Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Invasion/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invasion[edit]

Invasion is a former Collaboration of the Week, and one of the most successfully improved candidates I've seen in recent months. Quite a few excellent editors spent a great deal of time turning a very weak couple of paragraphs into a comprehensive, informative article. Our peer review was very positive, with good feedback and further improvements made to the formatting of the information and the references. The prose is solid and stable, the photos are sourced and relevant, and the topic is certainly current. This is a self-nomination. Kafziel 05:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of points in the article require attention:
  • "relatively recent justification for invasion, which arose during the nineteenth century... has been to change or restore the leadership or political regime of a nation or territory" - I know of this being done as early as the sixteenth century; I suspect there are even earlier examples to be found.
  • I would agree, in that the main motive for any invasion is a regime change of one type or another. That's nothing new. At first I thought what the author meant was that, in more recent times, that's the only justification people need to support a war. (No hope of expansion, or riches, or even the promotion of their own ideals; simply altering the leadership of a region to be something else. Which is certainly more true than ever before.) But as I was editing it I found the overall intent confusing. I'm not sure what a good substitution would be, so I'm going to consider this one and see if the original author can shed some light on the subject. Kafziel 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Defenses against invasion" section mentions modern fluid defense, but fails do discuss earlier scorched earth tactics.
  • I believe the intent here is to discuss holding a line or defending a certain area. Scorched earth is more of a covered retreat; defenders couldn't occupy scorched earth areas any more than invaders could. Kafziel 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Israel" - Hammurabi?
  • "Ottoman Empire’s conquest of Constantinople" - not really an invasion so much as an isolated siege. If something from this period is needed, the Ottoman attacks on Rhodes or Cyprus (or even their later campaigns in Hungary) may be better examples.
  • I'm not sure I see how the Ottomans attacking Cyprus is more globally significant than the fall of Constantinople. Could you elaborate? Kafziel 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was more to the effect that the siege, while undoubtedly significant, cannot be termed an invasion for any reasonable meaning of the term. —Kirill Lokshin 07:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More generally, the choice of invasions for the list is slightly questionable (they are listed as "Major invasions", after all) and shows a certain preference for recent events, even if not particularly significant.
  • I agree, and that has been the topic of some discussion on the talk page. I don't feel that the Chinese annexing Tibet should be on the list, Operation Barbarossa is a bit repetetive of Napoleon's campaign, but they were somewhat of a compromise. That's wikipedia. I don't know where that coup d'etat thing came from, and I'm removing it. Definitely not on par with the others. Kafziel 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite true. Off the top of my head, I might include one or more of the barbarian invasions of Rome (Attila the Hun, maybe?), the Seljuk invasion of Asian Minor (Battle of Manzikert, etc.), the Italian Wars, the Mughal invasion of India, the Deluge, and possibly some others; certainly the article is short enough that another dozen entries wouldn't seriously hurt (although converting them to prose may stave off the inevitable complaint that the article is too list-heavy). —Kirill Lokshin 07:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, the "See also" section needs to be trimmed of anything already linked in the text and the "References" section should be properly numbered. More inline citations might also help.
  • We will continue to work on the references, citations, etc. Thanks for all of your suggestions. Kafziel 07:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see talk page. Kafziel 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Kirill Lokshin 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSince there is a list of invasions, I don't think there should be a list here. If you can cite some scholar who has made a list of "major" invasions, then do so. Couple other quick notes follow: Tuf-Kat 09:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been come up on the article's talk page, and again during the peer review. This isn't just a list. (In fact, since the peer review, it isn't even in list format.) It gives summaries of the events and states why they are relevant. Maybe the title should be changed to "Examples of historically significant invasions" or some such thing, but I really can't understand why so many editors want 10,000 words in plain prose form for every article. Who wants to read that? I don't see the harm in presenting a small amount of information organized in a different way, the same way one might add a chart or map to an article. It gives the reader a break and an easy way to branch off into other subjects. Kafziel 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • " (for example, Hadrian's Wall [2] and the Great Wall of China)." - consider removing parentheses, make that external link a footnote like the rest
  • Removed parenthesis. Please see talk page section regarding citations. Kafziel 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A modern political trend, probably instigated" - one sentence paragraph should be merged or expanded, and should definitely be cited
  • This passage, like the one mentioned by Kirill Lok above, seems biased to me. I'm hoping the original author will show up and improve it, so I'm giving this a couple of days. Kafziel 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I guess I was thinking this article would be about military strategy primarily. What sorts of tactical considerations are important? What about "winning the hearts and minds" -- that would seem relevant.
