Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Buckles/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:27, 5 May 2011 [1].

Frank Buckles

[edit]

Frank Buckles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
  • WITHDRAWN: Comments that have been made have ranged to helpful and welcomed to malicious and pointless. It is that last group that forces me and AYW to pull this FAC. Instead of working to make a better article, some of this group decided to take every single part of the article literally, fix things that didn't need fixing, make contradictory statements and just all around be unhelpful. I would say I am surprised, but from what I have seen, this is just par-for-the-course at this point. Again, withdrawn. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, except that I have no problem with people taking every part of the article literally. The main point is that this has been mostly time well spent. It's a damn fine article now, and readers don't notice the tiny gold stars anyway. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Co-Nominators: Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC) and User:Anythingyouwant‎ joins as co-nominator as to current version (02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article was promoted to GA in March 2011 and A-Class just this morning. With work between some 10 different editors, I feel we have gotten this article to FA-Class. Work on the article began immediately after Buckles' passing on February 27, 2011 and has continued until the present and will continue as long as necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

[edit]
  • Oppose. I'm afraid that A-class review or not, this is not yet the finished article, and I think the whole thing reads rather awkwardly. A few examples:
  • "Seven of Buckles' ancestors were soldiers in the Revolutionary War, and he was also descended from a Civil War soldier." What is the "also" adding there?
Took the "also" out. - NH
  • "Frank survived, while Ashman died from the disease ...". So the two events happened simultaneously?
Yes, they both got scarlet fever at the same time - NH
The two events here are survival and dying, which couldn't have happened simultaneously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source we have says "He said destiny seemed to side with him early, in 1903, when he and his brother Ashman fell deathly ill together with scarlet fever. Ashman, 4, succumbed; Mr. Buckles pulled through and experienced a century." We can't tell if Ashman passed and then Wood (Frank) got better or Frank got better and then Ashman passed. We just don't have that information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "while" to "but".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... who incorrectly diagnosed him with flat feet". So the Navy had flat feet while they were diagnosing him? Better would be "who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet".
Changed. - NH
  • "... and also an avid reader of newspapers." Once again, what is the "also" adding there?
Removed. - NH
  • "President Barack Obama ordered that the American flag be flown at half-staff on all government buildings, U.S. embassies, and at the White House". Is the White House not a government building?
Changed it to read "...all government buildings, including The White House and at all U.S. embassies..." - NH
  • Statements were made by representatives and senators paying tribute to Buckles and the World War I veterans ...". Difficult to know where to start with that abortion. What about "Representatives and senators issued statements paying tribute to Buckles and the World War I veterans"?
Removed. - NH
I could go on and on, but I repeat, this just isn't ready. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually do go on. If you go on, I can fix it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAC isn't peer review, which is where I'd recommend taking this article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A review was just completed on April 5, 2011, the reviewer was User:Wehwalt, while at the same time the A-Class review was going on. We had dual reviews. I don't see where another PR would be helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if God Almighty was the reviewer, but in my opinion this article falls far short of the prose requirement for FAC. Others may of course disagree, including I suppose the saintly Wehwalt, but that remains my opinion nevertheless. Take it as you will. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take full blame for the word "also", and will now scour the article for any other unnecessary uses of that word.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done (two others removed). Since this tiny problem constituted 33% of Monsieur (or Mademoiselle) Fatuorum's examples, I presume that Malleus would now agree that the article is 33% better. In any event, Malleus has apparently recused after belatedly describing a conflict of interest,[2] or some such thing that seems to render his comments above void.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would agree to no such thing. My oppose stands. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so your oppose stands against the version of the article that existed when you were "excusing myself from any further comment at Buckles' FAC".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll spell it out for you again. I do not believe that this article has been substantially improved since I first commented and I have yet to see any evidence that it is being improved sufficiently to meet the FA prose criteria. I think that Ceoil's observation that the prose is "pedestrian" was rather kind. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ceoil didn't oppose (yet), so you're more than welcome to un-excuse yourself and take that same stance. The lead was badly flawed when Ceoil read it, and I think that's mainly what Ceoil was commenting about. Anyway, have a nice day, MF. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall suggesting that Ceoil had opposed, but I have and my oppose stands, as I've said. I am completely unimpressed by your efforts to brush my concerns about the poor quality of this article's prose aside, but ultimately it's for the delegates to decide whether you're right or I am. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, thank you, your oppose and comments have been recorded. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By whom have they been recorded? Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You take things far too literal and I am really not in the mood to play tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you meant "literally". Do you have no interest in writing decent prose? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ain't bitin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Neutral, leaning oppose per some resolved issues and additional commentary below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conventionally footnotes appear in numerical order
    • Sorry about that, now in numerical order. - NH
  • Be consistent in whether you use First/Second World War or World War I/II
    • We did that to kinda change up the language so it wasn't the same, but I see your point. Switched to just "World War I/II". - NH
  • Dictionary.com - seeing as this is being used to define a term rather than actually source information, I would suggest replacing it with a Wikipedia or Wiktionary link, or possibly an explanatory note
    • Went with the Wikitionary link. - NH
  • Can you explain your use of Ancestry.com? When I click on the links, I reach a "choose a membership option" page
    • I was given permission for these per this RSN thread. - NH
      • Okay, to clarify: you're citing a transcription of census results? I'm not in the US, so I can't get much beyond the "choose a membership" page on the .com version (on that note, you might add a "subscription/fee needed" tag on those refs if they're kept). Have you accounted for the census shortcomings pointed out at the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have and I can include a secondary link (here) on one of the Ancestry.com links, but I am not sure if that one would meet up with WP:RS policy. - NH
          • Likely not. Any chance you could refer directly to the census via a library or university?
            • I will try and do this while out tomorrow. I will use the library connection to edit the page with a direct link. - NH
  • Censuses generally are not published in the year they are conducted
    • I wasn't really sure on this one (didn't have information), so I just put the year it was done in. Should I just take the year out? - NH
      • Given that the year is in the title, probably. Alternatively, you might look for the date it was published on the website, if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, will have to track down someone with access as my 14 day trial ran out. - NH
