Self-Nomination The article has improved from its previous nomination, I believe the issues preventing its promotion have been addressed. It has also since been promoted from a GA to an A-class article. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The first one, per the "about us" section, the people who run the cite are military pundits on CNN news etc, so they are respected analysts. Some of them also held directorship/high admin jobs in space research, which is also a part of
GlobalSecurity. I've tossed off the last one because I found the same info on a better site. Blnguyen (bananabucket)
07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry I missed this in the HRC mess, what makes it a gold standard source per
WP:RS? We need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated.
Ealdgyth -
Talk14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I read the article. The forbes link is the ONLY sourced information in the Global Security article. Just having a wikipedia article with one source doesn't make it a reliable source. The other link you gave, wlu. edu, was much more helpful about showing that it's a reliable source. I'm not sure how the other two links you gave established reliability, but the Forbes and the wlu.edu site together satisfy my concerns. Thank you.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Swatjester, please note that we are all volunteers, everyone here has the same goal of making sure our FAs are the best they can be, no question on a FAC is ridiculous if its goal is to make sure we're using the best possible sources, and reviewers who take their "job" of reviewing seriously are appreciated, as strenuous review enhances the quality of a star once it's bestowed. Thank you,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly disagree unless a few more dead-tree sources are found that do not rely on U.S. military sources. The brigade has a long history, and this should not be documented from official sources so close to the subject, but from third-party references.
Buckshot06 (
talk)
03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The sources are perilously close to
WP:COI, coming almost entirely from the US military. This was raised at the Milhist A-class review and needs addressing.--
ROGER DAVIEStalk06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Is there some way that I can solicit for additional reviewers in the meantime? The commenters have not come back and no one seems to be giving opinions now. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose — It's a really nice article with plenty of wonderful graphics and photos, but I'd really like to see a few more citations from different sources. I'm particularly concerned about so much reliance on those first two cites — the GlobalSecurity one in particular. The prose is good, but I'd like to see some of the red links stubbed out or removed altogether; the battalions and "Iraqi gold" in particular are of questionable utility. The prose is good, but it's too limited by the sources you have. I imagine that as you add more sources, you'll be able to expand the detail of the article more than it is right now — thus resolving a minor issue. By all means, keep it up! It's an interesting topic, and I can't wait to see what you do with it.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Self-Nomination The article has improved from its previous nomination, I believe the issues preventing its promotion have been addressed. It has also since been promoted from a GA to an A-class article. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The first one, per the "about us" section, the people who run the cite are military pundits on CNN news etc, so they are respected analysts. Some of them also held directorship/high admin jobs in space research, which is also a part of
GlobalSecurity. I've tossed off the last one because I found the same info on a better site. Blnguyen (bananabucket)
07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry I missed this in the HRC mess, what makes it a gold standard source per
WP:RS? We need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated.
Ealdgyth -
Talk14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I read the article. The forbes link is the ONLY sourced information in the Global Security article. Just having a wikipedia article with one source doesn't make it a reliable source. The other link you gave, wlu. edu, was much more helpful about showing that it's a reliable source. I'm not sure how the other two links you gave established reliability, but the Forbes and the wlu.edu site together satisfy my concerns. Thank you.
Ealdgyth -
Talk17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Swatjester, please note that we are all volunteers, everyone here has the same goal of making sure our FAs are the best they can be, no question on a FAC is ridiculous if its goal is to make sure we're using the best possible sources, and reviewers who take their "job" of reviewing seriously are appreciated, as strenuous review enhances the quality of a star once it's bestowed. Thank you,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Strongly disagree unless a few more dead-tree sources are found that do not rely on U.S. military sources. The brigade has a long history, and this should not be documented from official sources so close to the subject, but from third-party references.
Buckshot06 (
talk)
03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The sources are perilously close to
WP:COI, coming almost entirely from the US military. This was raised at the Milhist A-class review and needs addressing.--
ROGER DAVIEStalk06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Is there some way that I can solicit for additional reviewers in the meantime? The commenters have not come back and no one seems to be giving opinions now. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame)04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose — It's a really nice article with plenty of wonderful graphics and photos, but I'd really like to see a few more citations from different sources. I'm particularly concerned about so much reliance on those first two cites — the GlobalSecurity one in particular. The prose is good, but I'd like to see some of the red links stubbed out or removed altogether; the battalions and "Iraqi gold" in particular are of questionable utility. The prose is good, but it's too limited by the sources you have. I imagine that as you add more sources, you'll be able to expand the detail of the article more than it is right now — thus resolving a minor issue. By all means, keep it up! It's an interesting topic, and I can't wait to see what you do with it.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
05:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)reply