  • Now Support. Sorry, but article is way too short for my liking considering the amount of info on the topic there is. Plus my number one pet peeve is external links in the text. Please replace with a footnote system, which can be copied from any other big article. If possible, could you please supply the before & afters of your changes for my first request. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • We've discussed footnotes (see the talk page of this fac) - and we even tried using them, here. I'm sorry external links bother you so much, but it would seem (from editors' feedback and from reading the manual of style) that a lot more people dislike footnotes. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with being able to click on an external link without scrolling down to the bottom of the page and losing my place in the article. Obviously I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm willing to reluctantly accept your objection if it means keeping the article the way it is. I guess it's like they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time. I do appreciate the feedback, though. Kafziel 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the length... we're not voting to lock the article, just to feature it. I think the article covers the concept of invasion quite well, without drifting too far off-topic into the minutiae of specific invasions, which are covered in their own articles (and which is one reason I like the list format for the examples, rather than letting them get out of hand as they are bound to do in prose form). Is there more to add? Sure. I hope we can get more editors to work on it as a featured article. But that's not to say that the current article isn't informative, well-written, and enjoyable. Kafziel 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm sorry then, but my vote is still object. If you did half as much fixing as you did complaining then I may have changed my vote... Spawn Man 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've done a hell of a lot of fixing. A large portion of that fixing was changing the reference formats to suit the majority of voters - the style happens to conflict with your preferences, but that's too bad. The majority of editors, as well as the manual of style, disagree with your stance on footnotes; it's not an actionable objection any more than someone saying they want me to add photos of dogs wearing hats.
As for being "way too short", I've added a few different things since your first post. Since you weren't specific, that's not a valid objection, either. If there's something you'd like to add, please feel free. Kafziel 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was specific. There is so much more on the topic that it would need its own article for me to write it down for you. I said generally expand, but to me it looks basically the same since I posted (unless you supply me with the history of your "hell of a lot of fixing", which I asked for). you so far have proven nothing of your efforts to me. Further, I don't like people getting snippy at me, especially since I'm the one voting & you're the one doing. Instead of taking the oh so cliché "the article is sooo perfect so I'm going to defend it until I'm blue in the face when I actually could have done whta he asked me to do" road, why don't you take the "yes sir, would you like fries with that sir" road. This would save me from opening up a can of whiny-ass & make my vote change to support & the article go to the main page. Sounds fun? Ya? Dansk coffeeee? Great.... Til further notice, my vote remains the same... Spawn Man 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you did half as much fixing as you did complaining..." and I'm the one who's snippy. Right. Before you said that, my responses were very polite and I even gave you a careful explanation of why we're not using footnotes. I'm not clear on your request for me to provide you with a history of my changes and proof that I've fixed things; Wikipedia does that for you, on the history page. You didn't ask me to do anything but make it longer. No specifics whatsoever. Someone said it should have something in it about winning hearts and minds. Now it does. Someone else said it should have something in it about using retreat as a strategy. Now it does. You didn't ask for anything at all. Just... more. Well, there is more. If you want something in particular, ask for it.
