104:
traditions, and military science" section. Another issue is has is how its written. Feels like something out of
Sparknotes. "The raid itself, one of the few instances of actual combat in the novel, is relatively brief" is an example of how the prose is that good. And finally there are problems with its structure as there are one line paragraphs in it (Adaptations).
103:
and not being aware of it being a loose adaptation to this book. Anyway, this article was promoted to FA status in 2006 its obvious that its not up to snuff when looking at today's criteria. One notable issue it has it is the lack of sourcing. One example of this is in the "Military history,
197:. Uncleared tags; unsourced sections. I notice that several of the footnotes are to the primary source: the book itself. The article should reflect coverage in and provide references to secondary sources.
91:
111:, its looks to be better structure wise. Maybe going back to how it looked then and fixing the other issues it has can it be improved massively.
40:
217:
30:
17:
228:
87:
83:
247:
206:
189:
173:
147:
132:
117:
100:
243:
169:
184:
142:
112:
202:
128:
79:
137:
Reverting would not be enough as I don't find the prose to be very good. The Plot feels more like
64:
239:
165:
53:
161:
198:
124:
235:
138:
224:, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the
164:
mentioned in the review section include references, prose and structure.
39:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
107:
Something also worth mentioning is when compared to it on
108:
57:
255:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
123:If all it needs is a revert, just let me know.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
261:No further edits should be made to this page.
234:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
7:
24:
141:than actually telling a summary.
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
99:Most likely people know of the
1:
248:11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
207:19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
278:
190:03:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
109:the day it became featured
174:21:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
162:Featured article criteria
148:20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
133:19:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
118:19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
258:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
229:featured article review
31:featured article review
56:07:47, 23 August 2013
101:film by the same name
218:removal candidate
95:
71:Review commentary
65:Starship Troopers
269:
260:
233:
227:
187:
145:
115:
76:
54:User:Dana boomer
48:The article was
38:
277:
276:
272:
271:
270:
268:
267:
266:
265:
256:
231:
225:
185:
183:Per nominator.
158:
156:FARC commentary
143:
113:
92:Science Fiction
73:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
275:
273:
264:
263:
251:
250:
238:goes through.
210:
209:
192:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
97:
96:
72:
69:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
274:
262:
259:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
230:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
188:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
171:
167:
163:
155:
149:
146:
140:
136:
135:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
116:
110:
105:
102:
94:
93:
89:
85:
81:
75:
74:
70:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
257:
254:
221:
214:Closing note
213:
194:
180:
160:
159:
106:
98:
77:
49:
47:
35:
28:
240:Dana boomer
166:Dana boomer
186:GamerPro64
144:GamerPro64
139:Sparknotes
114:GamerPro64
78:Notified:
220:has been
199:DrKiernan
125:Palm_Dogg
80:Palm dogg
222:delisted
216:: This
50:removed
195:Delist
181:Delist
88:Novels
84:Books
16:<
244:talk
203:talk
170:talk
129:talk
236:bot
52:by
246:)
232:}}
226:{{
205:)
172:)
131:)
90:,
86:,
82:,
59:.
33:.
242:(
201:(
168:(
127:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.