Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iraq War in Anbar Province/archive1

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 not promoted by Nikkimaria 20:15, 7 May 2012 [1].

Iraq War in Anbar Province[edit]

Iraq War in Anbar Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article on and off for the past two years. It has been Peer Reviewed and achieved GA Status. I believe I have addressed, or made good faith attempts to address, all concerns about it so far. The biggest problem I can see is that I believe its length has dissuaded a lot of editors from taking a hard look at it, so don't hold back! :) Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Used strikeout on corrections that I've made. Obviously feel free to remove them if you don't believe I've adequately addressed them ;) Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I've heard a lot of people refer to it as "Al Anbar", ("Al" being Arabic for "The") I've never heard of the definite article being used with Anbar Province in English. You could make a plausible case for renaming it Iraq War in Al Anbar Province. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the into "...secure the Western Euphrates River" - is the Western Euphrates a separate river (in which case it should be wikilinked as such), if not then it should be "western Euphrates".
  • "stability and advisory role" - these two don't go well together.Stability is a noun, while advisory is an adjective. Perhaps "stabilizing and advisory" or something better.
  • In "Background" western-most; surely this should be westernmost.
  • The terrain outside of the Euphrates area is overwhelmingly desert. - which desert does this belong to?
  • In "Invasion of Iraq" - the first Coalition Forces; I think it should be either Coalition forces or coalition forces, depending on whether the coalition is capitalised throughout or not. In any case the capital "F" looks out of place.
  • In "Summer of 2003" - Major Matthew Schram became the first American killed in Anbar Province since the invasion - I think after the invasion or following the invasion would read better.
  • In "Fall of 2003" - I ran "shootdown" through a couple of online dictionaries without success - but the Oxford dictionary returned a hyphenated "shoot-down". I'm a Brit, so I wouldn't know if "shootdown" is accepted US usage, but the online dictionaries would suggest not.
  • Interesting, I think "shootdown" may be accepted in American English, Wiktionary has an entry with a citation to the New York Times. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Not sure one instance in a newspaper is enough to establish it as the correct spelling. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow, from 2004 onwards, but generally looks very good so far. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "First Battle of Fallujah" you have both "cease-fire" and "cease fire" - all instances should be checked and changed to "ceasefire".
  • In "Insurgency in 2004": the insurgency was still viewed by Iraqi as legitimate - something not quite right there. "Iraqis"? "many Iraqis"?
  • The insurgents would never conveniently massed before the overwhelming firepower of the US for the rest of the Anbar campaign. Again, something wrong here; this needs to be rephrased.
  • The official Marine Corps history claims that the battle was not decisive, because most of the insurgent leadership and non-local insurgents had managed to flee before the battle - try to rephrase this so as not to use "battle" twice in the same sentence. I would suggest "insurgents had managed to flee beforehand"
  • In "Winter of 2005": more up-armored - I don't understand what this means - does it mean "more heavily armoured", or does it mean armour mounted higher up on the vehicle? Either way it needs to be clarified.
  • In "Securing western Anbar": including Akihiko Saito. - why is he singled out for naming? A short phrase to tell us something about him would be good.
  • There was a personal connection there, since my unit got tasked with trying to find his body in 2009. But you're right, he really wasn't exceptional. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to follow, 2006 onwards. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Haditha killings": failing to properly initially report - this is somewhat clumsy and should be rephrased.
  • In "Second Battle of Ramadi": The first outpost was built in July 2006; not only did it bring former insurgent territory under American control, but the insurgents also lost many men attacking them. - seems to mix up singular and plural; is this talking about one outpost or all of them?
  • In "Awakening movement" there is a photo of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha - the accompanying text mentions sheikh Sittar - is this the same person? If so his name is spelt wrong somewhere...
  • Check your captions throughout. Captions that are not complete sentences/paragraphs of text shouldn't end with a full stop.
  • I've gone through the captions myself, as best I can. In retrospect, perhaps I'm not the best person for that particular job (I always get caught out myself) - so apologies in advance if anyone else comes along and asks for them to be changed again... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "The Surge": in what became known as The Surge. - I'm not sure about the capitalisation there, it looks strange.
