Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military brat (U.S. subculture)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus to demote –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat (U.S. subculture)[edit]

Reappraisal review: I am nominating this article for reappraisal because it may no longer meet the A-class criteria since it was recently demoted at FAR. This was a December 2006 A-class promotion. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.

Demote

Unfortunately there wasn’t any development of the article during the FAR so most of my concerns still stand, even when measured against less stringent criteria.

A1: The article is now peppered with fact tags and dead links, and as I look through it again I find I could add some more. For instance the sentence I brought up at FAR; “The military family knows that the service person may be killed in the line of duty, but may accept that risk because they are taught that the military mission is worth dying for.” isn’t referenced (it’s the short sentence afterwards that the ref covers), is hideously PoV and should be sourced or reworded.

I’m not sure some of the sources are reputable. Clifton was a student when she wrote a paper on Brats apparently, not exactly high quality. I’d also like to see more secondary sources relating the use of the term in the mainstream media.

A2: As per the FAR, it lacks cross-country comparison and the history of the Brat demographic and/or term in the US. Should have at least one or the other.

A3: Lead doesn’t reflect the contents, and reads more like a background section. Titles aren’t particularly encyclopaedic and aren’t hierarchical.

A4: Numerous spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. Isolated sentences and awkward passages can also be found in several sections. The tone of the article is more in keeping with a research paper than an article. I believe it needs a thorough copy-edit.

Ranger Steve (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote per above. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote

lacks the international comparison. Lead is weak, needs a major league copy edit. Once that is finished, maybe. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.