A little something I've been working on that I'm proud of. Depicts the famous WWII era photograph, as well as the controveries surrounding it (there's actually a fair bit) and the legacy. Raul654 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the pictures do not have fair-use rationale for this article. Vulcanstar6 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt add rationale to the pic with the sculpture. you need to make a new section on the pics page called "fair use", then state reasons why the pic is being used fairly by your specific article.
Picky picky. I've expanded the explinations (there's only 3 fair-use photos) and put them in their own sections. Raul654 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being picky, you plain didn't do it. anyway, thats fixed, so i will further consider the nomination. Vulcanstar6 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The background section could be a little longer; there's no need to rework all of Battle of Iwo Jima there, but some more details about the assault on Suribachi would be appropriate, in my opinion. In addition, three of the sections are little more than extensive quotes, which is neither good section structure nor even good prose; and several other sections are quite short. My suggestion would be to combine the background, first raising, and second raising sections, as well as (separately) the publication and staging sections. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten one of the quotes, and combined the publication and staging sections into a single one. Raul654 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of getting more material? The choppy sections are rather noticeable, since the article is pretty short by current FA standards ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an entire book on the subject sitting next to me. What's missing from the article, though? I believe the only semi-relavant thing I omitted was a discussion of how the three marines never really recovered from their experiences (Ira I did touch on a little; Bradley buried the events and refused to talk about them with his family; Gagnon tried the rest of his life to cash in and never suceeded). I figured those things were best left to their individual articles. Raul654 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are a few points where more detail might be appropriate:
Some more background on the capture of Suribachi.
There's an unclear transition between the first and second flag raising sections. Tuttle is sent to the beach to find another flag; how does it get up the mountain? Do the six people bring it up, or were they already at the top? And when and how did Rosenthal and Genaust join them?
Feel free to ignore these if you feel they're outside of the scope of the article, though. Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, this article has come a long way from a year ago! Hopefully these don't sound too picky:
"Following publication of the photograph" - this paragraph seems to attribute that fairly large quotation to the encyclopedia... is this correct usage?
"The 7th War Bond Drive and the Sixth Man controversy" - a couple ultra-short paragraphs
Also, "Background" reads awkward to me... perhaps consider a small reorganization...
Replies to Kirill and RN: I've expanded the background section, merged the short paragraphs and merged the paragraphs in teh background/staging section. Also, Kirill, your question is answered later in teh article - "Ira remembered what Rene Gagnon and John Bradley could not have remembered, because they did not join the little cluster until the last moment: that it was Harlon [Block], Mike [Strank], Franlkin [Sousley] and himself [Hayes] who had ascended Suribachi midmorning to lay telephone wire; it was Rene [Gagnon] who had come along with the replacement flag. Hasnon had not been part of this action" Raul654 04:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow!! It is looking a lot better! Don't be afraid to be agressive with wording and avoid using the subject to start every sentence, for example - instead of
Ok, I've combined the flag raising sections and added more detail as to how the flag got from the beach to the top of the mountain. Raul654 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the expansion; support from me now. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic work. Take care of the short paragraph in the middle of "The 7th War Bond Drive and the Sixth Man controversy" and the one-sentence paragraph at the start of "Legacy" and you'll have my support. Just another star in the nightT | @ | C 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed one of them. The other, I believe, is necessary for story-telling purposes. Raul654 16:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - interesting, well written and referenced, sufficient detail without delving into trivia. All good, and I think it's nearly there. I have a problem regarding the display of the images - and this could just be my PC - but each image starting from the colourised shot overlaps into the next section, and particularly in the last grouping of images, looks very cluttered. I think the colourised shot, and the Ira Hayes shot should each be moved up to the beginning of their respective sections. Then each of the three images in "Legacy" could also be moved up. I like some images to be left aligned - that's just my personal preference and I'm not asking you to do that, but it may also alleviate the crowding of the images. Support - I'm satisfied that my objections have been actioned, and where not completely actioned, have at least been replied to and I'm generally happy with the replies. I still disagree about the images, but I accept that it's a question of preference. Very good article, well written and referenced containing a selection of appropriate illustrations. The edits of the last day or two have been outstanding. Rossrs 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other things:
lead paragraph twice uses the word "famous". I wonder if "iconic" might be a reasonable substitute for the first instance of it. Famous is only so to people who have heard of it. "Iconic" (which it certainly is) is more specific.
