Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by User:Marskell 20:40, 3 June 2008 [1].
Military brat (U.S. subculture)
- Besides myself the only other editor with more than 50 edits is SandyGeorgia, and for some reason I think she'll see this on her own ;-) I went ahead and notified her as well as the MILHIST project.Balloonman (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, as the articles primary creator, I was surprised when this passed the FAC. Based upon the comments at the time, I thought it was going to fail. But it was promoted. I won't complain about it's being promoted, I did take pride in the article. That being said, I haven't been watching the article as closely as I would like, and it has taken a significant turn for the worst. Many of the edits made over the past year, are IMHO, not supported by facts and accurate. I do not believe that this article is FA quality. Unfortunately, I am not motivated enough to get this back to the condition that it needs to be in to preserve the FA status.Balloonman (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered a big revert back to its original form? I did that with Link from the Legend of Zelda and it worked pretty well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be opposed to that...Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bit time today and will flog out anything that seems unsourced. Hopefully, not all new edits were garbage. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked through the article and there are two issues where sources should be provided, otherwise I delete them. One is housing of officers in a row. and: "If a person does not like somebody or gets into a fight, they know that in a few years somebody will move and the problem will disappear." needs also cites. Otherwise the article is still FA material and I would strongly oppose a revert of the last edits. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bit time today and will flog out anything that seems unsourced. Hopefully, not all new edits were garbage. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be opposed to that...Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest looking at changes just after mainpage date, as opposed to the FA version. Also, I understand Balloonman is discouraged, but this article should be saved. I worked on it a lot with him pre-FAC, so obviously I'm biased :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article ought not to be demoted, hoaving kept an eye on it during its mainpage view date I kind of feel like it part mine too. Of course, being a military brat myself makes me bias as well :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Next time semiprotect anything that appears on the main page. There have been made some useful edits since 30th April. But I wouldn't oppose a revert to the version before it appeared on the main page in case the useful and referenced additions and images that have since been inserted get implemented. You can easily find them out by comparing the first and the last edits of the edit history pages. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article ought not to be demoted, hoaving kept an eye on it during its mainpage view date I kind of feel like it part mine too. Of course, being a military brat myself makes me bias as well :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just reread the article, and the changes weren't as bad as I thought they were the other night. I just went through the article and compared the current version with the version that appeared on the main page a year ago. I removed all of the OR that was added (especially that which was inserted before a reference) Restored some of the deleted text and fixed some of the other POV inserted into the article. My concerns have been alleviated.Balloonman (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose a steady keep and watch since the issues seem solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.