The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [1].

---

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

• Featured article review/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because a week ago I posted concerns on the talk page the only improvement since then was an image formatting edit. Two editors did respond. One said it was not up to 2012 FA standards and the other essentially agreed and was appalled at the condition it was in. The statement I posted was "There are several issues here in regards to maintaining FA standards, for example: some refs are missing parameters, one is Angelfire, and there are 9 citation needed tags." It seems safe to say this article has been in steady decline and is not being actively maintained. I am about to notify Raul654 (who nom'd it for FA), WP:MILHIST/Japan/Photography. No other editor has over 27 edits to the article. It's a shame no one actively maintains such an important article, but we can't have articles in this state stay FA.PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Angelfire link was in the article version that passed FAC; added here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it makes it a reliable source. Anything hosted on Angelfire is certainly unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I named the ref; see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima#cite note-Angelfire is a joke-17. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Huge sourcing problems.

• One citation was a .gif image which seemed completely unnecessary — the image is devoid of context and can't really be "sourced".
• Another citation (this one) is a personal website on bellsouth.net, which should probably be removed. It does not look reliable at all.
  • Likewise the site on Angelfire. Unreliable.
• What makes manythings.org a reliable source?
• What makes montney.com a reliable source? (This also seems like a circular reference, since it includes a link back to Wikipedia.)
• What makes mediaShop a reliable source? This seems to be a commercial site selling a product, which is not acceptable as a reference.
  • Likewise JamesBradley.com.
  • Likewise AllPosters.com.
• What makes 1847usa.com a reliable source?
• What makes Ground Zero Spirit a reliable source?
• This is a personal site on Tripod and should be removed.
• Several [citation needed] tags and [cite this quote].

I'd clean up the refs myself, but this article uses a bizarro referencing style I've never seen on any other article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ETA: I've removed some of the more egregiously bad sources, such as the Tripod and Angelfire sites. There was also a link to a user submitted lyrics database. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also tagged a few more sources whose notability I'm not sure of. Furthermore, the images need fixing as right now, far too many of them are bunched up on the right and pushing down into the references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tripod came back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This article seems rather short given the huge amount which has been written on this famous photo
• I really doubt that the war bond drive rose "$26.3 billion". According to this paper by the Congressional Research Service Report the entire US war effort cost $296 billion in then-year dollars, so it's hugely unlikely that a single bond drive would have been able to cover 1/10th of the cost of the war. I suspect that someone has replaced 'million' with 'billion'
  • You are flatly wrong. Our article on Series E bond says that 55% of the costs of the war ($100 billion for FY 1945) were paid for with war bonds. There's no way to get that much money with only five war bond drives unless the drives were pulling in tens of billions of dollars. Raul654 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The structure of the article is confusing - the material about the photo and the material about the men who were photographed is mixed up
  • It's rather hard to separate the history of the photograph itself from the history of the events and people involved. Which means that in this case, it makes for a lousy structure. Raul654 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "It took de Weldon and hundreds of his assistants" - the source refers only to an unspecified number of "experienced artisans". It's very unlikely that 'hundreds' of people worked on this sculpture (which is large, but not hugely so)
• "used it as an emergency landing strip for damaged bombers, saving many American lives." - this is controversial as several historians argue that the number of lives lost in capturing the island was far more than the number of aircrew saved (especially as many of the B-29s which landed probably could have made it back to the Mariana Islands if they'd had to)
  • Except the article does not make that argument (that more lives were saved by capturing the island than were lost taking it). It does say that 30,000 people made emergency landings there. Had the island not been there, a significant number of them would have crashed into the pacific and drowned. That is not controversial at all. Raul654 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the current wording implies that the benefits outweighed the costs, especially as the heavy casualties among the landing force don't appear to be noted at present. If you're interested in the debate on this battle (which I agree isn't hugely relevant to the topic of the article), this journal article is worth reading for the case against the operation. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that it implies what you say it implies. I think you're reading your own conclusions into that sentence. The point remains, though, that what is written in the article is not controversial in the least. Raul654 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm hesitant to weigh in here at all, this FAR is more charged than it needs to be, but Nick knows a lot more about WWII than most people, and I think he's got it right yet again ... it's not worth de-featuring the article over this one thing, but saying only something positive and nothing negative about the strategic value within the lead and first section is going to leave readers who only get that far with a false impression. More to the point, the fix is simple, because we don't care much (for the purposes of this article) what the battle actually accomplished, only what the public at the time believed it accomplished, and the American public was certain that this was a great victory. Of course, nearly everything the public believed during the war was wrong (see Paul Fussell and others), but that's how big wars go. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made the simplest edit that has a chance of keeping everyone happy; I removed "saving many American lives". We could do something more complicated, talking about American perceptions of what the battle accomplished, but if so, that might work better in another paragraph. My gut feeling is to keep that controversy safely quarantined over at Battle of Iwo Jima. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Americans found themselves under fire from Japanese troops but were able to quickly eliminate the threat, with the only casualty being Lowery's camera." - if the 'threat' to the Americans was eliminated, this obviously means that there were Japanese casualties.
  • Trivially fixed by changing "the" to "their" Raul654 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As noted above, the sourcing is highly deficient. Even if there were no other issues with the article, this alone would be enough for the article to be rated at less than B class. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This went to FARC more quickly than I expected. As some further comments/suggestions:

• The lead doesn't cover the fates of some of the men in the photograph or the controversy over whether the photo was staged which are described later in the article
• "the relatively quick fall of the Philippines" - the liberation of the Philippines actually took much longer than expected, and had not been completed by the end of the war. For some reason this links to the Battle of the Philippine Sea rather than the Philippines Campaign (1944–1945)
• "The Americans, after capturing the island, deprived the Japanese of their early warning system" - this wording is too strong as the Japanese early warning system wasn't limited to the facilities on Iwo Jima, though its loss was a major blow
  • I double checked some sources. There were some other rather obscure Japanese early warning facilities (Rota in the Marianas, for example). I've tweaked that sentence. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ..."and used it as an emergency landing strip for damaged bombers" - P-51 aircraft were also based on the island to escort the B-29s and (later) conduct offensive missions of their own
• "it was a matter of honor for the Japanese to prevent its capture" - while true, that's a bit simplistic. The Japanese also reinforced the island in late 1944/early 1945 in recognition of its strategic importance. The Japanese also considered it a 'matter of honor' to fight to the death for all terrain from which they couldn't retreat given that they'd been indoctrinated to not surrender, so this shouldn't be over-emphasized
  • That statement is not simplistic, and your comparison is inaccurate. As is already stated in the article, unlike the other islands where the Japanese had previously fought to the last man, Iwo Jima was part of Japanese home soil. So yes, there was greater honor attached to defending Iwo Jima than there had been at Tarawa or Guadalcanal or Saipan or Palau. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The statement that Flags of Our Fathers is "a definitive book on the flag-raising and its participants" is referenced to the book itself; an independent source is needed for this (though I'm sure it's correct) Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria identified as problematic in the review section include sourcing, coverage and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose is good enough for a "Keep", per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) There's one WP:DATED tag to deal with. A great story, well-told; if the sourcing can be dealt with, it's clearly among our best work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked for help with the sourcing at WT:MIL#Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, de-FA, we don't keep an FA just because of prose. Certainly not when it's still got multiple citation needed tags and unreliable source tags. PumpkinSky talk 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist due to sourcing issues. We don't keep on the condition that they might be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake guys, I thought my standard disclaimer made it clear that I was supporting on prose only; it didn't, but it does now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying you think it's okay for a FA to be slathered in [citation needed] tags? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • He obviously isn't. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why did he say "keep but oh yeah, we still need to work on the sources"? That's now how FARC goes. You either "keep" because the work has been done or "delist" because it hasn't; you don't "keep" on hopes that the work might be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • He actually said "Keep, at least on prose" and then noted problems with the sourcing, which is obviously a conditional 'keep'. I'm pretty sure that the closing delegate is smart enough to figure out what that means. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by hectoring Dank to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Regretfully, and respectfully, but it doesn't meet the criteria at present, most clearly through the sourcing issues. Needs more TLC than I expect will be done at present, but it can be brought back if people work to improve it. But for now, it shouldn't be a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as above. Obviously no one is stepping up to address the issues brought forward, so this article should not be called out as one of our best because it simply isn't. If anyone cares to fix the article, then it can go through a new FA review to see how things fare. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.