          • Any progress on this? I see one of the censuses still has a date, though I'm not sure why, and none of the others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No Ma'am, but I will try and do this while out tomorrow. I will use the library connection to edit the page with a direct link. - NH
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers
    • There are a couple that I couldn't find the publishing company's name, like for Refs #9, #17, #18, #31, #45, #51, #53, #55, #62, and #72. All was given on the pages was a copyright that listed the paper, which is done on most papers, not the company. I made every attempt to find the publishing company though. - NH
  • Check italicization and other formatting details in references; a number of them have formatting problems
    • Clarification on this one is needed. I was told that the italicization was automatic (with the "work" and "publisher" fields) and the "publisher" field didn't require italics. - NH
      • I don't follow - if publisher is automatically italicized and publisher doesn't require italics, that seems contradictory, does it not? Or did you mean something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might have been confused on what italicization and formatting were needed. Perhaps you can provide an example? - NH
          • Okay. For example, why is WCTI-TV italicized and WHTM-TV not? They're both TV stations, so surely they should be formatted similarly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • These were mistakes on my part, stuff I overlooked when making corrections, which have now been corrected. The only italic codes in the references section are in references that do not have a "work" field. - NH
              • Sorry, but there are still issues with this. For example, "United States Army" is not a work or publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, I was just "giving credit where credit was due". Will remove. - NH
                  • You don't have to remove it, just reformat - it shouldn't be italicized. Also check for other formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry for the slow reply, crashed out for awhile. Had a very active morning Thursday morning due to tornadoes. Had rotation over my town and a tornado to the south of me. Interesting. Anywho, I have readded the part I took out, but it is now in the "author" field instead of "work". I left the Library of Congress as publisher, since they are the ones who published it online. - NH
  • Provide page numbers for multi-page PDFs
    • Due to a continous technical error on Adobe, I can't see Ref #52, one was corrected (adding page "B2", the others have their pages listed. - NH
      • AYW, do you have access to that source (now 54)? Also, that source has volume/issue number that should be added. Nikkimaria (talk)
        • Done. -AYW
  • Publisher for ref 58?
    • Goof on my part, which I fixed. - NH
  • Use a consistent date format
    • From what I can see, all dates are in either a Month/Day, Month/Year or Month/Day/Year format, none are in the military style or Day/Month/Year. - NH
  • In general, reference formatting should be more consistent
  • File:United_States_Department_of_the_Army_Seal.svg needs source
    • This isn't a source I uploaded, just something that is made apart of most templates, per the sourcing problem, I have removed it and the Corporal stripes as decorative. - NH
  • File:Frank_Buckles_lying_in_honor_on_March_15,_2011.jpg should give actual photographer's name, not just DoD
    • Fixed. - NH
  • File:Frank_Buckles_Army_Ribbons.PNG - these are insignias, not logos. Incorrect licensing
  • File:WW_I_Prussian_enlisted_man's_belt_buckle_front.JPG - since the photographed item is 3D, you also need to account for its copyright status in licensing
    • Again, this is not one I uploaded, just one I was made aware of. Plus, I am unsure how to list something as 3D. - NH
    • I thought the 3D issue was only for photos without explicit licenses. This one is from Commons and was released as CC-SA by the photographer/uploader, so unless I'm confused there shouldn't be a problem. The buckle artwork itself is presumably public domain because of its age (WW1 era). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For 3D you need licensing for both the photo and the 3D thing itself - the buckle itself may be PD (given the age, it probably is), but that still needs to be explicitly explained/tagged on the image page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Due to this being on Commons and them frowning upon anything PD, I am having to get some help on this one, please stand by. - NH
  • File:US_Army_E-4.svg - source link is dead
    • Taken out with the US Army image. - NH
  • The second paragraph of Early life is largely unnecessary background
    • Removed. ---AYW
  • "Between 1911 and 1916, Frank attended school in Nevada, Missouri,[14] after which the family moved to the town of Oakwood, Oklahoma, where Frank attended high school, while working at a bank" - awkward phrasing, check for others
  • You seem to be distinguishing between "prisoner" and "internee", but do not explain this distinction and use both terms to refer to Buckles
    • This is my doing here. Let me explain. At first we had Buckles listed as a Prisoner of War, then there was some question as if that were a correct title, so we switched it to Civilian Internee, but I left both in there cause I wasn't sure if the military POWs and civilian internees were in the same area. We don't have information on that, plus, there is still concern on what is the correct title for Buckles, so I was kinda going to happy medium. - NH
      • The article properly emphasizes that he was a civilian, and also properly describes him as a prisoner. As for the phrase "prisoners and internees", that phrase seems more wordy and confusing than necessary, so I changed it to "captives". ---AYW
  • "near Charles Town, West Virginia" - link please?
    • The source for this is here (far bottom). - NH
      • Wikilink, not source - I'm Canadian, if I hadn't checked the article about the farm I probably would've noted "Charles Town" as a strange typo of "Charleston". Remember you've got non-specialists, non-Americans, etc reading and need to explain more for them then for yourself (although without overdoing it). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, misunderstood. I thought we had a Wikilink there (we did alot of moving around in that section. Wikilink has been added. - NH
  • Paragraph about "secret of long life" needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was three sentences is now two, though mostly unchanged. I am going to ask AYW on this one as he is a better writer than I, so please stand by. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rephrased that paragraph a little. It's not Shakespeare, but it clearly prescribes how to get to be 110. I also did some other rephrases (verbal stylings, if you will), and hopefully the article reads a little smoother now. If it don't, that ain't as important as the content anywho.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left some queries above, but can't do a full re-review at this point due to RL time demands. Will try to come back to this in a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a re-review. Some progress has been made, but some of the issues raised above have not been addressed (see commentary point-by-point). Further comments:
Is his mother's maiden name known?
Not that I have been able to find. The 1890 Census had them already married and didn't show a maiden name. - NH
  • "He was turned down by the Marine Corps because of his slight weight and for being under 21" - phrasing is a bit strange, look for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • "A sergeant advised...Another sergeant advised" - repetitive, look for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • "their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler" - that's rather vague. What does "brought down" mean here? Loss of economic prosperity or lower standard of living? Sadness? Total annihilation? Check for other ambiguous or unclear wordings
    • I assume "brought down" means "destroyed". Source is vague, so we are too. Still seems interesting though. -AYW
      • Yeah, the sources are vague on alot of these, so we kinda have to be vague outselves as to not "create" information that isn't there. - NH
  • "Riding out the Great Depression at sea" - phrasing's a bit too informal, check for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • What happened between 1955 and 1999? Obviously few details will be available, but a bit more context would help. When did his daughter leave? You mention ancestors - his or hers?
    • Clarified they were his ancestors. Looks like not much happened between 1955 and 1999 aside from lots of peace and quiet. Will look for more. -AYW
  • "He was the oldest person who ever testified before Congress." - phrasing suggests that he is no longer the oldest to have testified. Has someone older done so? If not, rephrase
    • Fixed. -AYW
  • If the documentary is being released before the end of the year, have any other details been confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant

[edit]

Support - I've edited this article quite a bit lately, but would not have considered it feature-class before yesterday. The changes made in response to the comments above make the difference, in my opinion. The subject is certainly interesting. He probably saw our BLP when he was still alive, and this BDP is light-years better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (Striking because I'm joining as co-nominator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, but I share Nikki's reservations about the "secret of long life" paragraph. My preference would be to limit him to one witticism, but it's not a strong preference. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]
  • Comment The first and last paragraphs of the lead make the same veteran claims. Please merge. From what I read, the prose are pedestrain, to the point of off putting. List of egs to follow. Ceoil 14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ceoil, good to see you. Per NPOV, I try to pay attention to the tone of the sources taken as a whole. Understandably, sources didn't start writing about this guy until recently, and of course, it's all "feel-good" and informal stuff. I think the current language is one attempt to reflect the sources, but there's lots of room to fiddle here, and I'm looking forward to your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking forward to the further suggestions too. Regarding the lead, I removed the veteran claims from the last paragraph, even though they were a bit different from the ones in the first paragraph. Of course, the removed facts remain in the body of the article. His primary notability was as the last US vet of WWI, and one of the last 3 in the world, so the lead need not add that at the time of death he was the oldest WWI vet in the world (or the last field veteran of that war).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[moving the discussion about second commas to the talk page - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Although Ceoil mentioned pedestrian prose in the lead, there's only so much you can do with pedestrian facts. So, I've removed some pedestrian stuff from the lead that's true of millions of other people. That stuff remains in the body of the article. For example, the fact that he got an honorable discharge, and that he served stateside in the National Guard, and that he had a daughter. With the pedestrian facts out of the lead, I've upgraded the prose in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't so much that the content of the article is uninteresting, I dont think that, it was more that some of the wording was flat and a but choppy. It better now. I might tweak myself later on. FWIT worth, I think other wise the article is strong, and so am optimistic amout this one. My comment looked harsh in hinsight, was not intended to be so. Ceoil 14:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One small thing, and I dont feel too strongly abiout it, but is the see also section needed? Categories do that job well enough, and I'm not fond of see alsos in general. Ceoil 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not myself either. Lemme see what I can do to lessen the need for the "see also" section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedestrian is not harsh. Pedantic might be, and putrid definitely would be. But pedestrian is not. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the "see also"s outright. The information is in the article with sources, so wikilinking to a list would just be overlinking and seen as unnecessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Putrid is a good line, I might refracter. Ceoil 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88

[edit]

