[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:John A. Hilger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJohn A. Hilger has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2023Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 14, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
[edit]

Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=1891. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. - RichT|C|E-Mail 00:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will make updates to the article for GA based on your comments following review. Toadboy123 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this, I am concerned that it is a little way from being ready for GA (I suspect that this is why it took as long as it did to get reviewed). Some initial comments:

  • The lead should be expanded to be more of a summary of the overall article.
  • No need for the cite in the lead; as it should be a summary, everything mentioned here should already be cited in the body of the article.
  • Not all the commands listed in the infobox are mentioned in the article.
  • I don't believe that "Children of the Doolittle Raiders" is a reliable/independent source. Fortunately, it is only used a few times so hopefully will be easily replaced.
  • Ranks should not be capitalised if not part of the subject's title, i.e. "Captain Hilger" is OK, "Hilger was a captain" is also OK.
  • In terms of dates, once the year is established
  • The heading hierarchy seems off to me. Suggest integrating the first part of his military career into the early life section then using World War II as the major heading. At that point mention the anti-submarine patrols that was his major operational work. Also, what kind of aircraft was he flying at this stage? Instead the "post raid" heading, I suggest "Later war service". The Cold War heading should be the same hierarchy as the World War II heading. (I hope that this makes sense; it does in my mind, but my wife says nothing I say makes sense...)
  • Don't use laudatory language e.g. for the famous "Doolittle Raid",
  • The last part of the final sentence of the Cold War section is uncited.
  • Suggest integrating the information in the Personal life section with the remaining sections so that it is all chronological. I have seen the current format used elsewhere and have always found it jarring.
  • The bullet pointed material in the Awards section should be integrated into the later life section.
  • Note 1 is uncited.
  • Nelson is listed in the Bibliography section but is not actually cited; move it to a "Further reading" section.
  • The caption for the image of Hilger and his B-25 crew is quite wordy; suggest deleting the ranks/names of the crew

I will do a more detailed review of the prose once the above is attended to. There is a bit of revision work here and I wonder if it may be better for me to fail the review for now so you can attend to the necessary remedial edits, and then renominate it. I am happy to work with you outside of the GA process to achieve this but wouldn't be able to be the reviewer for the renomination. Let me know either way how you want to proceed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made most the edits to the articles based on the suggestions you have made above following the review. I hope you can review the article and if possible make any more minor edits to ensure that it will attain GA article status. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some points haven't been dealt with well - I expanded the lead some more so that the second paragraph is a summary of the entire article and have made a few edits elsewhere in addition.
  • There is still one cite to the Children of the Doolittle Raiders.
  • Note 1 is still uncited.
  • You have him as flying cadet in the Air Corps twice, and same for second lieutenant.
  • I will go through the prose soon, but at this stage, the only thing that really stands out is the placement of the paragraph dealing with his deceased brother. I would probably have this at the end of the section. Zawed (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the modifications as per your second and third points. Toadboy123 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also completed the first and final suggestions made by you, for the article. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circling back to this for a belated prose review/final look.

Lead

  • a United States Air Force general and deputy commander of the Doolittle Raid...: the structure here implies that he was a general at the time of the Doolittle Raid and during WWII, when in fact it looks as though he didn't reach general rank until well in the 1950s. I suggest replacing the term general with officer.
  • link Lieutenant Colonel

Early life

  • Despite leaving from his studies in 1929...: "leaving from" doesn't sound right, perhaps replace with "abandoning" so long as that doesn't hew to close to the source (or just "leaving")
  • link bachelor of science, adjutant, captain, major, Washington
  • in October 1939. In May 1940, Hilger was transferred to McChord Field, Washington,...: awkward sentence construction here, with two dates mentioned back to back. Suggest "in October 1939. Hilger was transferred to McChord Field, Washington, in May 1940,...

World War II

  • Is it known why Doolittle selected Hilger for the role of deputy commander? I would assume it would be because of his B-25 experience but perhaps the two also knew each other from previous assignments. While not essential for GA status, it would be nice to have a mention of some sort of connection.
  • Can we also have a one-liner as to the motivation for the Doolittle Raid. E.g. "The mission was intended to be a retaliatory response to the attack at Pearl Harbor" or similar.
  • link Lieutenant Colonel, colonel, Ensign, Orlando
  • Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid...: no antecedence for the fact the launch was made early. Perhaps integrate into the sentence beginning "On April 18, 1942...", something along the lines of "...took off from the Hornet earlier than planned due to fears the Hornet had been detected by the Japanese, and reached Nagoya in Japan.
  • delink China; generally not necessary to link countries
  • link 344th Bomb Group (here and in infobox), even if it is a redlink
  • Pipelink "Kunming, China" so that China is not linked.
  • Following his return to the U.S,: should be "Following his return to the United States," for consistency with first mention of country
  • During the last 18 months of World War II,...: firstly, combine this with the previous paragraph; as it stands it is too short to be a standalone paragraph. Secondly, I think it would read better if "During" was replaced with "For". Thirdly, given the end date of his previous appointment, the war only lasted for 12 more months, not 18.
  • ...brother Lt. Ted Hilger served...: write rank out in full