  • "The Surge" is both the official and unofficial designation for the increase in military personnel in 2007. For example, this official Marine Corps document refers to the "Iraqi Surge" as the official campaign name for all military activity in Iraq between Jan 2007 and Dec 2008. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really wondering about the capital "T" in The, maybe the Surge would be better; or "The Surge" in inverted commas. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped in a couple of convert templates to give metric as well as imperial units, please check that all units of measurement have conversions throughout the article.
  • In general metric and imperial units are used indiscriminately - square miles in one place and square kilometers in another - when all conversions are in place, make sure that either imperial/metric are consistantly displayed in the same order (you can use disp=flip in the convert template to reverse the display order).
  • I've seen an instance of Haditha Triad (without inverted commas) and one of "Haditha Triad" (with inverted commas) - choose one or the other and stick with it.
  • 120 mm mortar shells and two 100-pound chlorine tanks - switching between metric and imperial in the same sentence, but I don't know anything about post-medieval ammunition terminology and don't know whether conversion templates are appropriate here, so I'll just point it out so someone who knows better than me can pick it up.
  • The US military uses the metric system for some things and the imperial for others. It's weird, but I think there's a template somewhere to switch between the two. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try {{Template:Convert}} - I already dropped a couple in as examples, but Template:Convert has a full list of syntax.
  • In "MRAPs": The original MRAP they would design, the Cougar, was initially fielded... - the tenses seem to be all over the place here - perhaps "The original MRAP they had designed..."
  • In "Operation 'Alljah'": - They uncovered several mass graves with over 100 victims left behind by AQI - this is rather ambiguous, is that over 100 victims in each grave or over 100 victims in total. Please rephrase it to make it clearer.
  • In "America declares victory" - "21,000 Anbaris on police roles" - is that a direct quote? Otherwise in police roles. If it is a direct quote, perhaps it could use a (sic).
Enough for now. 2008 onwards to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Human rights abuses": Both sides committed human rights abuses in Anbar Province and civilians were often caught between the two sides - rephrase this to avoid using "sides" twice - maybe "...were often caught in the middle."
  • In "Insurgent abuses": found several mass graves near Lake Tharthar with over 100 victims. - same problem as another instance above; this has ambiguous phrasing. Did each grave contain over 100, or was the total of all graves over 100? Please rephrase.
  • References - Reference no.2 had a footnote that should be separated into the footnotes section. Otherwise I haven't checked the references through and will leave that for someone else.
Your previous changes look fine. On the whole the article is in good shape. I have one concern over neutrality: your {{rquote}}s are unbalanced; you have 1 quote from an Iraqi student near the beginning, in the rest of the article there are 6 quotes from US sources. I'm not asking that they be removed - I quite like them where they are, but the inclusion of more Iraqi commentary would balance the article up considerably - there must be some comments from Iraqi diplomats/spokesmen/officials/police/public that would be suitable, even oposition statements. There is a partial quote in the Drawdown section with an Iraqi saying "total destruction... you just came in, destroyed, and left."; moving this to an rquote would be a good start.
  • LOL! My peer edit review said I had too MANY quotes (14), so I cut them down to the smallest number possible. How many Iraqi quotes do you think I need? Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, enough to balance it out, I suppose quantity is a matter of taste - but equal numbers of both would be excellent. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole an interesting read. Well done on producing such a comprehensive article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the changes - it all looks good to me, bearing in mind I didn't review referencing or images. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't generally have external links in main article
  • In order for your shortened citations to link correctly, you'll need to add |ref=harv to your bibliography entries and use the last-first rather than author format (sorry, didn't check all of them the first time)
  • FN 15 appears to be the same as one of the bibliography entries, but the title is slightly different
    It's an earlier version of "Marines in Iraq: Into the Fray". All they really did was add a bunch of pictures and maps. Have added the first to the bibliography and distinguish by year. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid repeating full bibliographic info in footnotes for sources that appear in the bibliography - use shortened citations consistently
  • (Crosses fingers) That should be all of them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether shortened citations use author-date or title
  • (Crosses fingers) That should be all of them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
  • Not following. Authors are in there alphabetically; when the same author, they're in order chronologically or by volume number. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
    • Not fixed 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I think I got them. Let me know if that also applies to co-authors. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It applies to co-authors inasmuch as you should be consistent - coauthors can be first-last if you prefer, but then all of them should be - and right now they're not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done. Compare for example FNs 138 and 143. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, that should be the last of them! Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, citation formatting and consistency needs extensive cleanup
  • Dead links (example) need fixing
  • Leatherneck Magazine is a semi-official magazine published by direct affiliates of the Marine Corps. Have made that more clear in the citation. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mir Bahmanyar, the author of SuaSponte.com, is a published author who has written seven books on modern warfare and US Special Forces. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while I recognize the massive amount of work that must have gone into this article, citations need extensive cleanup. Many are inconsistent and some are incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please ping me when the sourcing issues have been dealt with to Nikki's satisfaction, and I'll be happy to have a look at the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More on sourcing - see also a few yet unaddressed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't notate either authors or titles in all-caps
  • Check for consistency in italicization and wikilinking
  • What is Unk?
