Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

I respectfully submit this article on a naval battle from World War II for Featured Article consideration. The article has been through a peer review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. The article was also reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA. A self-nomination with valuable input from Wwoods. Cla68 12:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, almost the entire article seems to be referenced from one book (Hammel). I can't tell if that's a good or bad thing. (By the way, can you move up the first reference to Hammel? It took me a long time to find it, since subsequent references to it are listed before the main entry.) ~~By the way, I believe Notes belongs above References?~~ Sandy 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation numbers (by author) are: Hammel- 35, Frank- 26, Hara- 6, Parshall- 3, and McGee- 2. Although the Hammel and Frank sources are used the most, the sections with the most subjective information- the Background and Aftermath sections, use more than just those two books as sources. The Hammel and Frank books are strong on the chronological details of the battle as well as the numbers of assets involved and damaged or destroyed. Those two books also use several of the other books in the article's references list (Dull, Morison, and Stafford) among their primary sources. What do you mean by "move up the first reference to Hammel?" Cla68 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go move it up for you: easier to do it myself than write out the explanation :-) Sandy 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support significant objections addressed. Sandy 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A great article! Only thing: reference notes should go above references, not below. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the notes up above the references. Cla68 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice job from the MilHist Project as usual. Rlevse 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Image:USS Enterprise-Bat Santa Cruz.jpg has no source information. Otherwise quite good. Jkelly 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the image file that confirms the photo is US government/public domain. Cla68 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Intro is rather short. --Kitia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.13.12 (talk • contribs)

After reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on lead sections for articles, I can see that an argument can be made that the intro should be longer for an article of this size, although I believe the lead met the standards of description, explanation, and overview that are required of a lead section, and are more important than the lead's length. Nevertheless, I went ahead and made the intro three paragraphs long by adding additional details. I believe it now unambiguously meets the guidelines. Cla68 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Cla68, you know you are talking to a suspected sockpuppet of the famed Willy on Wheels--The real Kitia 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that I needed to check each comment on the FAC forum before responding to make sure it's not a suspected sock puppet in a contrary mood. Cla68 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit unusual for Willy to branch out into commenting on FACs, no? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any further action that we should take on this "Oppose" vote since there are questions as to its validity? Cla68 12:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother with it, myself. (In any case, even if the comment were to be considered valid to begin with, I think the lead has been sufficiently lengthened now to render it moot.) Kirill Lokshin 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article could probably do with more sub-headings in the section covering the carrier action on October 26. --Nick Dowling 12:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added another sub-heading to break-up the long section that was under, "Carrier action on October 26." Cla68 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]