81 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I'm entirely clear on inline citation. In my eyes, all you have to do to fix the inline citation on WW2 is to take out the footnotes on the page. Can someone clarify? RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Great article about a really important topic in human history. My only condition is that the editors experienced with this article go through the external links and cut out any that may err on the side of linkspam and only keep the really important ones. No doubt, there are a lot of important links there, but just at a glance, how important is "Phil's WW2 photo page"? Great work. -Scm83x 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Summary section needs to be merged into the lead (since that is what it is anyway) and sized down a bit to make it more concise. The article is not well referenced - for an article over 70K long there are under 10 Notes! There are no general references, and the notes list should be numbered instead of bulleted. First two subsections in 'Chronology' are very short, so these should be merged together. There are lots of bolded words in 'Participants', these should be unbolded. Subsections in 'See also' should be removed. My main objection is that there are too many statements without sources of any kind, more in-line citations are a must. Please see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Wackymacs 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support A good article, touching on all aspects of the War. The size of the article makes it a bit of a monster, but that can't be helped, the subject matter and the size of the war both conspire against it. TomStar81 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. There shudent be anything about the UN-reform in this article Jonatanj 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That part has been removed. TomStar81 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Still needs lots of improvement. I'll just rattle off my complaints (: , top to bottom:
Introduction The far east shouldn't be given such a background position. The fascist expeditionary forces should not be listed in the intro, way too much detail (and somewhat misleading). Calling the Commonwealth the Allies is misleading too, the term only applys after the invasion of Poland. China goes to China as a civiliazation. Rape of Nanking (sp?) needed in the casualty section. "Fundemental shift of power" needs to be somewhat explained.
Causes Such a minute section for what is the most important! Some things needed include failures of the League of Nations, (lack of US, and USSR involvment in the League), The economic depression outside of Russia... In Germany the desperate economic climate was what saved the Nazi party. Japan is almost a characterised... like Germany the liberal democratic government there was percieved to be failing, and the militants came in with popular support. I don't think de-facto is the proper choice of words.
Participants The many other countries list needs to be fixed up, "considered important allies" is weasily, perhaps "fought under their own banners" or somthing as the such --India was an important member, but fought under Britian. How does the neutral situation create hotbeds of espionage?
Starting Date That is the most common date used in the west. Saying it is the most common in the world, is controversial, probabaly wrong.
1937 Which "Chinese government?"
1939 The charactarisation of Stalin in the second paragraph is written conversationally, and probabaly compleatly misleading, if not false. "Indeed, the Soviets had their agents in the U.S., working alongside Nazi sympathizers."

I will try to add some more later, hopfully this helps! --sansvoix 09:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Support, wish it could be stronger. How does one do justice to the greatest war, if not the greatest series of events, in all human history without writing an epic? A single author, assuming one is up to the challenge, is bound to leave something out and risks presenting mainly their own views. A group of authors risks turning out something which reads like it was writ by a committee. That is the greater danger here. You could devote a century to studying WWII and at the end of it still not know everything about it or know every story from it. As it stands, this work tells all the major stories in a readable, adequete manner. If someone is confused about some basic aspect of the war, this can be a helpful guide and resource. But it fails to go very far beyond that point. A subject of such magnitude demands more. Complete as this article is, I know something is missing. But I cannot bring myself to object on that basis.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Not sure if my vote will count as only a very occasional editor, and tend to even do this without signing in. However, I read extensively on wikipedia, so have some basis and frame of reference, and wanted to comment on this. This article is an excellent, well-referenced summary of the event it describes, and provides the interested reader with links to even more detailed information on each of the sub topics. Comments above that the article is too long are unrealistic, in my opinion. I think this article both summarises the period well, deals with each topic in a clear, well-defined and sensibly brief way, and frames the group of articles on WW2 to make research on the topic straightforward and intuitive. Staples 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Very comprehensive, well written, but needs a more concise summary at the front. Many readers who look up WWII may be looking for something briefer and easier to read. This sort of weak on 3(a) but sufficiently strong on all elements of 2 to compensate, in my opinion. Martinp 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is quite good. All these people are getting hung on slightly meager references when that could be easily fixed. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 03:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is anyone watching this article? I have made some preliminary suggestions for improvment, and I would like to be confident they won't be deleted if I edit them in! See talk page.--sansvoix 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written with lots of details, looks good to me and very good summarisation done. Not too long for such a broad topic, one of the better articles I've seen so far. --Terence Ong 13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: A well written, comprehensive article on a most complex topic. For the article scope, word count size can be overlooked. All aspects are discussed with an excellent use of summary style. Covers ~10 years of history leading to the war, ~6+ years of actual combat, and transitions into post-war realities. Covers all war consequences: home front, resistance, war-crimes. technology. Wendell 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I dislike the new intro to begin with: bloated and unnecessarily repetitive relative to rest of the article. Some awful syntax remains. And yes, this is looooong. Marskell 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Could be stronger but it's featured article quality -- Wikipedical 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support:All intros are "repetitive" because they are a summary of the article. The article is long because WWII is a huge topic. I think that daughter articles have been appropriately created sufficiently. A brief reading of this page does not give me many actionable objections, but I'lll look for some and try to fix them. Savidan 19:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)