  • FN 31: linked source gives a lot more citation details than you do
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes
  • Check for titling consistency - for example, The Boston Globe or just Boston Globe? Time or Time Magazine? etc
  • Don't italicize publishers
  • Er, no it doesn't, unless you're using the wrong parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 67: AFPS is the agency, not the work or the publisher
  • Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for online newspapers
  • Check for glitches like doubled periods
  • FN 119: publisher, page?
  • FN 125: formatting
  • Why do some of your citations list archive dates as not applicable or unknown?
  • I didn't know them, but was getting error messages when I tried to post the citation template without them; I just threw in today's date. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but usually they're provided as part of the archiving, either in the archive interface or in the URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pp." should be used for multiple pages, "p." for single
  • FN 168: April of what year?
  • Where is North County?
  • FN 269: formatting
  • FN 245: formatting
  • Be consistent in when you provide locations for newspapers, and how these are formatted
  • FN 312: issue, page?
  • FN 153: publisher?
  • Be consistent in whether agencies are spelled out or abbreviated
  • Don't need complete page count for books in bibliography
  • Check for naming consistency - for example, Vintage Books or just Vintage? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - sources mostly good. There are a few remaining with issues: FN 101, 298 vs 30, 163, 167 (needs pages), 233, 130 vs 252, 40 vs 270, 328, 330 vs 331. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

329 needs publisher and then we should be good to go as far as sourcing is concerned (although I didn't do spotchecks). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added publisher for 329. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Regarding the first sentence, WP:LEAD says: "Do not place a link within the bolded title, even if that seems to provide a graceful way to link to an appropriate context-setting topic. Bolded links look neither like bolded text nor ordinary links, and appear jarring."
  • "many in and around the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, part of an area known as the Sunni Triangle": See WP:Checklist#conciseness. "many in the Sunni Triangle around the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi"
  • "Sunni–dominated": Sunni-dominated
  • "over two more years": technically right but not usually written that way; probably better would be "through at least (date)" or "through (date)"
  • "total country's landmass": country's total land mass (usually, "landmass" is something else)
  • "Temperatures ranged": Temperatures range
  • "Statistics from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) estimated the population in 2003 at 1,230,169 ...": The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) put the population in 2003 at around 1,230,000 (unless the sources indicate that they didn't buy their own statistics). There's disagreement on whether a number with 7 significant digits should be called an "estimate"; it's probably safer either to approximate or not to call it an "estimate".
  • "95% of the population are ... 95% of the population lives ..." : Per WP:ORDINAL, Chicago, etc., either move numerals away from the front of the sentence, or write them out. And be consistent (here at least) on whether "95%" is singular or plural. Also, "lives" is present tense, so it raises questions about when this applies, since you're using past tense before and after.
  • "from the Dulaimi Tribe, making it the only province ...": See WP:Checklist#dangler. Remove "it", or move it closer to what it's referring to.
  • "conditions in Anbar were extremely favorable towards an insurgency": Would "conditions in Anbar favored an insurgency" be wrong?