By the way, I didn't start this article, I don't feel particularly attached to this article, and I don't get a raise in salary if it becomes a featured article. I'm not defending it "until I'm blue in the face"; you're just being unreasonable. I'm willing to try to make any reasonable changes you request, but if you think I'm going to beg you for your vote, and ask you if you want fries with that, you're out of your mind. "Sir." Kafziel 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!! Why should I change my vote when the one electing it is too lazy to even provide history links?! I'm now changing my vote to 'Extremely Strong Oppose because of your unwilling attitude. This whole process is a test, showing who's prepared to do the work & who isn't. You are clearly one of those who isn't prepared to do the work. Fill in the article so it takes me less than a few seconds to read the entire article is all I'm asking. Compare the article to the likes of Dinosaur or Texas Ranger Division & you'll find that it is quite short. Now compare it with the featured article Flag of Mexico. This featured article is quite short as well. But the difference is is that it's a flag. People have been invading other places since the dawn of time, so Invasion should be considerably larger. Even ants & other insects invade other ant colonies! Why not write about that? See my jist? Large subject, should be large article. But it isn't. Spawn Man 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. The funny thing is is that all the listed articles above have footnotes![reply]
You are being completely unreasonable. At this point you have acted with imaturity towards Kafziel and to everyone who has helped with this article. Personally I don't care if you oppose or support this article because frankly I feel that there are enough other Wikipedians reasonable enough the show that this article does have enough information and is at a respectible level. Also (I hate when people do this but what the hell) when you go to WP:CITE you'll see this, "The three most popular styles of in-text citations are Harvard style, footnotes, and embedded HTML links. Note that no matter which inline-citation style is used, all the sources used in an article should be listed at the end in a references section." Citation is a personal preference rather than a policy. If it were a policy I'd be the first to let you know that you're right, but it isn't and your not. The last thing that I have to say is that Kafziel should under no circumstances be called lazy. He has been the main person to turn this article from a stub to a FA. We all have our priorities and I know that Wikipedia is no way the highest of mine and I doubt the highest of Kafziel's, but he has spent so much time on this article and should be commended on how well he has added and complied with others requests. Oh and I really don't care what kind of response you give me and what kind of flaws you say are in what I just said. So basically go take it and shove it. This has been fun RENTAFOR LET? 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pretend that I didn't just hear that from someone I thought was a friend... I'm over the footnotes thing as I didn't mention it in my last post. I'm still opposing however from the length point of view, see above if you don't understand. If he's not lazy, & still wants my vote, then why hasn't he provided me with links to what he's done? Well? Um.... Cause he's lazy... You were the one who brought me here to vote & you obviously thought that just because I was your friend that I'd forgo my wikipedia standards & vote through the article. You were wrong. I'd love to support it, but it still needs beefing up a lot as I've explained. It also shows that you're lazy if just because you've got enough votes to put the article through that you'd discount any points I make. I have one comment to make to you Renta after your last comments: See that strawberry on your signature? "Shove it, shove it gooood. Na na na nah, da da da da da. Shove it, shove it goooooood!!!" -- Divo. Spawn Man 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC). P.S. You'll feel my full wrath soon enough. You've made it personal...[reply]

The article's come a long way thanks to Renta & no thanks at all to Kafziel. A really good article. Changed my vote since what I asked was done, however "unreasonable" it may sound to lazy editors. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renta and I thank you for your support. Kafziel 05:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    1. ...and indeed -- non encyclopedic tone
    1. Great Powers -- kindly expand
    2. The notion of completely static defenses has not totally lost its validity -- tone
    1. Also, the United States under the Bush administration has put -- rewrite to: Countries such as the ...
  • Will do. On second thought... what other countries have a system like that? As far as I know, the US' National Missile Defense system is the only one of its kind. Canada just got on board with it, but it's still the United States' system. It shouldn't imply that this is some kind of recent development of the Bush administration, since it's been around for a long time, but neither should it imply that anyone else employs a similar system (unless someone has refs to the contrary). Kafziel 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Great Britain is the island. United Kingdom is the nation-state. plz change
Fixed. Kafziel 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. A successful naval defense, however, usually requires a preponderance of naval power -- isn't an air force considered to be the first in the line of defence?
  • I'm not sure I follow you on this one. The navy has always been the first line of defense. Even by today's standards (which would mean ignoring the thousands of years before air forces even existed) how does an airplane have greater range or stamina than a naval vessel? Planes may run patrols, but without a carrier to return to, their range (in terms of defense of the US coastline) is very limited. Kafziel 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. fleeing to the neighboring country of India. --> "fleeing to neighbouring India.