Good suggestion - I have made it so. Raul654 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"left the Americans with more-than-expected down time" is a little awkward and non-encyclopedic - not sure how to reword.
use of the term "pillbox" implies the reader knows what it is. it's not linked in the article but pillbox links to bunker. would be clearer if just one or the other was used rather than both, if they have essentially the same definition.
A pillbox is not the same thing as a bunker. A bunker is (by definition) underground, several to many feet underground. A pillbox, on the other hand, is a concrete reinforced outcropping, from which one shoots. The Japanese on Iwo Jima used both - bunkers for communications, barracks, mess, 'etc, and pillboxes for actually shooting. Raul654 13:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, fair enough. My mistake, but wikilinking it has helped. Also the sentence about spotting the artillery, reads awkwardly with the inclusion of "down". I understand "spot" is correct, but "down" is superfluous because we already know that the spotter is above them. Is there anywhere you could link "spot" to? I think with a word like that, having a specific usage and meaning beyond common usage, in this case military jargon, it would be useful if it was linked to somewhere that explains it. The closest thing I can find is spotter (sniping) but it's not correct. The way it's written assumes that the reader has some familiarity with military jargon, but if they don't, where do they go? Rossrs 14:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
artillery spotting would be an appropriate link (but don't expect me to write it - beyond general ideas, I haven't the faintest clue what it involves). Raul654 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's minor. I thought if you knew somewhere it could be linked to, it would be good. It's referred to in field artillery and I understand it's related in a general way to reconnaissance. That's the extent of my knowledge. Doesn't matter. Rossrs 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
several uses of the word "picture" and several of "photo" or "photograph" to describe the same thing - being a noun, and the subject of the article it would be better to stick ot one word to use for it throughout. "it" would also be ok in some places. example "Upon seeing the photo, Franklin D. Roosvelt realized the picture would..." could be "Upon seeing the photo, Franklin D. Roosvelt realized it would..."
most of the minor things I noticed I simply changed, but hopefully nothing that you would disapprove of.
With regards to "it was later disclosed"... the reason I used that wording was because the information was sourced to a book published in 2000, so it is true to say it was later disclosed. Once again, it's no big deal, but I was mainly trying to cut down on the number of things contained in brackets throughout the article. Very few of the brackets are necessary. Rossrs 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - "The photo became instantly famous, and one of the most recognizable photographs in history, becoming the only photograph to win a Pulitzer Prize in the same year as its publication". The sequence is wrong. 1. it became famous, 2. it won the Pulitzer and 3 it became historic. Should the sentence be reworded to reflect this? eg "The photograph attained immediate notability, becoming the only photograph to win a Pulitzer Prize in the same year as its publication, and ultimately came to be regarded as one of the most significant and recognizable images in history". I think it's also probably good to distinguish between the photograph and the historic value of the image. Rossrs 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweak the introduction accordingly Raul654 22:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. It works better with the two sentences as you've structured it. Rossrs 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good article overall. Some objections: the images could be rearranged so that they don't bunch up in that one section. Also, article contains several quotes that aren't integrated very well into the text and aren't formatted properly---quotes should almost never be italicized, but this seems to be an increasing trend on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 23:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the manual of style about quotes, and you're right, so I've removed the italics. About the pictures - I moved the Gagnon sculture pic up a bit, so the pictures do not bunch up even at the high resolution I am using. They are placed next to the text in the paragraph they belong with, so I don't want to shift them around too much for that reason. Raul654 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they still look cluttered. The colourised image could be moved up a bit and still be in the correct place beside discussion of it. The image of Ira Hayes could be made smaller and that way it would not need to be moved. 150px would do it, and the image caption could be made less wordy, which would also help. Maybe "Ira Hayes was identified as the "Sixth Man"". It could also be put at the top of the section or left where it is at the bottom because Hayes is discussed in both paragraphs, however putting it at the top and left aligning it would reduce the bunching effect further down. The three final images would still be bunched. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial suggests left/right aligning images to avoid images "stacking" in an "unattractive way". I think it would be worthwhile to at least try this as an option to see if it helps. At the moment, the images are stacking in an unattractive way, however this can be fixed without compromising your wish to keep the images in their rightful places, which is a completely valid argument. Rossrs 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image tutorial does no such thing (I should know considering I wrote it). English is a left-to-right reading system, so left-aligned images are A Very Bad Thing. But your other suggestions are good. Raul654 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not quote from a tutorial without reading it first. Perhaps you should read it too. It may have changed since you wrote it. In fact, a quick look at the edit history will show how many other fingers have been in this particular pie. It says this: "Alternating left and right floats. Perhaps the easiest way is to make floating images alternate left then right; this way they don't come into contact with one another, and so can't stack up in an unattractive way." I'm aware that English is read left-to-right. Left aligned images are used in encyclopedias, reference books, webpages, and numerous Wikipedia articles. If your opinion and preference is that images should always be right aligned, I respect your viewpoint, however the tone of your reply implies that this is a standard that I should be well aware of. This is not the case. Rossrs 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and this is not covered in the tutoral because it's a relatively new feature) you should try to avoid specifying a picture size and simply use thumbnail. This way, the user's can set the default thumbnail size in his preferences. I've tweaked the article to do this for most pics, and stacking shouldn't be a problem. Raul654 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this. OK, that's good. Rossrs 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object for now; a few things should be addressed. First, {{cite web}} should be used for online references. Second, are there any references for the first section? Other than that, looks pretty good to me, though some of those images look a little small (though I understand the thumbnail size issue). —Spangineer[es](háblame) 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't use any references to write the background section - there's nothing there that cannot be found in a basic description of the battle. Raul654 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd grab a general reference from Battle of Iwo Jima, but it doesn't cite any sources, so would it be possible to name a book with such a description for this article? Extra WP:V and WP:CITE never hurt anyone =). —Spangineer[es](háblame) 05:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I grabbed my handy copy of Weinberg's A World At Arms (which is better swatting insects and small mammals than reading; it's GIGANTIC). It also makes a good general-purpose WWII reference. Raul654 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely balanced between before, during and after. I have added some further details of the first flag raising (the one that is not depicted in the image) and copyedited a little. -- ALoan(Talk) 14:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent article, well referenced, comprehensive, with outstanding images (well it should have, shouldn't it...). Well done to all the editors. Batmanand | Talk 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support much better than when submitted. Fixed one grammar error and one fact (there were two marine survivors, not three). Rlevse
OMG - who created {{SS}}? Ugh. WP:TFD here we come. -- ALoan(Talk) 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need. It's a recreation of the already-once-deleted support template, making template:SS a speedy deletion candidate. Raul654 14:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know all that, I thought they were still in use.Rlevse 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Support. This is a great article - I love the colour coded photograph identifying the six men. That's brilliant. My one gripe is that the after a great read, the article ends badly with two pieces of rather incongrous trivial information which I feel are jarring enough detract from the tone of the piece:"From 1994 until 2004, the NetBSD operating system used a cartoon inspired by from this photograph. NetBSD's more abstract current logo retains the flag symbolism. The format of the iconic photo has been replicated since, for example, in the cover artwork for Terry Pratchett's novel Monstrous Regiment." Can these items be moved to a separate Trivia or Popular Culture section or maybe removed entirely? Or perhaps it could be rewritten/moved to tone down the way the NetBSD and Terry Pratchett novel stand out so much. Its just an odd way to end a great article like that. Bwithh 18:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, now supporting article. (I rewrote the sentence slightly to get rid of a slight repetition Bwithh 19:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced, well written, I like it. --Easter Monkey 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the color coded photo is great, very simple way of getting the goal across. Great article, and it's very strange to see Raul going through the FAC. Heh. Staxringold 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really enjoyed reading this article. It's cited good and has a nice flow to it. American Patriot 1776 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Request This sort of a further condition, I guess. Again congrats on a terrific article which I think will be a great FA. I'd really like to see the photo or photos of the first flag-raising in the actual article (its quite a good photo though obviously not iconic). The photo of the first flag being lowered and the second being raised could also go in (I know the linked image is part of a book cover, but you could just crop it down). Both are in footnote links at the moment and that seems a bit of shame. There's also other photos of the first flag raising which I just found - see here and here. These photos seem to come from the same original source as the first flagraising photo already footnoted in the article - there is a slightly better resolution/colouring (I think, anyway)) version of that photo on the same site as those other photos here. The source is USMC Radioman Raymond Jacobs whose story is told on this webpage: http://carol_fus.tripod.com/marines_hero_ray_jacobs.html, and who has been featured in newspaper articles about his efforts to be recognized in the iwo jima flag events e.g. Chicago Sun-Times article from Feb 2005. I think Jacobs should be mentioned as well.
