Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Ryan4314 (talk)
Toolbox

Hi everybody, Nick-D recommended I go for a an A class review. Apologies in advance, I shall not been online again until Monday morning, thankyou for your patience. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a few points I noticed:

  • Images require alt text.
  • I think it would be best if the ranks were not abbreviated, but in full.
  • Cite #1 really should be tweaked to display an actualy name, rather than a plain URL.
  • Just curious, but why is there a box listing the fatalities from the incident all the way down in the "Notes" section?
  • I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked the placement of a few of the images so they alternate from each side, and thus have better visual appeal.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would like to thankyou for taking the time to review the article, if I may respond in bullets:
  • Done
  • Done
  • Please see "Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue" below Done
  • I was emulating the style of the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, please feel free to move it
  • I'm more than happy for you to have done this, however I'm concerned about the images in the "incident" and "investigations" sections, is this allowed re; MOS:IMAGES #7
  • So long as the images are not under a level 3 heading this is fine; they are currently under a level 2 heading. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind adding a comment/!vote to the "Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue" section below please? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Aside from the above suggestions, you have one ambiguous link that needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Additionally, two external links are reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
    • I think your external links need to be retooled, from where I sit some do not appear to be formatted correctly. I'll check back tomorrow if I get a moment and add to this then. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tom, thankyou for contributing to the review and for seeing if my "external links" need to be "retooled".

"Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue"[edit]

Should the first line refer to the incident as either "friendly fire" or "blue on blue"? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer "friendly fire" for these reasons:
  1. WP:IAR: The term is unquestionably more easier for a layman to understand
  2. "Blue on blue" is not a exclusive British term, it is a international NATO term
  3. If sources is the name of the game: here's 2 mainstream British newspapers referring to the incident as "friendly fire" [2][3] and I also suggest looking at the number of hits it gets on Hansard, amongst British parliamentarians. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I go with friendly fire simply because of point 1) writing for the uninitiated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, importantly, to match the article name. As an aside the friendly fire article is a bit of a state - half the content is a list of incidents, most of which are not notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • British forces have sadly enough been at the receiving end of US "friendly fire" several times. Therefore it could be debated whether it should be British English or US English in those incidents. Thanks to Hollywood and CNN more superficial journalists may use the American term (we have the same problem in Denmark, I can remember that in a news feature a female reporter repetitively used "friendly fire" although the interviewed servicemen used the correct term: da:Egenbeskydning).
    • I don't think that "friendly fire" is easier to understand: "Excuse me, friend - may I shoot you? Certainly, I would love to be shot at by you anytime. Bang - bang. Oh dear me, you're bleeding. Never mind, as long as it was you who shot me".
    • I didn't know the "blue on blue" term before I began to study the Falklands War. So IMHO "blue on blue" is correct for Falklands War articles.
    • Simplifying the text for laymen is a luxury newspapers have, not Wikipedia. Newspapers have no hyperlinks to explain technical words, Wikipedia has.
    • Article names are not static, they could easily be changed. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So because YOU hadn't heard the term "blue on blue" until you started reading about the Falklands, that is why everyone else should use the term???
      • A layman understands "friendly fire", because it is used so much by the media. No layman (British or American) understands "blue on blue".
      • By your logic that means we should always refer to the common cold as Acute viral rhinopharyngitis on Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "friendly fire" is better to use in the introduction than "blue on blue". Friendly fire is used in the media, is a term most laymen would know, and matches the title of the article, while "blue on blue" is a highly techincal term that most people wouldn't understand. In the article (titled Friendly fire), it explains that the origin of the "blue on blue" terminology is from NATO exercises. Since the Falklands War was not NATO exercise, applying NATO terminology to it is probably best avoided where an alternative exists. Just a note, I'll be doing a more thorough review in the next few days as I have time. – Joe N 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with "friendly fire"; it is the most commonly known and understood term. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been on the receiving end of "friendly fire" from our American cousins, I can assure you "friendly fire" isn't. Having said that the term "friendly fire" is widely used in the English language and readily understood by most readers. "Blue on blue" is a technical and specialised military term, that is opaque to most readers. For that reaon I would stick with "(un)friendly fire". Regards, Justin talk 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British Official history of the Falklands War actually uses the term 'blue on blue'. Despite my earlier comments favouring 'friendly fire', I'd suggest that the first sentence read 'The loss of the British Army Gazelle XX377 was a friendly fire ('blue on blue') incident over the Falkland Islands...' as both terms are correct and used by the sources. Which one to then use in the article's body is a difficult question though; I'd suggest 'friendly fire' for the reasons Ryan identified. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that "blue on blue" is an obsolete MoD description, like flat-tops for aircraft carriers. Since so many Britons favour, sorry favor, the "friendly fire" who am I to contradict that. The next step for you would be to change to RIGHT-hand drive ;-) "Blue on blue" should be reserved for Lawrence Freedman's "The official history of the Falklands campaign" and the 'suspicious' www.britains-smallwars.com and other Falklands War only media. BTW, it's still a lame argument that it should match the article name since it's not dead certain. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is formed. If you are concerned about the encroaching effect of American culture into the British language then I suggest you go start a blog or wave a placard outside 10 Downing Street, please don't soapbox on an article about incident of war 27 years ago ;-) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this is an excellent article which easily meets the A-class criteria. My only suggestions for how it could be further improved are:
    • Now that the names of all those killed are in the 'Incident' section the box listing their names isn't needed
    • If you're thinking of taking this to a FAC I'd suggest that you ask an editor with a low knowledge of military jargon to give it a copy edit to ensure that there aren't too many technical terms. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thankyou for your support Nick, I shall get my partner to read through for military jargon lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I printed the article off for my partner to read (print so no access to blue links) and she said the only bit she didn't understand was RAE Farnborough. She said she didn't know what e.g a C-130 Hercules was, but that the article explained it was some sort of resupply plane. I'm amending the Farnborough link now. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good. I would recommend a look-over for some possible jargon and ease of reading issues, but once that's done and the friendly fire v. blue on blue debate resolved it should be good. – Joe N 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That issue is resolved now and I thankyou very much for your support. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comments. An excellent article that, with a little work, I'll be happy to support.
    • Citations in the lead: these aren't normally necessary (unless to comply with WP:BLP, which doesn't come into this article). The lead is just a summary of the article, so the information it gives should be cited in the main body of the text below; there's no need to cite twice.
    • Wikilinking: I don't think there's any need to link things like units of measurement, commonly-understood terms or things of marginal relevance to the article. Every link should add value, and at the same time you don't really want to encourage the reader too hard to browse away from the article ;)
    • Prose: this wanders away from encyclopedic at times, and a few minor tweaks would, I think, work wonders. For example, could we use "...costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides." instead of "...costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen (both sides)."? Also, "...declare the helicopter's mission to any other authority i.e. the navy, as the flight..."; could we lose the "i.e. the navy", as it's stating the obvious and the 'i.e.' isn't ideal.
  • Afk, more to follow EyeSerenetalk 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for taking the time to review the article.
  • No problem, I think I only initially put them in to get it on DYK.
  • I agree, although do you think more obscure measurements like "kn" (knot) should remain linked?
  • I defer to your more experienced judgement on this one, I'll make the above changes and anymore you suggest. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, I've only just got in from work! Up to you about linking kn; I'm sure if you're heading FA-wards, you'll get other opinions on that... If you do link it though, it should only be on the first instance. OK, continuing with the prose:

  • Lead-in words like 'However' at the start of a sentence should be followed by a comma (there are a few instances of this)
  • Done. Would mind checking too see if there are any more instances of this please, thankyou. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how you feel about cites breaking up a sentence, but where possible I normally prefer them at the end in sequential order (both for readability and because I think it looks nicer). You could perhaps move the two cites in the last sentence of Background to the end - up to you, it won't affect this review :)
  • Done. I agree, I did it this way for the sake of verifiability. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3 of Incident: sentences broken up with dashes should either use unspaced emdashes (preferred) or spaced endashes (see WP:MOSDASH).
  • "When the Gurkhas came across the personnel manning the Pleasant Peak station there was potential for another friendly fire incident to occur; fortunately it did not." Writing 'fortunately' comes over as editor commentary; this should be rewritten more neutrally (or attributed as a quote if appropriate).
  • Done, I had this originally, it was changed in a C/E [5] Ryan4314 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't normally wikilink from inside a direct quotation (Sentence beginning "Historian Hugh Bicheno remarked...", para 2 of Investigations)
  • In the Bicheno quote there a 2 links: MoD & blue-on-blue. As these acronyms/terms are not explained in the article body and because it is obvious as to what he is referring to, I think it best to leave this links in for reader clarity your thoughts? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to this, no need to link 'yards' at the end of para 1 of this section, and I'm not sure about the utility of a quote here.
  • I was concerned about not quoting this, as the information given is vague; "several hundred yards". I linked "yards" for the same reason I linked kn and nmi, I don't think many people know how long a yard is (including me lol!) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to have 'paragraph 13' in quotes (later in the same section)
  • From Effects, I'm not sure what the relevance of the first sentence is (and it may need a cite?). Also, "IFF transmitters are now fitted to all Army Air Corps and Royal Marine Gazelle and Lynx helicopters."; the article states that the Gazelle already had an IFF, it just wasn't switched on. Did the board recommend this anyway?
  • Ah yes, I see, this is my fault and I will work to amend it.
  1. I can cite the first sentence, the board attributed the incident to the fog of war created by joint warfare operations and recommended greater emphasis on training, thus reducing incidents such as these.
  2. IFF was actually only fitted to half of the land forces Gazelles and Scouts and only recently too, XX377 was one of the few to have it. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it! Thank you for submitting your article, and well done on a fascinating read. EyeSerenetalk 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for reviewing the article. I work odd hours and from different locations, I hope to be able to action the points you've raised over the week, thankyou for your patience. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Still concerned about those two external links, but will to AGF in this case. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/1982_British_Army_Gazelle_friendly_fire_incident&oldid=1136064904"