Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/1

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 addition has some unsourced statements (the entire Naval career section has barely any sources) and might also need some cleanup (I think there's too many quotes). Spinixster (chat!) 12:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image and caption of the USS Chaumont doesn't tie into the narrative in the text and needs clarification. It is unclear why there is a tacked on section on the naval career of the subjects father at the end. Monstrelet (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked a couple of captions, but the bit about the Chaumont needs to be covered for this to remain a GA, IMO. It's key to rebutting his fabulation about flying home on the SecNav's plane.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations on the Chaumont image. Special:Diff/1197762502 Is that what you were looking for? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the bit about his father is superfluous and even if RS have made links between the two it would not require that level of detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the whole bit about the father's service is irrelevant. Although I do have to be amazed at a man who was never promoted from 1934 to 1945!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've chopped it as plainly off-topic, per consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citation needed tags to fasten the addition of references. Spinixster (chat!) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that "fastens" (?) or "makes adding sources easier" (from edit summary). Or for that matter, what is meant by "This 2009 addition" (from above). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This 2009 addition" is the date the GA was listed. Adding citation needed tags helps make the process faster (sorry for using the wrong word, which may have caused confusion, I forgot the word at the time) because editors can easily find spots that need citations that way. Spinixster (chat!) 11:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the citations and cleaned them up. If dead-urls, then I added archive-urls. Military-topic single-use citations were brought up from the sources section to the references. Changed the messy harvnb citations with ref names to simpler Sfn style (which automatically combines citations which use the same page numbers). Did some verifying of content and adding page numbers. Fixed a few bits of content as I was verifying sources. Standardized the short-form citations to use Sfn with a year instead of an internal wikilink style reference (most of which didn't have the year in the short form). Found some URLs for citations that didn't have them. Added Open Library links when a book was available online. Did some other bits too numerous to recall, and some minor format cleanup. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Grorp; is there any chance you could find citations for the remaining six cn tags? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw 4 tags, and found sources for each one. The last one was a confusing doozy! So many different versions of the same alleged events. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.