Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulf War/archive1

Gulf War

Good Article, well written. Mercenary2k 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support A well reference, well written article. Good use of pictures and an informative structure of writing. While the article is a bit long (83kbs), I think that the infomation included justifies this. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,

1. Lead is not a decent summary of the article, see WP:LEAD
2. Quotes should not be in italics
3. TIME cover is not necessary or justified - we don't need a TIME cover to prove the event happened - which seems to be the only purpose the images is serving
4. The text is flabby, there is duplication of the same information in several places, for example the coalition is described in Diplomacy/operation shield section and another section on the coaltion, isn't there a better way to present this without the duplication (mabye a table?); the health effects of DU are discussed in two separate sections.
5. No reference for the cost section. Also it is unlcear who those costs apply to.
6. Consequences is unreferrenced, opinions should have propper cites. Same goes for the casualties section
7. I'm not sure the technology section is necessary, and may be better merged into some other part of the text

--Peta 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Object A good article, but the lead could be improved (especially by summarising the end result of the conflict). The Time magazine image could also be moved to the media section.--Thud495 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This is a really good, thorough, well presented article, let down by a lack of spit and polish. As above, the lead needs work

1. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. Previously in the paragraph we are told that the war started on August 2 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait. The sentence above should make it more clear that allied hostilities commenced in January 1991.
2. Minimal should be thought about as well I think. Is it minimal in comparison to the Iraq forces or just a few blokes and goats died? Too woolly.
3. The image Image:Tanksatdocks.jpg is a broken link.
4. Could use some more inline citation (One per paragraph min?).

--Mcginnly 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, simply because of ambiguous/misleading title; an unambiguous title should be chosen that does not confuse this with the first Gulf War. 195.250.64.76 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Image:GWI DU map.gif should be svg. I can barely read the text in the current version. WP 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)