This article fails
Wikipedia:Good article criteria 1.b. It is basically a set of lists. There is not enough prose to be an article. Lists should be converted to prose form as much as possible. See
Wikipedia:Embedded list.
The sets of list do not all have lead in prose explanations as required by MoS
Wikipedia:Lists
I have expanded the article's narrative, with the accompanying tables serving to supplement that narrative. All major operational highlights have been included in this revision. As an aside, my intention was to provide a highly comprehensive encyclopedic entry on this subject. Tables are useful because of the deployment patterns for this subject. Please provide specific examples and remedial actions, as needed.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I concur—see
this diff. Also, keep in mind that the air wing had times when it simply embarked upon a ship and didn't do anything behind routine training flights!!! —the_
ed17—
04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Hmmm... My idea is to ask the people at
the Military history WikiProject. While they tend to have higher standards than most projects (and might call this a list too), I feel that the military knowledge they have might be helpful in determining how much prose can be added.
Also, with all of the sourced statements, I think that this would stand a chance of passing GA if we removed the tables...but just because they are in there doesn't mean that it is a list!
See
my sandbox at this moment. This is the quick, two minute, article without the tables (all I did is remove them, but obviously a "List of aircraft used" would have to be added somewhere.) IMHO, that would pass a GAN (with a "list of aircraft somewhere!). However, I feel that the tables help enormously for people who are looking for what aircraft they used. —the_
ed17—
18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Done. The statement that "it is not about quality" is meant to be informative to people there (trying to get them to follow the link!)...sorry if it seems like I meant that in bad faith. =/ —the_
ed17—
04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)reply