Also, I found another controversy discussed in this Dec 2005 Army Times article] - about where the flag came from. well, inter-service rivalry than anything major (the US Coast Guard helped take Iwo Jima?). Bwithh 02:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I read this article with interest particularly because it was submitted by the FAC Director, and therefore should give some insight into how the Director interprets the FA criteria first-hand. The article covers the "main points" of the photo and its general context, however, the authors have taken a somewhat shallow and one-dimensional view of the subject. Emphasis is placed on the battle itself, and the "legacy" of the photo largely in terms of its human subjects. It fails to examine other basic aspects:
Most critically absent from coverage is the use of the photo in possibly the first large-scale, media-based political public relations campaign Especially given 60 years hindsight, the way in which the photo and its subjects were used to rally war support amongst and to raise money from the American public merits a distinct section, and not simply almost passing reference. As it stands, these central issue is covered in all of three sentences — "Upon seeing the photo, President Franklin D. Roosevelt realized the picture would make an excellent symbol for the upcoming 7th war bond drive, and ordered the soldiers identified and brought home." and "The three survivors went on a whirlwind bond tour. The tour was a smashing success, raising $23.3 billion, twice the tour's goal" — while paragraphs are devoted to the lives of various flag-raisers. This is a stark POV imbalance. As one of the stars of tne new Flags of Our Fathers film states noted, besides the heroism it is also about the act of propaganda: "It's a film about selling war to the public," he told 'Premiere' magazine, "and I feel we're in a similar situation right now."
The summary of the battle does not fully portray the situation, particular the immediate circumstances leading up to the flag-raising. There are important omissions particularly when considered in light of the previous point, the subsequent PR use of the photo. On one hand, the military action is not fully described: the planned 10-day, reduced to three-day shelling and bombing of Suribachi prior to landing that was expected to have pulverized the enemy; the ascent of Company E without an enemy shot fired; and the shortcomings of US intelligence in assessing Iwo Jima's defences, with the subsequent bloody 30 odd days of fighting. Raising the Flag... was used in part to counteract these subsequent events of the battle as well. At the time, it was perhaps thought that the battle had been just about won, when in fact it was hardly begun. This should be noted, especially when the "Background" section summarizes the battle and notes "Strategically, the top of Suribachi is one of the most important locations on the island" and "the battle continued to rage for many days" which, although dates are given, editorially diminishes the four days prior and 31 days of subsequent pitched battle, while emphasizing the importance of Suribachi, which was critical to landing, but only one step in taking the island.
I did alter some of the phrasing to emphasize the lengths, per your last remarks, and I added a note about them not being fired out (sourced from John Bradley's UNHC interview). However, most of your ohter observations are too detailed for this article, and would be more appropriae in the Battle of Iwo Jima article. Raul654 04:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The political climate in the US toward the war is not explained Again particularly in relation to the public relations aspect, the state of the public that embraced the photo and its subjects is an important aspect of the overall impact. What was US public sentiment towards the war at the time?
As with above, I am not sure of the appropriateness of this to this article; further, there's not really a whole lot to say -- support among Americans for staying in world war II was constantly high for the full duration of the war (I don't believe it ever dipped below 80%). I could talk about the economics aspects of the war bond drive (which is to say, the goal of $14 billion 1945 dollars was, for the time, unbelievably high, reflecting the costs of the war) Raul654 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How the photo itself was taken Much readily available detail is omitted, such as the camera and settings, and the immediate events leading up to the photo, how Rosenthal ascended Suribachi, set up and took his shot. Much detail is included on other detials — for example, at least four paragraphs, including and entire paragraph of quotation — are given to the "sixth man", but how the actual photo came about is not directly covered (i.e. how Rosenthal on the way up met Lowery, photog of the original flag raising, on the way down, how he almost missed the shot, and so forth).
The "controversies" surrounding the photo are not fully represented: the "staged shot" is emphasized, while the "second raising" angle is not directly addressed In fact, it would seem that there has been ongoing debate and controversy over the fact that the "raising" is not the original one, but that it was used because there was a "better photo". One vet who helped with the first flag raising, and won a Silver Star and a Purple Heart at Iwo Jima, was quoted as recently as 2005: "I mean, everyone says, Iwo Jima flag raising, they look at the other one, that's not right. It wasn't. That's what I say. But ain't good enough, I guess -- maybe that's what they think. Kinda hurts you. But I've talked a lot about this, I've argued a lot about it. I can always prove it, that's the thing." He has apparently been promoting this message for since the war. It is also elsewhere noted that the Navy and government did not clarify the origin of the photo at the time. Basically, this wasn't the victorious flag raising that the soldiers on the beach cheered, but a second flag raising that put up a better flag, and there has been ongoing controversy about this. This side of the issue should be addressed in a encyclopedia history article of this specific focus.