Comment - I haven't read the entire article but at first glance see problems with overciting and overlinking. Why are there 17 citiations for 8 sentences in the "Early life" section? This seems to be a pattern throughout. As for the links - the sea-of-blue needs to be reduced. Consider each link carefully and decide whether it's necessary to the reader. For example, it's not really necessary to link World War I and World War II, or flat feet. These are only examples, there are many more. Also, I have a question - it seems that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is the primary contributor so why haven't they been added as a co-nom? Btw - I probably won't have time to return, so don't expect to oppose or support at this point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure what the etiquette is, but at this point the article seems good enough for me to feel comfortable co-nominating, and striking my support. I'll give that a try in a minute, and will also be trying to address the overciting and overlinking issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I didn't know how to co-nom someone and didn't want to "half ass it", so I left it with me. Nothing held against AYW, just didn't know how. I gave it a shot above, please correct as needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WWI and WWI are typically linked at first occurrence in Milhist articles. Diagnoses are generally linked; most readers don't know what most diagnoses mean. Many reviewers looked at the linking in the A-class review, but there's probably some leeway available if there are other terms you'd like to see delinked. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and I was told to link the first occurrence not counting the lede. So technically, they are in there twice. That potentially could be my fault. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, some say link once after the lead, some say including the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why the "early life" section is a bit heavy on footnotes is because four of the footnotes are for census records that NH found to describe family members. I've just cut four footnotes that aren't essential, so it's down to 13 footnotes in the "early life" section. Regarding the number of citations in later sections, there are a couple reasons why I don't think we can cut a lot of them. First, citations are not just for verifiability but also so readers can go get elaboration (e.g. further closely-related information); therefore, we're allowing that two newspaper articles might both provide verification but provide very different elaborations, so both are cited. The other reason has to do with the fact that verification alone may require multiple refs for a single sentence, because we're not using comprehensive biographies as sources but rather we're using many media sources that often provide little snippets of biographical info in each source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and comments: I think this is topic worth covering, but I think he deserves a really good page. I'm seeing room for improvement, so examples to follow:

  • Ancestry.com is probably not the best site to use. Suggest sticking with what's available in secondary sources
  • Delink items such as Kansas, Great Britain, United States Senate. These are only examples. Also, town names don't need to be linked with town/state - use a pipe to link only to town and reduce the blue.
  • The Library of Congress has a lot amount of information about him that looks interesting [4]. Have all of these documents been looked at, the interviews listened to, and the images examined to determine copyright status? I'd think the other image of him in uniform would be free if it's a .gov photo. The interviews look very interesting; I can't tell from the page how much of that information has been incorporated.
  • The proper term is internee for the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. Those men went through an absolutely horrible ordeal and few survived. This is something I happen to know about because I've read a book about it, but other readers probably don't know. I'd suggest digging more and adding more. Where exactly in the Phillipines was he captured and why? (Btw - no need to link both Manila and Phillipines). You're linking to Raid at Los Baños - was he part of the raid or not. If so, check the sources at the bottom of that page - might have some handy information.
  • I understand that you want to get this done by a certain date to run on the front page. I'd suggest working on it slowly, dig for more information, polish the page as much as possible, and try to have it run on Veteran's Day, which would be appropriate. That give plenty of time to produce a really nice product, rather than one that's been rushed, and reduces stress levels. Anyway, my 2 cents. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am heading off to church (along with most of the rest of the Christian world this morning) and will respond to these when I get back (don't have enough time). AYW might be catch them before I, though. Happy Easter. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "weight below 100 pounds". This is a local unit. A value in kg would be useful to many readers.
  • It says "which he kept as a souvenir for the rest of his life". The sentence is tautological. I suggest deleting the phrase 'as a souvenir'.
  • The title "World War II and married years" is a bit strange. Marriage and world wars aren't naturally paired. Can this be revised?

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did, quite a bit. All done, hope it works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Lightmouse's benefit I will point out that in no way is "which he kept as a souvenir for the rest of his life" tautological, and removal of the phrase "as a souvenir" loses some information, namely why he kept it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Malleus, I think the removal of "as a souvenir" loses something and should be put back in. The way it reads now is that he just kept the cup, but he kept it cause it was from when he was a POW. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhome, you're talking about a cup. The only instance of the word 'souvenir' was for a belt buckle. It isn't a big deal for me so I'll leave it to you guys to do whatever you think is best. Thanks for doing the other edits. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mkativerata