Copyeditors regard "extremely" with extreme prejudice, and it's "favorable for", not "towards" ... but tighter is "favored". - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may not have felt defeated.": I'm not positive what this means ... maybe that they felt that their province was still effectively autonomous? It's better to talk about conditions on the ground than feelings. (That is, "felt that" is a little informal but okay, but "felt defeated" not so much; See WP:Checklist#mindreading.)
  • Following the invasion, the general consensus in the US was that we had defeated the Sunni population and would have a free hand in remaking Iraq. However, almost all the fighting was in the Kurdish-Shia areas of the country, meaning most of the Sunni areas (including Anbar) didn't actually see any fighting; most of them didn't see any Americans until the invasion was over, so instead of a war-weary populace ready for peace, the Anbaris were actually primed for a fight. Not sure how to phrase that. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to be more careful about how the word "insurgent" is used; I guess the answer is to follow your sources. M-W defines it: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent". So, if you buy the idea that the US and various provisional governments were the "established government" in Anbar at every point after the fall of Baghdad, and that opposition was never organized, then of course all the rebels fighting us would have been "insurgents" ... but this article says the opposite. Alternatively, you could just say that "insurgent" as used in the Iraq War meant "anyone targeting the US or allied provisional governments" (whether organized or not, and whether we constituted the civil authority in that region or not). If truth is the first casualty of war, language is the second. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm obviously biased in this regard. I've avoided the Orwellian-sounding "Anti-Iraqi Forces" that the US military used for most of the war, as well as "terrorists" or "rebels", and limited "AQI" only to specific actions or members of the group. Am obviously open to suggestions. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "summer 2002": See WP:SEASON (which I disagree with btw ... just doing my job)
  • Complied with request, although I also disagree. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preparing the groundwork for future resistance": Would "preparing for future resistance" be wrong?
  • Oppose Okay that's just through the first section, so there's more here than one guy can do. Maybe someone else will jump in and finish up, or maybe it would be a good idea to run this through Milhist's A-class review for some copyediting help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the above has been dealt with except "statistics" and "felt defeated". Adding some discussion or clarification on "insurgent" was just a suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For statistics, I rounded the number up to 1.2 million. For 'felt defeated', I'm open to suggestions. Palm_Dogg (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I suggest not saying "statistics" or "felt defeated". When you say "X has statistics that ...", it raises the question whether that's actually X's position, or whether they're waffling. I made a specific suggestion above; of course you're free to say it any way you like. On "felt defeated", my suggestion is not to tell us what was in their heads, because we don't know. Say something similar to the reply you gave me above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made specific changes you requested. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Direct quotes need attribution in-text; I added it (to Thomas E. Ricks (journalist) ... does he go by "Thomas Ricks"?) Also ... I see Nikki is copyediting, so I may be able to finish this one up after all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Tom Ricks", but I fixed it. Thanks again for your help! Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'd like to see this one make it, I may do some research on the 82nd in Fayetteville this summer. I've put in a request for help at WT:MIL#Iraq War in Anbar Province. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, it's been hard to attract editors dedicated to copyediting to FAC, so I'm guessing this one isn't going to make it at FAC without going through Milhist's A-class review first (but would be happy to be proved wrong). In the next subsection after I stopped, just two problems: The Pentagon -> the Pentagon (per M-W and others), and "an economy of force" -> an "economy of force" (unless the "an" is an inseparable part of the expression, which would be odd). - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Human rights organizations accused the Army of "over-aggressive tactics ...": Direct quotes need attribution in the text. Also, probably it was just one human rights organization that the quoted text comes from, not "Human rights organizations".
  • "When Iraqi insurgents set off a mine, the Americans drop bombs on houses with arms caches; when insurgents fired a mortar round at American positions, the Americans would respond with heavy artillery. American forces would conduct "hard knocks" on local residents, kicking in doors and manhandling individuals, only to discover they had misidentified the target.": The verb tenses are confused here (drop?), and I can't always tell whether you're talking about one incident or a pattern of behavior. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that work? For this article, I actually pulled my punches, but could mention way more abuses/problems. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anbar Province was more problematic than the Marines' previous responsibility": nonparallel (compare a region to a region, or an abstract noun to an abstract noun). - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better. The specificity helps your argument, and makes it easier to see what you're saying, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Original phrase was "...Anbar Province was more problematic than the Marines' previous deployment to southern Iraq." Have modified further. Palm_Dogg (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making a grammar point rather than a logic point here; see if what I just did is okay. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Marines stopped a white Opel sedan carrying five Iraqi men and shot them,", then "In addition to the five Iraqi men killed by the sedan": were the five men by the sedan, or in it?
