Talk:Winton W. Marshall

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that fighter pilot Winton W. Marshall used the jet exhaust of his F-86 Sabre to extinguish the fire from a crashed B-47 bomber? Source: Korean War ace snuffed out fire using his own plane’s jet exhaust (Honolulu Star Advertiser)
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Toadboy123 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

• This is a very intriguing hook. Unfortunately, the article pre-expansion had 5,700 characters of prose. Post-expansion, it now has slightly under 8,000 characters of prose. This does not come close to qualifying as a 5x expansion as required by DYK rules. A 5x expansion would need at least 28,500 characters of prose (not counting headings and other non-prose elements). Cbl62 (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, if you decide to press forward with this, you will need to complete a QPQ. Also, since I can't access the source without subscription, and because this is an extraordinary claim, I ask that you provide for review here a direct quote from the source corroborating the hook fact. Cbl62 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I don't think a QPQ would be necessary for this, as this is only the nominator's fourth DYK created, and Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria says that If you have previously nominated fewer than five articles (whether self-nominated or otherwise), no QPQ is required. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, I was able to find a source verifying the hook here which should be accessible ("...he was credited with saving a Strategic Air Command B-47 bomber which was on fire at the end of a runway. Seeing no crash or fire-fighting equipment coming, and noting that the crew had escaped, he taxied his F-86 to the burning aircraft and blew out the fire with his jet exhaust.") BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Beanie. That helps, but it's still not even a 2x expansion, let alone 5x. If that is remedied promptly, it can still be processed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... it would probably be pretty tough to 5x expand this, but I still know of one way this could pass @Toadboy123: Nominate it for good article, and, if it passes, then it would qualify for DYK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Ok I will nominate the article for Good article status, but not too sure if it would get the status due to the requirement of much more in-depth expansion with additional materials. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a requirement that an article be extremely in-depth for GA (I mean, just look at how short this GA is). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Heh, what a coincidence! I recorded that article for WP:SPEAK :) [it's the shortest GA or something, isn't it?] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records, yes, it is the shortest GA. That's cool that you recorded it for WP:SPEAK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Toadboy123: If you do not intend to try to extend this to 5x at this time, let me know and we can close this out without prejudice to your re-nominating later if and when you get the article to "Good Article" status. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: Ok. You can close the nomination until the article has attained "Good Article" status. Toadboy123 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Closure without prejudice to re-nominating if/when "Good Artice" status is attained. Cbl62 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: @Toadboy123: Re-opening this discussion as the article has passed GA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
• That solves the 5x expansion issue. Good to go. Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winton W. Marshall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow once the Bot checks in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Article is okay. I wouldn't recommend taking it beyond GA though.

• Although his full name is mention ed in the lead, it should also be in the body.
• Similarly, his nickname of Bones is in the infobox, and is covered by ref 1, but should be in the body.
• MOS uses British rather than American ordinals (MOS:ORDINAL) so 32nd not 32nd, 93rd not 93d etc
• Link U.S. Readiness Command, MacDill Air Force Base, second lieutenant, P39, Soviet Union, Bendix Trophy (on first occurrence), Tripler Army Medical Center
• " 335th FS:" should be "335th FIS" but I'd prefer if it were not abbreviated.
• At the start of "Post war" and "Later life", replace "he" with his name.
• "30 to 200 miles" Add conversion template so readers will know how far this is
• Do we have to have so many paragraphs in a row starting with "In <date>"?
• Two different date formats used in the references. Recommend using mdy consistently (although US military bios should use dmy (WP:STRONGNAT)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the article by following the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh points that you have mentioned. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Made additional updates as per your recommendations. However, I am not familiar in using of conversion template for the miles part. Is it possible if you can provide assistance to me for that part only. Toadboy123 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Made the change for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.