done (first mentioned in the controversies section in regards to Rosenthal, but the new paragraph is in the legacy section) Raul654 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the second flag raising is presented in an unclear, non-summary and possibly misrepresentative manner An IMO unnecessary two paragraph book excerpt in the "Raising the Flag" section leads to the conclusion that the second flag was raised partly because it was "too small to be seen" and largely (based on the excerpt) to keep the flag from the souvenir-hunting efforts of the Secretary of the Navy. This is not a summary I found elsewhere, and even in James Bradley's own interview on the raising, notes: "The first flag was a smaller flag ... He put up that flag about one half hour before this larger one was put up. It was so small that it couldn't be seen from down below so our Battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Chandler W. Johnson [USMC] sent a four-man patrol up with this larger flag which is the flag you see on the poster for the 7th war Loan Drive." The reason for including the excerpt is not clear, as it goes into far more relative detail than the rest of the article, and serves only to add some sort of urgency to the need for a second flag.
The article discusses both the size and souvenir issues. Insofar as the quote is concerned, not only does it properly address what was going on in the higher echelons at the time (and the sources of all the orders), but the quote explicitely says that Chandler Johnson thought the size issue was "an afterthought". Raul654 06:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of the photo on is creator, Joe Rosenthal, is hardly covered, when in fact it apparently defined and remained the central focus his entire life since Only a sentence, somewhat misleadingly says As a result of this report, Rosenthal has occasionally been accused of having staged the picture. An account from a 1995 AP wire article (which is cited in the references) notes: He has been called a genius, a fraud, a hero, a phony. He has been labeled and relabeled, adored and abused, forced to live and relive, explain and defend that day atop Mount Suribachi on each and every day that has followed, more than 18,000 and counting. "I don't think it is in me to do much more of this sort of thing" The effect on Rosenthal surely deserves as much of a summary as the chronicling of the misadventures of Ira Hayes...
The "seventh element" of the photo, the flag itself, is not adequately discussed, when it too has a history as a "flag of unknown origin" In keeping with the level of detail elsewhere in the ariticle (noting, for example, "the logo of the NetBSD operating system from 1994 to 2004." it would seem an omission not to note something about the flag itself. Readily available: During the ship’s stay in Hawaii, [Alan] Wood and several signalmen visited a Navy salvage depot. Wood, who was responsible for LST-779’s flags, recalled: “I was just rummaging around looking for anything that might be of use when I found this apparently brand-new flag in a duffel bag with some old signal flags. It was a large flag, and I was glad to find it because we were out of large flags. Little did I know how famous it would one day become.” Wood figured that the flag was probably from some decommissioned vessel, although he did not know where it actually came from and has since wondered about its origins. “We carried the flag on our long trek to Iwo,” he remembered, “and it flew several times from our gaff on Sundays—it being the one large flag we had.”
Done (although it's probably a bit different than what you were expecting) Raul654 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other uses of the image not detailed: A couple of (somewhat out-of-place) bits of "trivia" like the NetBSD OS logo and cover artwork for Monstrous Regiment are included, but more basic information like "3.5 million posters [for the bond drive] ... used on a postage stamp and on the cover of countless magazines and newspapers" are omitted, as I would imagine are other more "mainstream" uses. Also, a paragraph at least should be devoted to the book Flags of Our Fathers (full-length and adapted "youth" edition) and 2006 Spielberg/Eastwood/Haggis feature film.
I've expanded the section describing John Bradley's post post-war life (he was notoriously tight-lipped; when he died, son James new virtually nothing about his father's war experience beyond the mere fact that he was there). Writing the book was a catharsis for James.
I've also added descriptions of the posters and stamps to the legacy section [1]Raul654 05:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Flags of our Fathers as the central reference is questionable I haven't read the book, but by the reviews and excerpts (and perhaps the fact that there is now a Clint Eastwood/Paul Haggis move made from it) I imagine it is a worthy and gripping bit of "popular history". However, it specifically focusses on the lives of the human subjects of the photo, and it is a recreation of the battle and other events, written by the son of one of the second flag raisers. Support from a couple of other sources would seem desirable. For example: For a detailed description of the struggle for Suribachi see: Garand, George W. and Truman R. Strobridge. Western Pacific Operations. vol.4 of History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II. Washington DC: Historical Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1971. and For the official US Navy history of the battle, including a description of the flag raising, see: Morison, Samuel Eliot. Victory in the Pacific, 1945. Vol.14 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1961. as well as a non-government historical reference work.