  • "soldiers flooded an area": with water, or metaphorically?
  • "The 1st BCT moved into some of Ramadi's most dangerous neighborhoods and built four of what would eventually become eighteen Combat Outposts. The first outpost was built in July 2006; they brought the territory under control and inflicted many casualties on the insurgents in the process.": I don't follow.
  • Original Sentence: "With insurgents fleeing the city in anticipation of a big battle, the 1st BCT instead moved into some of Ramadi's most dangerous neighborhoods and built four of what would eventually become eighteen Combat Outposts. The first outpost was built in July 2006; not only did they bring former insurgent territory under American control, but the insurgents also lost many men attacking them." Should I revert, or is that also unclear? Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made an edit; feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ramadi was viewed as a backseat to the ongoing civil war in Baghdad": What does "backseat" mean here?
  • "Multi-National Force – Iraq almost moved two of MacFarland's battalions to Baghdad": In a narrative, it's generally better to talk about what did happen or what was said, rather than what didn't happen; it's hard to assign a meaning to something that didn't happen.
  • The significance is that, even though most people credit the victory in Ramadi with turning the tide in Iraq, that was only in hindsight. At the time MacFarland was doing his clearing operations, General Cassey was trying to siphone off units from his command. The commanders in Baghdad were very slow to grasp the importance of Ramadi, and later the Awakening Movement, and only really accepted it as a fait accompli (hence the later importance of Captain Patriquin's brief). Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made an edit; feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the quote marks on "Alljah" mean. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check caption on AO image
  • What's with the strange linking for infobox flags? Some link to the entities they represent, some to image description page, and a couple not at all
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't
  • Some of your alts seem to be redundant to captions
  • I was told that every caption needed one. If not, I'll happily remove them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How to Win in Anbar" needs to be slightly bigger to be legible, and is causing sandwiching with the following pull-quote on my (small) screen. Also, do you happen to know what kind of drug cocktail inspired that creation?
  • Tried expanding it and shifting the quote over; let me know if it works. For your reading pleasure, the full brief is here. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I have no words for that. But the placement is better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to tell what the first 2007 image actually shows - any way to fix that?
  • It shows a US helicopter being struck by a missile and bursting into flames. I would honestly rather just upload the video, but don't know if it's PD. This brings up an issue I had: are insurgent pictures and videos PD? I really don't want to just be limited to US military images, but no one's been able to give me a straight answer on this one. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't suppose insurgents are too worried about clarifying the licensing of their work...perhaps ask over at WP:MCQ? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with video; also replaced other image in "Second Battle of Fallujah" with video. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check grammar on "Coalition abuses" image caption
  • Are using the first - portal graphics count. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add that to the image description?
  • Done, and replaced the .png with the .svg. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cougar_Hit_By_IED.jpg: what's the original source of this image?
  • I know it's the military, as I remember this image was widely circulated when I was in Iraq in 2007. Unfortunately I can't find an official version. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG: the tag you're using requires that you explain why the image is significant, not the event it depicts - amend the FUR to include that info.
  • Is FUR the image use rationale for this article, or the media information? Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, so now you have three different copyright tags on here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the historical image tag. The second tag is temporary until the PD status is resolved between the United States and Iraq. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Reference currently #171, from arlingtoncemetary, does not appear to be an appropriately scholarly source. Does #172 cover the same ground? It should be removed or replaced, I think. Also the external links need a look to format them or otherwise tidy them up a bit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArlingtonCemetary.net is the site that's hosting the article; the actual article was written by The Virginian-Pilot. 172 mentions the incident, but 171 actually gives the details. Removed "External links". Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will defer further comments until later. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to perform a full review, but would like to comment on the MRAP section. I have two large concerns with this and one smaller concern:

  • The wording is a bit confusing: in the first sentence the Marines "developed a technological breakthrough" through MRAPs. However, in the second sentence the MRAP was "designed by a small team at Force Protection Inc". In the fourth sentence we're back to the Marines designing the MRAP.
