Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Khafji

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:21, 22 November 2008 [1].

Battle of Khafji[edit]

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

I started to re-write this article in October, and it passed an A-class review yesterday. It also went through a good article review, and was copyedited (although I didn't agree with everything that was done); the article also was copyedited during the two review processes. Since Third Battle of Kharkov is going slowly, I can handle two simultaneously. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are all free (either taken by the military, taken by a user (the tank picture), or created by a user; licensing tags are present for all. No problems. --MASEM 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments—It seems decent overall; pretty close to FA-worthy.

  • Should the beligerents be in alphabetical order? Or is it by order of engagement?
  • An order of battle would be nice. There are no Qatar forces listed under the Strength. Should the strength box be reflective of the actual companies involved, rather than entire divisions? Wasn't 3rd Marine artillery involved? What about air units?
  • Armored is spelt "armoured" at one point. It should be made consistent.
  • Can the purpose of the table listing the AMX-30, V-150 and LAV-25 be explained? These vehicles are not listed in the text description in "Coalition forces", so the content seems irrelevant at that point. Perhaps a caption could be added, such as: "|+ '''Coalition armored vehicles in the Battle of Khafji'''".
  • "Soon thereafter, A-10 ground-attack aircraft arrived but found it difficult to pinpoint enemy targets and began dropping flares to illuminate the zone." Is this a single aircraft? If so, it is missing an article.
  • The lead states that, "its subsequent recapture by Saudi and Qatari ground forces provided a major morale boost for the Coalition." However, there is no mention of this or its military or political effects in the article.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I put the listing of units that took part in the battle in alphabetical order. Unfortunately, my sources don't state which specific Qatari tank company took part; although, when I get back from work I will look again. I changed that specific instance of "armoured" (everything should be in American spelling). The purpose of the table was to provide background information on the relevant armored fighting vehicles which took place; during the A-class review it was suggested that I got rid of the tables. What do you think? I added titles to the tables, nevertheless. I also clarified the sentence about the A-10s and added "a number of". In regards to the lead, at the end of the article it's mentioned that the Saudi victory was a morale boost because the Saudi Army had successfully defended Saudi territory from a foreign invasion. Again, thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I changed my position to support. Good luck with your FAC.—RJH (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some quick comments:
    • Is there any way to add an image next to the table in the "Coalition forces" section? That white space bothers me a bit, but it is really no big deal at all if it is not possible.
    • References look perfect to me, but I'll let Ealdgyth or Julian have the final say on that. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Moved the image of the map down, to cover part of that white space. JonCatalán(Talk) 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome...but thank you for an entertaining read. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with small reservations. The article is very good, but I wish that there was information on the impact of the battle on the town. Since that information is not available, I am unwilling to oppose the FA nomination or delay a support. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. I found this an interesting, well-presented article, and I am close to supporting. There are a few minor MOS-y things that need to be fixed, but I am most concerned about the last bullet point below.[reply]

  • Dates are not presented consistently in the article. Most are in Day Month Year format, but some are in Month Day, Year. They need to be consistent.
  • "the United Nations began to pass a series of issues " - should this be resolutions instead of issues? I've never heard issues used in this way before (but feel free to prove my ignorance!)
  • Did the bulk of the damage to the Iraqi Air force really take place on the first day of the 38-day campaign?
  • Sentences that include a quotation should have a citation, even if that means the citation is duplicated in subsequent sentences (see background)
  • Make sure to use ndash instead of hyphen in page ranges
  • Is there any information on the consequences of the battle for the town itself? How much damage did the town infrastructure suffer? What impact did the battle have on the civilians who lived there?

Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting! Here are my responses. I have fixed the dates that I didn't format the same (should be day and then month), and will continue to look through the text just in case I missed some. You're right, it should be resolutions, not issues (I double checked with the source), thank you! After the first day of the Coalition's air campaign there wasn't much of an Iraqi air force to talk about, and as the text mentions, a large portion of what had survived had fled over the Iranian border. I moved the citation directly behind the quote, as the next sentence was "double-referenced" anyways. Ndashes are used, but they are copy & pasted from Wikipedia's dash MoS page, as opposed to using the HTML code for it. And, unfortunately, I don't have information on damage to the city (I don't even have a picture of the city after the battle; I don't think damage would be too extensive, given that at this point collateral damage was probably fairly low, except for firefights with small arms and maybe some tank shots). Again, thank you for commenting! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes, the use of named refs again :-) If you need help learning how to review for repeat refs by putting them into an Excel spreadsheet, please let me know. Also, pls doublecheck Wikilinking, as I found a missing link in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Khafji&oldid=1138455601"