Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Mullen, III

William F. Mullen III

(

)

... that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. soldiers such as William F. Mullen III depended on forging good relations and trust with the local Iraqi population in order to fight the Iraqi insurgency?

Created/expanded by Jdanbeck (talk). Self nominated at 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Reviewed DYK Snezhnika
Reviewed DYK Love and Friendship (film) Jdanbeck (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Jdanbeck, your comments at Snezhnika are not a review. Please refer to DYK Reviewing guide. — Maile (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maile66 I fixed the review, it should be good to go this time. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Jdanbeck, I'm not sure what you did that you believe "fixed the review". I'm guessing you meant that you substituted the Love and Friendship as a QPQ. I struck out the Snezhnika above, thinking you now mean Love and Friendship. You did a little better on Love and Friendship and I'm not sure if anyone would argue on that one or not. When a promoter wants to move an approved review into the prep area, the promoter basically needs this.

Articles do need to be checked for copyright violations or close paraphrasing againt the sources, and the "Dup detector" tool is provided in the upper right hand corner of the nomination template when opened in the edit window.
Is the hook stated in the article and sourced?
Is there adequate sourcing in the article, rule-of-thumb is one inline citation per paragraph?
Are the hook and the article both written from a NPOV (neutral point of view)?
Does the article meet the standards of minimum length in prose characters?
Different criteria on "newness" and length exists for different types - Newly created; Expanded 5X; Good Article.

Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed. My comments are not a review of this nomination, only trying to clear up the QPQ done. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Maile66 I did two DYK reviews, one for Snezhnika which I updated ("fixed") and the other for Love and Friendship (film). I was told that I should review more than one article, hence the two reviews. I'm not sure if you meant that the reviews made the cut. But I'll go through my reviews again and make sure they fit the criteria you just listed. Thank you.Jdanbeck (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I updated my review for Love and Friendship according to the criteria. Hopefully that one is correct. Jdanbeck (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It must have been correct. The nomination is now in Prep Area 4. You did good. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether this subject is notable per WP:MILNG. The bulk of information comes from a biography about him on an Army forum; the other independent refs are a one-line mention on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy page and a short discussion of his book on the Pritzker Military Museum & Library page. More reliable, independent, third-party sources are needed. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah:As a general officer and former president of Marine Corps University, he is notable under criteria 3 of people per WP:MILNG. I have added more reliable third party sources to the article. I'll see that more get added, too by Jdanbeck. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I removed the notability tag. I also formatted the new references and removed the dead link. For a DYK nomination, not every sentence has to be sourced. However, the hook fact does have to be sourced, and with an inline cite (right after the sentence in question). This hook fact is not cited, nor does it appear in the source given at the end of the paragraph.
Otherwise, the article is new enough, long enough, adequately referenced, neutrally written, and no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. The image is public domain – would you like to add it to the nomination? Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thank you for the review. The very last sentence of the article lists and cites the hook. I will note that the citation comes from a website which then cites the book. Is that appropriate?