  • The above also basically credits the development of the MRAP concept (if not also the design of the actual vehicles) to the USMC. This isn't at all correct: MRAP-type vehicles had been in service for decades before this, and I think that the Rhodesian or Apartheid-era South African Defence Force were actually the first to deploy this type of vehicle back in the late 1970s.
  • Reworded section to reflect South African-design. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was revealed last year that a very large scale, but hugely secretive, program of deploying electronic jammers was very important to countering IEDs in Iraq. As such, the figures attributing the drop in casualties to MRAPs alone are unlikely to be accurate. I'm not sure what the availability of sources on this topic is yet; my source is Wired magazine's Danger Room blog (which is a reliable source). Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have mentioned the JIEDDO in the 2005 section on IEDs, but I found nothing that talked about Anbar Province. My sources specifically talk about the impact MRAPs had in Anbar Province. I'm not going to lie, though, I'm not a big fan of the JIEDDO program - I think it helped on the margins (especially with remote-control IEDs), but did nothing to address victim-operated or command-wire IEDs. And obviously neither program was as effective as the Awakening movement, which removed most of the trigger-men. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments on Human rights abuses from Cryptic C62. I don't intend to do a full review, but I am quite satisfied with the neutrality, accessibility, and clarity of the material in this (potentially) contentious section. The details of my review can be found on the FAC talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First para in "Background": all four sentences each have a [7] reftag. This is a bit much. Why not one reftag after the fourth sentence. The ref is not a hard-copy book, but an ultra-accessible pdf file that can be downloaded immediately if a reader wants verification. BTW, is a military-financed document guaranteed to be neutral? Tony (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed "Background" paragraph. For American military-financed documents, my reflexive answer is yes: the US military is pretty big on history and finding out what happened. The main problems are 1) this is VERY recent history and 1st drafts aren't always the most accurate 2) the problem is less with what they say and more with what they don't say (i.e. screw-ups that make us look bad, material which is still considered classified), which is why I've augmented them with a lot of press reports. Was there a specific statement you had in mind? Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a specific statement, but just the [7] ref I talked about above, which sparked a little concern when I checked it out. A host of recent films, both docos and fictionalised accounts, have reminded everyone how thin the line is between neutral facts, PR, and propaganda, and I'm afraid anglophones are just as bad as others on this count. But I've no reason to take issue with any particular ref you've used. I wanted to say that on face value, it's a really classy article on a complex, touchy topic. Congrats and well done. (Something in me wants to ask whether you're being paid, but I think the answer is no!) Tony (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I threw in those PBS documentaries and "Dreamland" at the bottom: they pretty-much hit the same notes. Thanks for the compliment! I'm not being paid, but I did two deployments to Anbar, so this is kind of a labor of love on my part. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good, and has clearly been carefully researched and written. Some fit and finish is needed before it is fully ready—I will be happy to support once these items are addressed.
  • "Outside of the Euphrates area the terrain is overwhelmingly desert" I believe "desert" is an expression of climate, not of terrain.
  • I thought it was desert terrain with an arid climate? Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat puzzled by the occasional use of past tense in the Background section (ex. "Ramadi, the provincial capital, was more secular"). Are you saying it's no longer secular?
  • That's from prior to the war, but I have tried to clarify the past tense. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Military service was compulsory in Hussein's Iraq. These weapons armed the insurgents in Anbar and elsewhere." Too much of a jump in logic between these two sentences. It's not a given that weapons would be in the province because of compulsory military service. Maybe they trained and deployed elsewhere.
  • "Future AQI leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi spent part of 2002 in central Iraq" I think AQI should be defined here again and treated as first-use. Some readers skip the lead.
  • If an acronym is never used again ("3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR)"), just write it out and omit the acronym.
  • The secondary use was hidden, but should be visible now. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That same month General Swannack gave a briefing on Anbar where he boasted about improved security" Consider "in which he boasted".
  • The January–March 2004 section gets a bit formulaic when three paras in a row begin with "In date,". Actually, this construction repeats with fair frequency throughout the article. Try to introduce some more variation.