[edit]
  • I'm not a fan of the way the article states Buckles' recollections of his own activities as fact, especially when those recollections are quite self-serving and paint the subject of the article as quite the generous hero. Specific points:
    1. "Buckles was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, who were going hungry, and he helped to feed them" (source)
    2. "After the Armistice in 1918, Buckles escorted prisoners of war back to Germany." Claim doesn't appear in the primary source cited.
    3. "Buckles witnessed antisemitism and its effects firsthand while ashore in Germany, and he warned acquaintances in Germany that their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler, whom he encountered at a German hotel." Are these sources good enough?
    4. "he received an Army bonus of $800, and gave it to his father who was struggling as a farmer in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl" (source)
    5. "Buckles was allowed to grow a small garden, which he often used to help feed children who were imprisoned there" Is this source good enough? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise good questions. What's been said so far is: NPOV requires that we adopt the tone of the authoritative secondary sources, and that tone in this case ranges from laudatory to fluffy. The secondary sources make the judgment call to take Buckles at his word on some minor points. Since I generally stick to prose at FAC, I'll stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, just to be clear: in cases 1 and 4, the secondary sources (high quality ones) don't take Buckles at his word, but our article does; in cases 3 and 5 my question is whether the secondary sources are reliable enough; in case 2 there doesn't appear to be any source at all. I should also say these are examples. I haven't gone through every sentence of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments, Mkat. Generally speaking, I haven't seen any sources that question whether he was telling the truth about these matters. Buckles himself has said that he wasn't a hero, he had little reason to lie in his dying days, and the stuff he claims seems kind of mild (like what any decent person would do in the circumstances). But getting down to brass tacks....#1, I inserted an additional footnote that provides additional detail about food for French children, and states as fact that it occurred. #2, I removed a footnote here that was getting in the way, and the statement that he escorted prisoners to Germany is footnoted at the end of the following sentence (i.e. at the end of the sentence about the belt buckle). #4, I rephrased to indicate that giving $800 to father was based on later recollection, though the cited source doesn't in any way question that it occurred (this is in our article not to show how saintly Buckles was, but rather to indicate existence and severity and impact of Great Depression). Regarding #3 and #5, you ask whether the sources are good enough; well, they're WP:RS sources, and the claims aren't extraordinary (witnessed antisemitism, warned acquaintances about Hitler, grew a garden while a POW). But, I'll see if I can stick in another footnote or two. We don't want to overcite though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Following up, I've inserted a couple more footnotes, regarding witnessing antisemitism in Nazi Germany, and also feeding children while POW held by the Japanese.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cheers. My issue is that doddery old men have been known to talk up their life's exploits. I think we need to be careful of taking them at their word:
            1. As far as I can see, this source has been added to support the claim. But it says "He remembers getting food for hungry children who came to his military camp."
            2. Done
            3. There are grades of reliability, and for an FA I'm not sure whether these cut it. The tone of one of the articles -- "Buckles' storied life - forged as a Missouri farm boy, Army ambulance driver, international ship's purser and freight expediter, and World War II prison-camp survivor - was harrowing, inspiring, courageous and historic" -- doesn't bode well. But perhaps not surprisingly as it is a war vet magazine, which could be expected to talk up the lives of war vets. It doesn't compare well at all with the balanced and careful obituaries of the major newspapers.
            4. Done
            5. See 3. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the followup comments. AFAIK, we don't have any sources that say he was doddery. The cited sources says that he remebered feeding the kids, not that he misremembered doing it. But, I've rephrased this Wikipedia article to track the source more closely: "Buckles was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, who were going hungry, and even in old age remembered helping to feed them.[19][20]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • "even in old age remembered helping to feed them" has two issues: (1) it implies WP's acceptance of the fact that he did feed them, but none of our sources say so themselves; (2) the "even in" is an unnecessary (and unsupported?) implication of exceptional memory. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I removed the word "even". Regarding the articles by Olsen and Razes, it seems like you think the Olsen one is less reliable than the Razes one. The advantage of using Razes is that he supplies facts beyond what's in the brief obituaries in major newspapers. Please note that we haven't used laudatory language from Olsen. Would you advise deleting the Olsen reference, and just using that Razes reference? Seems to me that Olsen is not a problem as a second source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, I'm not really qualified to have a firm view on the Olsen source; it's just a question I'm asking because I'm not sure whether the publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as WP:HQRS requires. Any other comments on this by editors more in the know than me would be great. The Razes reference looked problematic just from its text (if it uses such flowery language, it's a pretty good sign that rigour has not been applied to fact-checking). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Legion Magazine
[edit]

This section is for discussing how good of a source American Legion Magazine is. Here's the article that we're using as a reference:

Olsen, Ken (April 1, 2011). "'I never thought I’d be the last one'", The American Legion Magazine (The American Legion).

A quick search on Google News Archives indicates that the publication is at least well-known. See here. They have a high profile. John Kerry did an interview with them in 2004, mentioned in the Washington Post.[5] Here's a brief description:

American Legion Magazine is a general interest publication that concentrates on world events and national news analysis. Readers of the magazine include over 2.5 million members of The American Legion - an association comprised of veterans who served in the armed forces during a period of conflict - and their families, friends and associates. This monthly publication reaches nearly 5 million readers with its standing columns on current events in Washington, DC, veterans affairs and current issues. On-page and insert opportunities are available to advertisers wishing to reach this captive audience.[6]

So far so good. Also see List of magazines by circulation which indicates that it was founded in 1926 and is currently the 27th highest circulation magazine in the United States. The full sentence from this source that has been mentioned as possibly indicating inferiority of the source is as follows (we do not use this sentence in this Wikipedia article):

Buckles' storied life - forged as a Missouri farm boy, Army ambulance driver, international ship's purser and freight expediter, and World War II prison-camp survivor - was harrowing, inspiring, courageous and historic.