    1. The word "invasion" in the heading title is redundant.
    1. Pics of seige weapons would be a good addition.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I think this article has gone a long way from where it was before the COTW. I am proud to say that I got it nominated for COTW and have worked on it (although not as much as Kafziel) RENTAFOR LET? 03:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I think this article is doing well and should soon be a featured article. It is a lot better than it was when I last read it. It does need a little touching up, but overall it's good for the featured article. Scorpionman 13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very nice article, well referenced with both in-line and footnote references, very comprehensive coverage of the subject. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work, although I'm not sure about the list. Gflores Talk 03:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good work, everyone; I have to agree on the list, though. --Charm Quark?? 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support however, list blows. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? Too short? Too long? Don't like the color or format? Would you prefer it bulleted rather than tabled? Or do you just not like the fact that it exists at all? Kafziel 16:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not comprehensive, nor is it really indicative of all the interesting invasions -> for example you have the allied of Normandy, but not the axis blitzkrieg of France, which is equivalently, if not more, notable. Lists like that always appear to devolve into "here's 5 xs!" as opposed to "here are the most interesting 5xs in the world," because getting the best 5 is impossible. I'd lose the whole section, but it's perfectly good for what it is, and even though it blows *FOR A FEATURED ARTICLE,* it's still indicative of our best work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting you should say that, because I've had different feedback from different people on this subject. In fact, I just shortened the list even more today to try to make it less of a "list" and more of a small table of examples. The blitzkrieg was one of the original entries on the list; some editors felt the list was too focused on modern events, and some felt it was too focused on European events, so that was one of the ones that had to go (having no particular record of its own, like Normandy's "largest amphibian invasion" or Barbarossa's "largest invasion"). The examples are spread out over time and continents, to try to avoid too much focus on one era. I'd be happy to make it much more comprehensive, if enough people could agree on that. Some people think there shouldn't be a list at all (a view for which I can't find any support in the manual of style).
Personally, I hate list pages. But I don't hate lists. I just think those lists should be integrated into real articles, like this one. For example, List of invasions is never going to be a featured article. It's just a list. So why is that piece of junk getting in the way of a quality article like this one? Short of merging it into this, which I would love to do, we picked a few more famous and significant ones to include. Of course it's not complete, but as long as "List of invasions" exists, it can't be complete, or everyone will howl that it's redundant. It's a catch-22. Kafziel 16:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have it right on the nose. I don't think I have a perfect solution - and as such, I support with or without correction, as I believe my possible objection is not-actionable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Before and after reading this, I wasn't entirely convinced that this is a distinct topic. Is "military invasion" a technical term in military theory (if so, then an explanation of that is missing). It seems more like the definition of the word, expanded around some mostly obvious ideas of war: when one state enters another? by land, sea, or air? countries defend their borders? Aren't these self-evident? I would expect discover more. Apart from the table, I didn't find anything in the article that wasn't quite obvious, and "really" about various military methods and tactics that aren't specific to invasion, but simply to war. Or, put another way, isn't conventional war basically always about invasion? Has there been a war between states where no invasion was involved?