I flatly reject this criticism. In addition to Bradley's book (which is, for the record, almost the last word on the flag raising - 400+ pages about a photograph means you can cover pretty much everything) I count 13 alternate sources and 4 first-hand photographic references. Raul654 04:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I'm disappointed at the lack of critical reviewing of this piece, with "strong supports" and the like. Paricularly with a big budget movie coming out, one would hope that a basic piece of history, with so many available sources, would be given better treatment by both authors, and then, FAC reviewers. (Apologies if this is written a little choppily, my time is limited, so I typed this quickly. If necessary, I will clean up and fill in by review with links...just ask.) --Tsavage 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tsavage--you are never happy with a FAC, you always object. We could put a work by Shakepeare up for a FAC, totally unmodified, and I have no doubt you'd object to it. As always, some of your points are good, but some are totally out of the ballpark. Rlevse 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His comments have been extremely valuable in improving articles and raising the FA standard. Criticizing him for having higher standards than you do I think is inappropriate. We need more editors who are willing to thoroughly analyze an article and bring to light the faults that others miss. —Spangineer[es](háblame) 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse - You express the most dangerous, though quite "normal", attitude towards critics. This is how corruption and process death spreads through all manner of social groups: companies, civil services, entire governments, WP,... Faced with criticism you "don't like", you turn on the critic, ignoring the criticism itself. The thing is, in these situations, the critiic is usually incidental in the bigger picture, and the object of criticism doesn't go away with the person. You are equating editorial criticism with disruption in an editorial review process, and that is flatly absurd. You try to suppress an "overly harsh critic", and a couple will more pop up, and then you become focussed on killing off "harsh critics" rather than building an encyclopedia. If you feel good about promoting mediocre articles, self-verifying, self-congratulating, you're apparently in the right place. FAC Director nominates FAC, answers detailed criticism to his own satisfaction, then fast-tracks promotion of his own nomination (in 6 days, compared to 1-2 months for some FACs) without giving a chance for response. There's a healthy process. --Tsavage 12:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with what Rlverse said about you; I don't think FAC comments should be personal. By the same token, however, this is the second time in this nomination you've taken a pot-shot at me, so I'm going to respond. There were a number of objections made to this article, and with exactly one exception (your first criticism, which I did not agree with but was unable to formulate a proper reply to, as I strongly disagree with the facts it takes for granted - perhaps mu would have been a better response?) I have fixed every single issue raised (or, for two cases, actively declined to fix and provided a rational), in the course of 112 edits I made to the article while it was nominated. This nomination remained on the page for 6 days, which I know you are perfectly aware is average. (How many articles have remained on the page for the 1-2 months you cite? Maybe a half-dozen very contentious nominations) Anyone looking at the rest of this page will also tell pretty quickly that I have done a fairly good job of responding to feedback and being fairly polite about it. While I applaud the work you do, providing detailed feedback with specific problems to be addressed, to be frank, I'm started to get tired of your baseless attacks against me. Raul654 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, you will see that Raul654 has quite a few FAC nominations under his belt (although not many that recently, that is true). But I am truly impressed with your obviously knowledgeable comments - you clearly have lots of relevant information at your fingertips, so please contribute some of it to the article to improve it. -- ALoan(Talk) 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: I've really been swayed by Tsavage's explanation of omissions that the article currently makes. Apart from content, I have a smaller issue: redlinks. They should be given stubs or, failing that, quietly unlinked. Right? Melchoir 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article rises or falls on its own merits; being a featured article doesn't mean it should contain only blue links. As for unliking the terms - certainly *not*. That's how we indicate articles that need to be written. We might not be proud of red links, but thye are essential for the proper writing and interlinking of the project. Raul654 04:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, ordinarily I'm the one advocating the utility of redlinks, but I still don't want to see so many in a FA. Either they're encyclopedic topics, is which case a stub shouldn't be too hard, or they aren't, in which case they should be dropped. Melchoir 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is "radiophotoed"? I take it this involved sending a photo by radio waves. How did they do this with the technology at the time? Andrew Levine 06:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, radiophotography is the transmission of a picture by radio. It was invented by Arthur Korn in 1922. Beyond that, I know nothing about it. I've linked the relavant term in the article if someone is feeling ambitious enough to write an article on it. Raul654 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