I don't see this as a big problem in an obituary, but others may differ. I don't think anyone would question the reliability of the LA Times and the Associated Press, despite lots of articles like this one:

Survival was foremost when the Stolpas were rescued from a frozen wasteland. Now the burden is how to handle windfall coming their way from selling the rights to their harrowing story….His 50-mile trek, and his wife's courageous efforts to keep their son alive, have turned into a modern-day legend that catapulted them into instant celebrity and wealth.[7]

Anyway, this Wikipedia article does not rely on any superlative language in the American Legion Magazine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an in-house magazine produced by American Legion for its members, so can't be assumed to have the kind of editorial standards you'd expect from an independent magazine or newspaper, particularly on issues such as this. The fact that John Kerry was interviewed by them during the US election is pretty irrelevant: he was running for president and getting an article in this magazine is obviously a good way to communicate with military veterans (something hinted at in the Washington Post article). In short, I don't think it's a very suitable source for an FA though I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's unreliable. The fact that many of the articles from reliable sources look a lot like the article in question here highlights, in my view, the limitations of these sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that general-interest publications have higher standards than special-interest publications is entirely new to me. Would anyone be questioning this source if it were a magazine for doctors instead of veterans? Clearly, this is a secondary source rather than a primary source. Per WP:OR, "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." As for Kerry, I merely mentioned him because it indicates he trusted the publication to accurately report what he said, but feel free to disregard that Kerry example. This is the 27th most widely read magazine in the United States, and I don't see why its news reporting is any less reliable than the reporting in a magazine for bikers, or for engineers, et cetera. Perhaps a book by David McCulloch about Buckles might be more reliable, but plenty of featured articles use sources like this magazine.
The author of this magazine article is Ken Olsen, a former reporter for newspapers in Moscow and Spokane, who wrote Lasting Valor, the 1997 biography (published by Bantam Books) of Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Baker of Idaho, who died in 2010. Lasting Valor was the basis of the 2006 NBC documentary by the same name. Olsen, who now lives in Oregon, is a frequent contributor to The American Legion Magazine. He may not be David McCulloch, but he's more than qualified to be a source for a featured Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHM22

[edit]

Support, but I agree that the highly positive tone should be toned down. I understand that there are probably not any negative sources (there is no reason for there to be any), but I think it prudent to possibly remove some of his good deeds or reword them at the least. I copyedited the article, but I think it is well written. I have no comment on the sources, as prose is the only thing I really pay attention to on these.-RHM22 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I rephrased the sentence about hungry French children to make it sound more neutral, and will see if that can be done anywhere else in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, I've just changed "veteran adventurer" to "participant in two world wars", and made a similar small change so that prison-camp calisthenics is described with a more neutral tone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking a lot better.-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko

[edit]

Support, been meaning to stop by for some time now. I think this article looks very good and I'm glad someone took this project on. P.S. I am going to add this to Portal:United States in the next few minutes and I added a mention of it in the WikiProject United States Newsletter. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do notice though is that his name seems to be mentioned in excess. I don't personally think we need to say Buckles did or said this or that every sentence. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed six of them.[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