If this IS really a distinct topic, then I have a problem with comprehensiveness, as contenporary considerations don't seem to be well-covered. There seems to be no discussion of invasion in the modern role. Is invasion still a viable military option today, for which nations, to what degree? What is the role of invasion in "fourth generation warfare", when non-conventional, borderless wars are possible, even likely? --Tsavage 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone who agrees with me.... Spawn Man 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I "agree"—your review seems to have a significant and prerequisite backstory, which I didn't follow—but I do agree, being a minority in a majority world...sucks... --Tsavage 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the content is self-evident... to us. A lot of things on Wikipedia are pretty obvious if you know a little bit about the world, but I don't think that means they shouldn't be explained for those who don't. I wouldn't say that it's a "technical" term, but it's certainly the most common meaning for the most common term; that's why there's a disambiguation page for things like insect invasions, home invasions, etc. And although invasions are part of many wars, they are not synonymous with war, and as the article states they have different strategic applications. (Maybe I should expand on that, though?) Personally, the first example that comes to my mind is Kosovo; the Serbs didn't have to invade, they were already there. Any revolution or civil war doesn't generally include an invasion. And other wars might start without an invasion (Japan bombs Pearl Harbor), include an attempt at invasion (the island hopping campaigns), and ultimately end without one (the surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
In terms of modern warfare, I take it you want more information about current methods and more contemporary, post-WWII examples of invasions and an assessment of their effectiveness? Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, certainly show how America deals with fourth generation warfare: invade everybody. I think it's a laughably ineffective tactic for dealing with terrorism, but that's my POV. If you'd like to see something like that, I can certainly play the devil's advocate and create a separate section on it, with arguments for and against. I may need some help with that, though, because it's tough to come up with legitimate, non-truthy support for the other side. :Some editors are wary of making the article too focused on modern times, lending too much importance to relatively minor events (like the Iraq invasion), so it's been tough to keep it balanced. If you mean more information on the current methods, like LCAC landings and Seabees setting up forward airstrips and the like, I can do that, too.
I hope I've addressed your points, and if I misunderstood any of your requests, please let me know. I will start working today to add the content you requested. Kafziel 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section on the application of invasion strategy in fourth generation warfare. Kafziel 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kafziel: Thanks for your thoughtful and, um, reasonable reply. I'll read the changes and comment tonight if I get a chance, or sometime tomorrow. Please note that in my comment, I'm not expecting the article to be loaded up with stuff that I think is missing. It's (often) hard to convey in a vote/review, but many times, it is only a sentence or two here, paragraph there, or bit of a rewording that (IMHO...) can make all the difference. I think that a smooth reading experience is critical to an effective article, and flags being raised get in the way of that (which happened to me here). But "fixing" often isn't a big deal in terms of...length (IOW, sometimes "fixes" can cause other problems). Anyhow, sorry for being wordy, just my opinion, but I think this does apply particularly in this case, and I'll try to take care to address that in my reply... (What a complicated process this can be, huh?!) :) --Tsavage 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind wordiness...as you can see from some of my posts here, I can get a little wordy myself. Sometimes that's what it takes to try to make yourself understood, so feel free to be as specific as you want and rest assured I will read every word. :)
It's a complicated process, but as my first time working on an fac it's been educational and (for the most part, anyway) fun. Even though I have a military background, I don't usually spend this much time on military-related articles; it's not so much the topic I care about, it's just interesting to get feedback to see what other editors' expectations are, so I can use that for future work. Thanks again. Kafziel 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption that it's what you were looking for, I've added the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the table in the article. Kafziel 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the article with full attention, and I'm still of the same conclusion. The fourth generation warfare section was definitely interesting and IMO entirely relevant and necessary contextual information. Unfortunately, it only served to even further focus my attention on the self-evident nature of practically the entire article. Yes, I understand that some readers might not have a CLUE about "military invasions", but that stretches things: someone without any exposure to, say, the news, or mainstream movies... To learn a few paragraphs in that CASTLES and FORTS are one method of defending against invasion...really got to me! :) Anyhow, the issue in actionable FAC terms is IMO comprehensiveness. For specifics, what are some basic questions an encylopedia reader might ask?:
  • What is an invasion army made up of? How is such an army put together? Is it just a whole lot of troops? Who decides how many, are there...formulas? How do they eat? What about all the support people, the cooks and medics and mechanics and supply drivers and stock boys and...? And so on... This, of course, is NOT a call for 200K of detail, but simply a succinct treatment of these various basic logistical and size and scope aspects, in the same way quick way "land, sea or air" has been dealt with...
  • There is now a whole new section on logistics and communications. Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a successful invasion wrapped up? In invasion planning, does the army go in, kill the crap out of the enemy, and...go home? Take wives (husbands?) and settle down in the new land? Become the mayors of all the towns? Historically and now, the resolution of invasions seems to be a...part of the invasion. (The pacification paragraph only really covers the "conquering army marching victoriously through the streets" part, what do they do the next day, or the week after that?)