Cold War

  • in B-29 Superfortresses during the war.: the "during the war" is a bit redundant given earlier mention of the Korean War
  • Pipelinl "Sinuiju, North Korea" so that North Korea is not linked. Ditto "Oslo, Norway"
  • 666 yards: add a conversion template for meters
  • link: Air Force Operational Test Center, Air Proving Ground Command, Eglin Air Force Base
  • There are a couple of single sentence paragraphs in this section, integrate them with the others but watch out for dates appearing to next other (at the end/start of successive sentences)

References

  • The date of publication format for cite 4 should be made consistent with the format used for other dates in this section. Also the name of the article should be rendered in title case, which seems to be the style used for the other citations

I made made a few tweaks to the text here and there, check you are happy with the changes. Apologies for taking so long here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing I just spotted, his nickname is presently uncited and needs to be worked into the text somewhere. Zawed (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits based on the most recent suggestions you made right now. Toadboy123 (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the changes, several issues weren't enacted or missed altogther. I've gone ahead and dealt with them myself for sake of wrapping this review up. Passing as GA as I believe the article meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million! Toadboy123 (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted as a GA; no prejudice against renomination if it is brought back to GA status and the copyvio concerns are addressed.

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Toadboy123 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 17:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John A. Hilger; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Onegreatjoke: Recently promoted and I see no problems preventing this from becoming a DYK. Jon698 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA Reassessment

[edit]

John A. Hilger

[edit]

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: Delisted per unfixed close paraphrasing (see RoySmith's comment below). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive copyvios. Earwig reports substantial exact matches from http://www.veterantributes.org/ and https://www.tshaonline.org/. This was noted on the article talk page last May, and it looks like somebody did some "cleanup" which consisted of minor edits to change exact matches into close paraphrases, so the actual extent of the problem is far worse than a naive reading of the Earwig report would lead you to believe.

Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1 has no discussion of the copyvio issue, which leads me to wonder if it was examined at all. Either the review did not include a scan for copyvio problems, or it did and the level of problem found was considered acceptable. It is unclear which alternative is more disturbing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definite close paraphrasing issues: Hilger enrolled at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas in September 1926 pulled pretty much straight from the source as well as an air assault on an enemy stronghold near Sinuiju, North Korea, (both the copyrighted TSHA source), and concerns with the other source as well (although some of what Earwig flags is just really long proper names that can't be rephrased as it's the name of an organization). Looks like a expedited delist to me. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to put my hand up as the GA reviewer, I was so focused on assessing other obvious issues that I identified, including source reliability, that I overlooked the copyright problem. That said, as HogFarm has noted, a lot of the overlap is in unit names/job titles and there is limited ability to alleviate this since copyright is around the expression of information, rather than the information itself. Zawed (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated much. The rest is long titles and military jargon which cannot be removed. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly going to be a lot of Earwig hits from things like "Operational Training Unit Bomb Group"; that's the name of a unit and clearly shouldn't be changed. But I understand that and that's not the problem. @Hog Farm gave one example above. Here's some other examples from the revision that passed the GA review:
  • "In Chungking on April 30, Madame Chiang Kai-shek presented medals and posed for pictures with Doolittle, Hilger, and other crew members."
  • "On April 30, in Chungking, Hilger, Doolittle and other crew members were decorated by Madame Chiang Kai-shek."
Earwig doesn't say anything about that, but it's clearly a sentence that was copied and then the word order shuffled around a bit to make it not show up in an automated scan.
  • "Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the sixteen bombers failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Although one aircraft and its crew landed in the Soviet Union and was taken prisoner, the crews in the fifteen other B-25s were forced to bail out of their planes before they crashed. In bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. Crew fourteen survived the ordeal. Of the eighty airmen that made up the Doolittle Raiders, the majority were rescued by friendly Chinese."
  • ". Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the B-25s failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Hilger and his crew bailed out over the city of Shangrao in Jiangxi Province, China. While bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. He and his crew linked up after the bailout and were helped through Japanese lines by Chinese guerrillas and civilians"
Earwig flagged bits and pieces of that, but between the bits Earwig flagged, there's more which is clearly copied and shuffled around a bit.
  • "In retirement, Hilger accepted a position with the Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982 he returned to Texas to live at the Air Force Village in San Antonio. On February 3, 1982, Brig. Gen. John Allen Hilger died at the age of seventy-three at Lackland Air Force Base. In accordance with his wishes, Hilger was cremated and his ashes scattered off the coast of Newport Beach, California, in the Pacific Ocean."
  • "After his retirement from the military, Hilger served with the United States Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982, after his full retirement, he settled at the Air Force Village in San Antonio, Texas. Hilger died on February 3, 1982, at the age of 73. In accordance to his wishes, his body was cremated and ashes scattered in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Newport Beach, California."
Again, bits and pieces noted by Earwig, but in between those bits and pieces are more text that's just the original source text warmed over and rearranged into two paragraphs instead of the original one. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best to make sure that the article did not suffer from copyright issues by paraphrasing the lines and information without from the source website. I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status. I will try to reedit the mentioned paragraphs and any required editing so that it won't encounter any copyvio issues. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123 before you do that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will read it and hopefully it will contribute to my understanding regarding close paraphrasing. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regarding, "I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status.", I should point out that "including all the information" is not a GA criteria. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says:
If you're trying to include every assignment, every promotion, every posting, every available facet of his private life, that's going beyond the "main aspects", and may well be treading on "unnecessary detail". This is specifically called out in the explanatory note to WP:GACR: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2023 (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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John A. Hilger/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images properly licensed
  • Don't open with his rank; start with just his name.
  • I would suggest modelling this article on FA-quality general officer aviators like Frank Bladin, especially in coverage and structure of the lede.
  • Delete the names of the other crewmembers from the photo of the Doolittle raiders and just tell the reader which one Hilger is.
  • More information is needed on why Doolittle picked Hilger.
  • There are lots of issues with close paraphrasing remaining, particularly with the Handbook of Texas article, although some of that is because there are only so many ways that you can say that he served in this post or did that job. Nonetheless, you need to put this article in your own voice.
  • There's some redundant info that needs to be deleted, particularly in the early life section where you tell the reader which year he graduated from high school twice, mirroring the entry in the Handbook of Texas.
  • I'm going to give you a week to start reworking the article and will put the article on hold until then. If you cannot start work before then, I'll fail the article and you can work on it at your leisure before renominating it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made some updated to the article based on your suggestions:
    • All images are licensed properly (PD-USAF).
    • Updated introduction by removing rank and starting with his name.
    • I updated the article structure based on the article you mentioned.
    • I have updated the bomber crew images by deleting other crew members names and only adding Hilger in it.
    • Regarding the information on why Doolittle chose Hilger, I can't find detailed information from sources regarding Doolittle Raid. But in the book by Woodall, it stated that Hilger was chosen as deputy commander after being nominated by his AAF bomb group commander, due to him being a 'no-nonsense individual', which I paraphrased.
    • Regarding the paraphrasing issues from Handbook of Texas, I modified the paragraphs with similarity from the content in the Handbook, with the help of Earwig tool.
    • The redundant info in 'Early life' section deleted. If there are more, you could suggest to me and I will edit it in a given time.
    Toadboy123 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but still needs more work.
  • Forex, the opening sentence comes directly from the Handbook. Look more closely at the info contained in the lede of the Frank Bladin article and how it's structured as a summary of the article. That should be your model. There's a lot of the excessive detail from the lede here that needs to be deleted. Forex, you should tell the reader what school he graduated from and when, but don't tell what his major was until the main body. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if you need general guidance on what should be included.
  • The lede should be roughly chronological and you shouldn't mention the Doolittle raid in the opening sentence.
  • You got the date of his commissioning in the Air Corps wrong.
  • Rework the lede and we'll proceed from there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the lede based on the article you mentioned and the second set of suggestions you made. Let me know of any more updates have to be made for the article. Toadboy123 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to take so long to get back to this.
  • The lede looks pretty good, although you need to give a rough time for when he was commanding the 89th.
  • Combine the first two sentences of the first para in the early life section
  • Open the next para with "Later that year,"
  • Combine the first two sentences of the second para by changing the "however" to but
  • We don't know for sure that he had to drop out for money problems, so add a "probably" and change fiscal constraints to a simpler phrase
  • Link the BS degree, mechanical engineering, adjutant
  • Use the name US Army Reserve with a link. You need to clarify that he branched infantry in the USAR. This is one place it's OK to close paraphrase because there aren't many viable alternatives.
  • Fold the 3rd and 4th paragraphs together since they both cover his early military career
  • More later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've trimmed the text some to eliminate extraneous details; feel free to revert.
  • I'm not seeing anything about Hilger's service from Nov '43 to Sept '44 in the AF biography. What's the source, Woodall? In fact it contradicts the AF biography which says that he was on Nimitz's staff for the last 18 months of the war.
  • The first para of the Cold War section is almost a direct quote from the AF bio and needs to be revised or quoted directly. This is true of most of the rest of the article. Do your best to rephrase all the duty assignments. But stuff like the second sentence of the Later life section is lifted directly from sources and needs to be rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66: I have made the edits as you stated. Regarding the 'rephrase all the duty assignments', am I supposed to rephrase the duty assignements to avoid similtairty with AF bio. I have rephrased and edited the 'Cold War' section? Toadboy123 (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66: I have paraphased the 'Early life' section which contains the bulk of the information of his military assignments. Let me know how is it and any if any further edits have to be made. Toadboy123 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66 and Toadboy123: where does this review stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: I have made necessary edits from my side including paraphrasing. Waiting for reviewer to give any further suggestions before the article can be considered GA . Toadboy123 (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left some messages on Sturmvogel 66's talk page encouraging them to complete this. Let's see if that has any effect. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had misread your comments as only applying to the early part of his career. Your changes are now sufficiently different from the sources that I'm comfortable promoting it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination (second nomination)