Oppose for now - please see below. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I'm neutral towards this nomination largely as I think that parts of the article it still reads as a bit of a hagiography, though this probably reflects the tone and nature of the available sources more than anything (who wants to write a warts and all book or article on someone like this? - probably rightly, no one). However, the statement that "After the outbreak of the Pacific War and the invasion of the Philippines, he smuggled supplies to U.S. troops on Corregidor." seems questionable, particularly as the date of his capture (January 1942) was also when the Battle of Bataan began, and such "smuggling" became necessary as the Philippino and US forces were cut off. While he was in the right kind of job to have been involved with something like this, it needs a much stronger reference than an article in a small circulation local newspaper (the Canby Herald) and more detail on what this involved would be invaluable. If he really sailed supplies through Japanese patrols (or organised for this?) why don't any other sources mention it and why didn't he receive some kind of official award for this? Note that the source may have confused the chaotic last-minute build up of supplies at Bataan and Corregidor before the Japanese arrived with the efforts to supply the garrison after they were cut off. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another footnote that mentions the subject. More generally, if you can find negative material to put in this article, that would be fine. We already make clear that he was a failure at getting a war memorial. It's our job to follow reliable sources, and if those sources report positive facts without telling us about negative facts, then it's not our job to compensate by somehow skewing the article against what the reliable sources say. It's true that better sourcing is required for material that is controversial or likely to be challenged, but there is no reason to think that the material about Cooregidor falls into that category. In any event, I've added another footnote that's related, though I think the first footnote is adequate absent any reason to believe it's controversial or likely to be challenged.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my basic concern is that the type of sources currently available may not be sufficient to support an FA-level article - though I note that it seems that I'm in a minority on this. As I said, I'm neutral on this nomination though. That extra reference doesn't mention smuggling supplies to Corregidor - it just says that he once attended a reunion of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and that he remained in the Phillipines to transport supplies against the wishes of his employer. I think that a claim that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor yet never received any kind of official recognition for this needs a strong citation, especially as the relevant dates don't seem to match up. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the extra reference is not verbatim the same as the first source, but obviously they are closely related. If Buckles was transporting supplies to US troops while the Japanese were all over the place, then that certainly supports the notion that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor. Moreover, your argument about lack of official recognition strikes me as original research. The US military didn't give awards to civilians, and we carefully explain in this article that the POW medal only goes to members of the military.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If Buckles was transporting supplies to US troops while the Japanese were all over the place, then that certainly supports the notion that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor" - with all respect, I disagree. Taking part in the effort to move supplies to Corregidor before the Japanese were in control of Manila Bay is an entirely different thing to running a Japanese blockade (the Japanese landed in northern Luzon in early December 1941, but didn't reach the Manila Bay area until late in the month. During late December the US authoritities desperately tried to build up supplies in Bataan and Corregidor so they could fulfill their roles as defensive redoubts - this included shipping large (but not large enough) quantities of supplies from Manila and nearby towns. The US Army's well respected official history is online here and should be useful as background - this passage discusses the belated build up of supplies, which included the efforts of civilian volunteers). If he did actually smuggle supplies through a blockade, it's safe to say that this would have been explicitly mentioned in multiple sources - almost certainly including the tributes from senior government figures - and the article should cover this act of heroism in detail. If he instead took part in the effort to ship supplies to Corregidor while it was relatively safe to do so, this should also be explicitly covered, especially as it seems he had the option to leave (though it's a bit odd that only one relatively small town newspaper seems to have seen fit to include this in its coverage of Buckles...). I'm shifting to oppose until this is sorted out. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I cannot follow your reasoning here. You acknowledge that the Japanese reached Manila Bay late in December of 1941. Buckles was not captured until January of 1942. Thus, he was perfectly available before his capture for sneaking supplies in late December through Manila Bay to Corregidor, just as the two cited sources say. Your only apparent reason for challenging this information is that instead of only two reliable sources we would instead have multiple additional sources quoting tributes from senior government figures. I can't see why. Buckles was not in the military at the time, so his military record does not reflect the smuggling. Have senior government figures offered tributes to the other private smugglers who helped supply Corregidor, including not just ship captains but also lowly crew members? I'm afraid that you're creating a controversy here where there is none. Only one of the two cited sources uses the word "smuggle", so I'd be glad to change that word to "supplied" which is clearly supported by both sources, but really you have no basis for challenging what's in either of these two reliable sources, in my opinion. It's commendable that you've looked at the history of Manila Bay, but evidently that history matches perfectly with what's in the two cited sources. There is no discrepancy at all. The reason why this particular factoid hasn't received more attention is pretty obvious: most attention has been focussed on his WWI service rather than other stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Your only apparent reason for challenging this information is that instead of only two reliable sources we would instead have multiple additional sources quoting tributes from senior government figures." My main concern is that there aren't reliable sources. The claim that he was "smuggling" doesn't appear credible without further supporting information (transporting supplies in a war zone isn't "smuggling", which is an even more dramatic activity), and its source probably isn't reliable. The other source, while probably more reliable, is very vague about what he did and doesn't directly support the claim made in the article (I note this also quotes a friend of him saying "I knew he was on one of those famous death marches in the Philippines, not the Bataan one, but another one" which seems like something which should be covered in the article, if it can be confirmed). If Buckles did have World War II service I would expect this to have been reported widely (thereby providing confirmation for these sources), but this doesn't seem to have been the case. All up, this isn't the kind sourcing and material which is suitable in FAs. I appreciate that an awful lot of work has gone into this article and it's in reasonably good shape, but the sources are letting you down here. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, have you checked out the revised language in the article, which doesn't use the word "smuggle"? Regarding death marches, this Wikipedia article is already clear that he battled starvation and was transferred from one prison camp to another, so I think we already adequately and accurately cover that matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"By then, the participant in two world wars had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society" - why define him here by his brief service in World War I and getting captured in World War II? Given that he seems to have spent all of the 1930s employed on board various ships and continued travelling early 1940s, his wartime experiences seem to have been less important to him not "settling down" than his employment in the shipping industry. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very poor writing for a biography to consist of a huge number of sentences in which the subject of each sentence is invariably "Buckles" or "he". I have modified the sentence you object to, so that it now says: "By then, the former doughboy had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society." I don't see anything wrong with this. His primary notability is as a doughboy. We're just trying to write a biography that has a modicum of style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this to 'Buckles'. He was only in the Army for about four years, of which only about two years were full time. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I disagree with your "tweak". You ignored the reasons I gave, and also ignored the very recent comment above by Kumioko that it is poor form to overuse the subject's name.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems non-sensical to label him a 'doughboy' in an entirely unrelated context - he wasn't in the Army for long, and at this time virtually all able-bodied men of his age would have spent several years in the military so his military service wasn't particularly notable until the 2000s. It would make more sense to say something like "By then, the former shipping company employee had settled down to a life of farm activities..." as this was what he'd actually spent the bulk of his time doing and was the main reason he hadn't settled in a single location. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it to "world traveller". As I said, the theme of this whole article is that he was a former doughboy. I don't understand why you want to downplay that theme, but in any event I cannot anticipate any objection to "world traveller".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. It seems to not do credit to someone to cast their entire biography in the light of unremarkable military service which only became notable because they were the last person living to have served in a particular war - this is the reason for their notability, but the article should have a broader focus. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As some further comments on sources:

Good points. That Spirit of Jefferson footnote is not a good source, and I've removed it. I've also edited the article to fix the SAR stuff. The SAR Magazine is now cited only once (instead of three times). It's now in footnote 57 merely for the proposition that he was a member starting in 1935. That seems like an extremely innocuous footnote to me. The other two citations to that magazine are now gone; in one case I swapped it for another footnote (though it was a valid source for merely quoting Buckles), and in the other case the statement in this article was already fully supported by another footnote (I therefore didn't see much harm in adding the SAR Magazine as a second footnote but perhaps it's cleaner now that it's removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resupplying U.S. troops in Phillipines
[edit]

The pertinent section of this Wikipedia article now says:

After the outbreak of the Pacific War and the invasion of the Philippines, he reportedly remained in Manila to help resupply U.S. troops.[1][2]

[1]Hughey, Ray (April 28, 2011). "Honor, Heroism & History". Canby Herald. Eagle Newspapers. Retrieved April 28, 2011. Frank was working in Manila when the Japanese invaded the Philippines in 1941. He spent three years in a Japanese concentration camp after he was captured smuggling supplies to U.S. troops on Corregidor.
[2]Belisles, Richard (February 28, 2011). "As tributes pour in, friends remember Frank Buckles". The Herald-Mail. Schurz Communications. Retrieved May 3, 2011. Amoroso said Buckles told him that Gen. Douglas McArthur, commander of American forces in the Philippines in 1941, asked that crew members of the cargo ships remain because their ships would be needed to resupply his troops. Buckles ignored his captain's pleas to leave with the ship and ended up being captured, Amoroso said.

This seems fine to me. It's been modified in response to comments from Nick-D, and I hope Nick will indicate whether this is satisfactory. These are both reliable sources, from very reputable publishers. The sources are consistent with each other, and either source would support the statement that we make in the text of the Wikipedia article. There are no contrary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork

[edit]

Comment. I think the prose is clear and does convey meaning, which is good enough for GA, though I'm not finding it engaging enough for FA. Actually, some sections wouldn't meet GA criteria - this is not clear: "All of the captives were freed by Allied forces on February 23, 1945. He learned some Japanese during captivity, and was fluent in German, Spanish, Portuguese, and French." At least one non sequitur, and possibly two. The end of the second sentence seems to imply he learned those four languages during captivity - but it's not clear.

There is a lot of material in the main body which is not mentioned in the lead. Though on reading the main body I was struck by the trivial nature of much of the information, and felt that some trimming could take place. The man's claim to notability is his age - a succinct overview of his life would suffice, and providing too much small information starts to work against the man as it starts to trivialise him. For example, this paragraph contains little information of importance, and gives the impression of a man who did little:

After World War II, Buckles moved to San Francisco, married Audrey Mayo in 1946, and went to work for a west coast paint company. In January 1954, the couple bought the 330-acre (1.3 km2) Gap View Farm in West Virginia where they raised cattle. Ancestors named Buckles had settled near Gap View Farm centuries earlier. In 1955, their only child was born, a daughter named Susannah. By then, the world traveller had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society. Audrey Buckles died in 1999, and their daughter moved back to the farm to care for him.

This could be summarised as - "After World War II, Buckles settled down to a farming life in West Virginia with his wife and daughter."

It may well be that in striving to be "comprehensive" there has been a desire to include too much unnecessary and unencyclopedic detail. SilkTork *YES! 09:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sentence about fluency in various languages was a bit convoluted. It's fixed now.
Regarding the period from 1945 to 2000, some previous commenters requested more context and detail. But you're right that it could be improved; I just now took out the trivial detail about working for a paint company, and inserted the more notable fact that he became president of the county historical society. Some of the article is a story of a typical person, but other parts of his life were extraordinary and provide insight into the times he lived through. It's not just an article about someone who died a very long time after being born.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101

[edit]

Oppose

  • 1a: Problems with prose are continually surfacing. Article needs a comprehensive copyedit from uninvolved parties.
  • 1b&c: Dubious claims to Buckles involvement in WWII are dependent on one or two "less than high quality" sources based on some acquaintance of Buckles saying "I knew he was in one of those death marches" and very likely Buckles's own words out of context. More research into these claims could be countered by consulting sources for the Philippines Campaign (1941–42) and Raid at Los Baños. What ships were involved in the "smuggling"?
  • 1b&c cont: More information needed on his WWI service. Find more information on the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment. Who was the commanding officer? Dates of participation/deployments? Causalities?
  • 1d: Article presents and has an overall tone that Buckles was somehow a lifetime soldier. Listing him as a participant in WWII and the Raid at Los Baños along with his WWI service is misleading and steering to the reader. There were plenty of civilians involved in WWII like Air Raid Wardens and many many civilian prisoners none of which makes them notable as "participating" in WWII.
  • 1d cont: Almost all of the sources used in this article are the "rah-rah-rah sis-boom-bah. We love Buckles and America" type. Highly praising of everything and managing to make Buckles sound like a messiah because he claimed to have foreseen the downfall of Hitler's Germany even though it was during the 30s and Germany's height of power and feeding French children. Many soldiers fed French children; not just Buckles.
  • There are still MOS issues with overlinking and photos missing alt text. Brad (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to dignify these comments with an extended response, as the Wikipedia piling-on is evidently now in full swing. The penultimate sentence of Brad101's comment is typical: "Many soldiers fed French children; not just Buckles". This Wikipedia article already says he "helped" feed them, which obviously implies that he was not the only one doing so. Building ridiculous straw men is unseemly enough when discussing regular Wikipedia articles, but I find it especially repugnant in the FA process. So, I don't expect to have anything further to say here. This process began with a ridiculous insistence on opposing-and-recusing-and-insisting-the-oppose-is-not-withdrawn-regardless-of-further-article-edits, and now it ends with an outrageous straw man. Some of the comments have been helpful and have produced a better article, but the piling-on is very sad to see. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Frank_Buckles/archive1&oldid=1138461045"