  • The pacification section covers a lot more than just armies marching through the streets. Propaganda, reeducation, all those long term things are in there, along with practical examples (and now a photo). Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly IS the difference between an "invasion" and a plain "war"? Isn't anything but a civil war always sooner or later about invading somebody else's country? Are there wars between states with no invasion involved, if so, what's the alternate plan? How do you have a war without invasion? What does an army do if it's at war and not...invading or defending against invaders?
  • Sometimes they conduct (and defend against) raids, bombings, missile strikes... none of which are invasions. Sometimes they reinforce an ally who has asked them to be there. Sometimes they occupy and pacify a territory that was granted to them in a treaty. Sometimes they patrol the airspace without actually entering the country. And civil war is a huge part of modern war; most of the wars going on right now are revolutions, coups, genocides, and civil wars. Invasions make the headlines, but they're actually relatively rare. There are plenty of other examples of things that are not invasions (some of which are in the introduction). Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do invasions affect things at home for the invaders? What's the impact of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of countrymen off somewhere, killing and dying? What formal homeland planning part of the invasion plans?
  • I think as far as impact on civilians, this goes back to the difference between invasion and war, and that's more a question for the main war article. But I do mention the employment of civilians in service jobs related to logistics. Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there some sort of international conventions and definitions defining "invasion", like, the "rules of invasion"? Is there an official moment when a military action technically becomes an invasion? Are armies supposed to behave differently when they're invaders, not defenders? Do international law-abiding states give declarations of invasion?
  • The rules for invaders are touched on in the Support section, in the laws of war. Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the invasion highlight stats? Biggest? Smallest? Longest? Shortest? Bloodiest? Smallest country? Biggest country? Costliest?
  • Stats like that are tough to come up with, but I've created a section of record breakers including biggest land invasion, biggest amphibious invasion, bloodiest invasion, and fastest invasion. Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are the kinds of things I'd expect an invasion article to touch on. I don't find that here. And I don't think it's a matter of, like, 10,000 more words, more like a more comprehensive article outline and a target word count to meet. Hope it helps clarify my objection! --Tsavage 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. I wish someone had brought them up when it was a collaboration, or during the peer review, or even during the first week of this FAC. I'm going to see if I can add some info on each of those topics, although as I said I'm not really in love with this subject and after almost two weeks it's getting a little wearisome. Spawn Man's latest round of lunatic remarks have kind of soured me on the situation, but maybe if this ends up failing the FAC, I will at least have given someone else something to work with. Kafziel 05:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I've addressed all of your points, at least enough for you to remove your objection. Kafziel 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too short, needs more context and integration concerning the various battles, such as perhaps the "evolution of an invasion". After all, it only jarringly skips between land forces and air droppings, perhaps without documenting the numerous invasions which led up to current technology. Also, though I prefer footnotes, I dislike having inline links and print sources cited that jarringly - find some way to integrate. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So... you want to include a history of every invasion that had an impact on modern technology? I'm not sure on how to go about doing that... the article would be as long as the rest of wikipedia. There's a list of invasions, though, if that's what you mean, and we did include a sampling of invasions to give people an idea about how they've evolved.
As for the refs, I'm going to spend some time this evening switching the article to footnotes. Even though it's not a valid objection to an FAC, I'm tired of fighting about it and I think it will help the article in the long run. Kafziel 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, my point was that the list of invasions needs to be converted into prose. One doesn't list battles, but rather lists how they evolved, and just choose landmarks. And a summary of basic invasion techniques, rather than just citing paratrooping, or airborne tactics, etc. as an example. Citations will help. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all accurate to say that, for example, Genghis Khan's invasions of Asia evolved from those of the Sargonid Assyrians in the Middle East. There's no reason to think they had anything to do with each other at all. The Chinese didn't steal their idea for the Great Wall from the Romans, so why would we group them together by using prose form? And since we can't group them together, we would have to choose one or the other.