[edit]
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Toadboy123 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 15 December 2023‎ (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John A. Hilger (second nomination); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Toadboy123: It has been almost a year since this article was withdrawn here at DYK and I see much work has been done to make corrections. A few issues: should we repeat the claim "was commissioned in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1934" in the body? It is a minor thing that can be corrected on the fly. We also say in the lead he was "selected by Doolittle" but the article only says "Hilger, now a lieutenant colonel, was designated as the deputy commander for the "Doolittle Raid," a mission led by Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle in March 1942". Right now both claims are in the lead but not repeated in the body. Also we say "he piloted one of the B-25s that bombed Nagoya in Japan" but the Doolittle section of the article does not say that he was flying a B-25.
Earwig alerts only to long professional titles. I spot checked several references and the citations were correctly used. The QPQ is done and the article was a new GA so it qualifies for DYK. The hook may require a person to have specialized knowledge. Like what is the Doolittle raid? What era? What war? What country? The hook is cited but I think we should explore another based on DYKCRIT

Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest.

I am comfortable that the article is free of obvious plagiarism and clop. The article is neutral and no image is offered here but certainly could be. We say he "bail out over the city of Shangrao", maybe it is assumed but we should probably add how he bailed with a parachute. Suggestion.
@Toadboy123: It does not interest me. A bit too busy. Also see if you can address my other nitpicks. Bruxton (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Ok, I will go for ALT2 as it seems more interesting. - Toadboy123 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: I am hoping to pass the nomination, but I mentioned items that need fixing. Bruxton (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: malformed ping Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I have made stated edits. - Toadboy123 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: Not yet, two still unfinished items from my initial review Bruxton (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Did some of your edit requests. Please let me know if there is anything more to be resolved. - Toadboy123 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it called out in my first review above.
"was commissioned in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1934" is not in the body
"selected by Doolittle" is not in the body
Bruxton (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton I have fixed these issues. Let me know now if the article is good to go. - Toadboy123 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New reviewer needed as ALT2 was created by the reviewer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Planes of the Doolittle Raid weren't supposed to return - they were supposed to fly on to China, so ALT2 is kind of misleading. One could perhaps go with something like:
I like your hooks but now we need more reviewers. Bruxton (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bruxton I know that, but proposing alt hooks at times is part of the reviewing process. One cannot promote a nomination unless it has a viable hook. Gatoclass (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, unless there's a new rule I'm not aware of I think you're allowed to approve Gatoclass's hooks. Both need an end-of-sentence citation in the article though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renumbering Gatoclass's two alts as ALT4 and ALT5, since an ALT3 had previously been proposed back on 24 January (which I have just struck per Bruxton's comment that followed). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer needed for ALTs 4 and 5. Gatoclass (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both hooks would require an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 17:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AlT4 isn't even in the article. I mean, if you squint your eyes and read between the lines, then sure, but hooks need to be explicit. Could the nominator add it to the "Doolittle Raid" section in the bio please? Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5 is in the article, but lacks a citation at the end of the sentence. Strangely, there is nothing about the hook in Doolittle Raid itself. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I attempted to add sources for both ALT4 and ALT5 and could not do so. One of the sources required a subscription to Project Muse, so if you have access to that, please take a look. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas' concerns are valid, and so neither ALT4 or ALT5 currently work. As this nomination is over two months old, I am marking it as rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_A._Hilger&oldid=1245883959"