  • There is inconsistent comma use after intro phrases such as the one above (ex. "On 15 March, 3rd Battalion 7th Marines operating near Al Qaim got into a firefight" but then "On 5 April the Marines began their attack")
  • You use unspaced em dashes in most places but I spotted at least one set of spaced en dashes (Invasion section). Make consistent (unless it's part of a quotation).
  • "As the campaign in Al Anbar entered its fourth year" Are "Al Anbar" and "Anbar" meant to be interchangeable? Is one more formal than the other?
  • I believe "Al Anbar" is the formal one, although I've seen them used interchangeably. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Palm Dogg, can you point to a spotcheck of sources performed on one of your FAC noms recently? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Nikkimaria helped me out a lot with this (see above), but I'm not sure if she reviewed the sources or just did the formatting. If you're looking for previous work, the last I've got is 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines from 2007 (and still maintain). Obviously I can answer any specific questions you have. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to go through a few randomly chosen passages and check that the sources cited (assuming they're available, e.g. online) support the information in the article, and that there's no copying or close paraphrasing of the sources. This is now SOP every so often in a FAC nominator's life. If no-one volunteers in the next day or so I'll have a look myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whoever does, most of the books should be available in PDF. The ones that aren't should be viewable via Google Books. If anyone has trouble accessing them, let me know. Thanks. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 10 sources

  • This link appears to go to the wrong place, so cannot be readily verified
  • "cornered and killed up to 70 fighters" - source says "more than 70
  • "President Bush had very publicly committed to taking Fallujah and did not want to be seen as backing down. However, Iraqi and world opposition limited his options." - source?
  • "The assault was similar to the Battle of Ramadi: insurgents attacked the Marine garrison and were repelled, and five Marines and 150 insurgents were killed" - source? This isn't covered in the source at the end of the paragraph
  • FN 182: "dynamite or gunpowder mixed with nails, and buried beside a road" in articles vs "dynamite or gunpowder mixed with nails and buried beside a road" in the source
  • "tore into the sides of vehicles" is a direct quote from the source.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query to Nikkimaria: 6/10 seems to be a rather high rate of problems found—does it look like further checks are needed? I'm happy to pull another 10. --Laser brain (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for all your help on this one! Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose after further spot-checks. Out of the first 4 I checked, I found 3 problems. Combined with Nikkimaria's finds above, these represent significant issues with the accuracy of the text and sourcing. I could not support until an independent editor performs a thorough source audit.
  • Ref 305, fails verification
  • Article text: "Three days later, on 13 September 2007, Sheikh Sattar and three of his guards were killed by a bomb planted near his house in Ramadi."
  • Source text: "Two bodyguards and another man were also killed, police said."
  • Ref 313, fails verification
  • Article text: "On 2 May, a group of insurgents crossed the Syrian border near Al Qaim, rounded up 11 policemen, and beheaded them."
  • Source text: "Abu Rishah said gunmen killed two military officers and nine policemen in Al-Qa'im before fleeing across the border into Syria." No mention of 2 May, or beheading, and numbers aren't accurate.
  • Ref 341, OK
  • Article text: "In December 2010, the 25th Infantry Division assumed responsibility for Anbar Province from the 1st Armored Division."
  • Source quotation: "[O]n 20 December 2010, as commanding general of the 25th Infantry Division, I assumed U.S. command responsibility in Anbar and Baghdad provinces for the U.S. Division-Center."
  • Refs 356–358, fail verification
  • Article text: "On 19 May 2004, 42 Iraqis were killed near Al Qaim when American planes mistakenly bombed a wedding party."
  • The three citations variously state "between 42 and 25", 42 (which is the claim of a local hospital), "up to 45 people"; I'd say there is no reliable consensus for 42. Additionally, one of your sources says it was a plane bombing, one says it was bombing and soldiers shooting, and a third says it was a helicopter. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I know when to throw in the towel. Obviously I need to take some time and hash out these source issues, and the FA Nom page isn't the place to do it. Reluctantly withdraw (FOR NOW!) and thanks to everyone for their help. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2012 (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/Iraq_War_in_Anbar_Province/archive1&oldid=1088823173"