After tons of feedback on this article (keep in mind we're not only almost 2 weeks into this FAC but it has also had a peer review and it was a collaboration of the week) it has been shown that there are two options for prose here: a) present a very basic example of how invasions in one part of the world evolved, which was already deemed to be ethno-centric by other editors, or b) write an individual section detailing the evolution of invasion techniques in every culture on earth (which is practically impossible and would always be criticized as incomplete anyway). Our solution was to include brief examples from different eras and cultures (America, Europe, Asia) which necessitates keeping them separate because many of them are completely unrelated.
Obviously, from the length of my responses, I don't mind writing prose. It just doesn't work in this case. I would encourage you to look through the other discussion histories and hopefully you can relate to why it's set up the way it is. I'd be willing to make an experimental page of prose, but it will be utter crap if we lump Alexander the Great, the Aztecs, Operation Market Garden, and Saddam Hussein into the same section. They have to be listed as examples, not compared with one another. Kafziel 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what I meant by prose was something falling along the lines of Wikipedia:Summary. The "methods" section should include more examples of say, land warfare, which though obviously broad there have been several brilliant land battles to cite...rather than bringing them into a list. IMO, there shouldn't be a list at all. We could have a "see also" link to a "list of invasions", but any selected battles should be cited as an example to the assertion of methods of invasion, history, or development. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually working on that right now. See the article for my latest change. I will do more as time allows. Still, I haven't received an answer from anyone to this question, which I posted when the FAC first started: "I really can't understand why so many editors want 10,000 words in plain prose form for every article. Who wants to read that? I don't see the harm in presenting a small amount of information organized in a different way, the same way one might add a chart or map to an article. It gives the reader a break and an easy way to branch off into other subjects."
What I mean is, how is it better to have paragraph after paragraph of "In 336 BC, so and so invaded so and so...", followed by "In 632, so and so did this and that, which has nothing to do with the previous paragraph, but it's prose so it's cool," followed by, "In 1812 Napoleon stomped on Europe." It's not "brilliant prose" if each paragraph is disjointed and unrelated to the next. But if we spend too much time putting it in context, the information becomes redundant because there are already entire articles dedicated to doing exactly that. The proper way to put unrelated items together is with a list. That's a very basic truth of writing, and that's why there is nothing in the style guide that says tables are bad and should not be used. In fact, there are whole sections dedicated to explaining how to make them.
So I really don't get the fascination so many people have with doing away with lists. Yes, I hate useless lists that take up whole pages, but there's no reason to hate lists when they are informative and used properly. You don't hate seeing maps or pictures in articles, do you? They're just giving you a different way to take in information. Everything on a map or a photo could be described with prose, but that would be... dumb. Does anyone here think Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't have any charts or tables in their articles? Of course they do.
So I don't understand what the big deal is with it, but as I said, I'm working on it anyway. Kafziel 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just set up footnotes with the format RentaStrawberry used. We originally changed it because some others weren't thrilled about it (it doesn't work with the printable version), so I'm trying to figure out the right way to put numbers in the refs section. Kafziel 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the footnotes over to the new format, so they are numbered and will work properly on the printed version. I also added in a few examples in spots and I am working on getting rid of the rest of the list. Kafziel 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology. I mean who was I to tell you to put footnotes in the Invasion article? Honestly, I know nothing & you knew better than me! Therefore you shouldn't put the footnotes in. Oh? What? Someone just told me you did put footnotes in?! That would make me.... Right? And you would be? Wrong? A know-it-all? Hmmm... I guess I did know better than you & Renta aye? I guess you shouldn't have put me down all those times & maybe done the job I asked you to do earlier? Have a nice time kicking youself.... Spawn Man 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The layout and style are different from most FAs, but it covers the topic well, and appears to meet all criteria. Giano | talk 07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Giano and the rest. --Ghirla | talk 12:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The table of examples is dead. Each section has been completely converted to prose and has a sub-section under the main section heading. I've also added info to other sections and revamped the footnotes to the new <ref> style. Support, anyone? :) Kafziel 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Invasion/archive1&oldid=1140239134"