Talk:Darrell S. Cole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Darrell S. Cole article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Darrell S. Cole was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 1, 2008

Darrell S. Cole was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was not listed as a GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Discussion ended: 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Military work group. WikiProject United States (Rated B-Class) United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Missouri (Rated B-Class) Missouri Portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] GA-Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm very sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. For one, there is a very large lack of references, and the format just isn't appealing. (All caps, large mass of text). Fix the problems, and then renominate. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(criteria 2) I don't agree with this, the references are valid and the information is noted with inline citations. If there are areas missing please let me know what they are and I will fix them.--Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But you need to specific and tell us which section uses which reference. Simply dumping a list of references at the end of the article without citing which facts are obtained from which reference doesn't help at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(critera 3) I need to know what its missing here, the fact is he was young when he died and without adding unnecessary fluff to the article their isn't anything missing in my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(criteria 6b) There isn't a problem here either, this is only recommended for GA articles AND the sources are US Government and not subject to copyright.--Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the images are fine, and the lack of inlines is not the main problem: the GA process has an unfortunate history of focussing on them. The real issue is the quality of the sources, in this case independent verifiability from a reliable secondary source. See my comments at the reassessment discussion. Geometry guy 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)