Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Final Offensive of 1981

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Final Offensive of 1981[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pizzaking13 (talk)

Final Offensive of 1981 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Final Offensive of 1981 is the first offensive of the 12-year-long Salvadoran Civil War, which has had a significant impact on the politics and culture of the country since El Salvador had not had a long, drawn out civil conflict since the days of the civil wars of the Federal Republic of Central America in the 1820s and 1830s. The country has had plenty of civil and even international conflicts, such as the Football War, Barrios' War of Reunification, the Totoposte Wars, and the several coups and coup attempts the country has faced over its nearly 200 years of existence, but the civil war of 1979 to 1992 is the most infamous and defined essentially every Salvadorans' life.

The Final Offensive of 1981 was put on to be a final struggle against an oppressive government which violated the human rights of its citizens, which is the primary reason for its erroneous and ironic name, being the very first offensive of the war and not the last. The offensive was one of only three to involve a "typical" style of military warfare, with the other two being in 1982 and 1989. The failure to overthrow the government in January 1981 eventually lead to the guerrilla style of warfare that would be seen throughout the conflict which essentially dragged out the civil war longer than it should have.

The offensive is very important in Salvadoran history since it essentially "got the war going" in a sense, since before this point, the civil war was just disorganized far-left militant groups, far-right death squads, and the Revolutionary Government Junta fighting at random, while the offensive organized the leftist militants into the FMLN to oppose the government and the death squads, which would get the United States involved in the conflict. I believe that this article meets the Five Military History A-Class Criteria since it is properly cited with reliable sources, comprehensive and neutral, properly structured, written in clear and concise American English, and contains an appropriately licensed relevant image. (I tried searching for more, but I came up empty handed. I may consider creating a diagram showing the exact positions of the Salvadoran Army's units, but we'll see.) Pizzaking13 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR[edit]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosch: which edition are you using? If you cite the 1999 edition it's irrelevant that it was republished in 2013, that should just be deleted.
    • Done.
  • Crandall: this is not a correctly formatted book citation. See my FA article The Holocaust in Slovakia#Book chapters for an example of how to format book chapter citation. For example, it should not list the author's institution as if it were the publication location, and it should state the book ISBN. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used the entire book and essentially every chapter. Does it still matter if it does not cite chapters? The ISBN is there.
  • Hi Buidhe, is that a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't end up doing a full source review for this article. (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I don't have the subject matter expertise to look at content, so I looked a few of the more minor aspects. Overall, I think it is pretty good, but I think the prose could be tightened a bit throughout. I have provided a few examples below, but would suggest taking a look at the whole article for similar examples. I will try to come back once the below points have been addressed. Cheers: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a link for this: one Sewart patrol craft?
    • I could only find Dabur-class patrol boat, but the page does not list El Salvador as a current or former user, and Bosch (page 23) just states "One Sewart patrol craft". Sewart Seacraft is also a red link.
  • the following terms are overlinked: United States, Gulf of Fonseca,
    • fixed
  • in the See also section, suggest making a stub for the General offensive of 1982 redlink or removing it per MOS:SEEALSO
    • Removed until I write it
  • General Offensive of 1982 --> General offensive of 1982 (for consistency of capitalisation)?
    • fixed, article was initially "Final Offensive of 1981" which is why it was inconsistent
  • same as above, Final Offensive of 1989 --> Final offensive of 1989?
    • fixed
  • suggest adding an OCLC for the Buckalew work: [1]
    • added
  • same as above for the Skipper work: [2]
    • added
  • "the Salvadoran government organized the national army's configuration and deployment structure in a manner to prepare and plan for counter-insurgent operations" --> "the Salvadoran government structured the army to plan and prepare for counter-insurgent operations"
    • changed
  • "By the time of the beginning of the offensive" --> "By the beginning of the offensive"?
    • changed
  • "The Salvadoran Air Force consisted of eight Dassault Ouragan and six": suggest splitting or flipping this sentence as it is a bit complex at the moment
    • Spilt between the planes used in the Football War and the ones which weren't
  • "By the end of the day, the FMLN captured" --> "By the end of the day, the FMLN had captured"?
    • changed, adding had would be correct
  • "conceded that the offensive did not spark" --> "conceded that the offensive had not sparked"
    • changed
  • "was machine gunned by guerrillas" --> suggest avoiding using a noun to create a verb --> "was was killed by guerrillas with machine guns"
    • fixed
  • "The army also discovered that the pilot of the Piper PA-23 was also a pilot for LANICA" --> " The army also discovered that the pilot of the Piper PA-23 was working for LANICA"
    • fixed
  • "The engagement killed three army soldiers and they learned that the pilots were sent": suggest clarifying who "they" is here
    • clarified to "the army"
  • "series of urban attacks on San Salvador" --> "series of attacks on urban San Salvador" or "series of attacks on the urban areas in San Salvador"?
    • changed to "series of attacks on the urban areas in San Salvador"
  • "The government totaled 122 deaths" --> "Government losses totaled 122 deaths..."?
    • Changed to "Government casualties totaled..."
  • "The FMLN would continue carrying out raids and attacks against government targets throughout the duration of the civil war" --> "The FMLN continued carrying out raids and attacks against government targets for the remainder of the civil war"?
    • fixed. @AustralianRupert: My access to Wikipedia will be questionable at best from 26 June – 5 July, so If i can't respond during that time, I will respond after 5 July. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 17:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, sorry for the delayed return. Had a bit going on with work. I have taken another look at the article now. Your changes in response to the queries above look quite good to me. I have a few follow up queries, though, sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "The objective of the January 1981 offensive was to initiate a popular revolution to overthrow the Revolutionary Government Junta, which had been ruling the country since the 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, by 20 January 1981, the date Ronald Reagan would have been inaugurated as President of the United States." This is a very complex sentence. I would suggest maybe splitting it after "1979 Salvadoran coup d'état"
  • "the guerrillas began to be supplied with modern weaponry from Nicaragua" --> "the guerrillas began to receive modern weaponry from Nicaragua"?
    • Changed.
  • "On 15 January, military intelligence alleged that the FMLN would attack San Salvador's power grid that night, but no such attack occurred": did MI believe the attack would take place on 15 January, or was that the day that they came up with the assessment?
    • Both. I clarified that they made the assessment at noon and that the attack would take place at night.
  • "numbered around 13,000 to 20,000 soldiers" --> "numbered between 13,000 to 20,000 soldiers"?
    • Changed.
  • "Weapons supplied by third countries" --> "Weapons supplied by third parties" or "Weapons supplied by other countries"?
    • Changed to "Weapons supplied by third parties".
  • "Around 20,000 Salvadorans went on strike from twenty-six factories" --> "Around 20,000 Salvadorans from twenty-six factories went on strike"?
    • Changed.
  • "Reinforcement arrived to support" --> "Reinforcements arrived to support"
    • Fixed.
  • "Mena Sandoval ended his mutiny and returned to the 2nd Infantry Brigade, revealing that the FMLN was expecting the arrival of 800 soldiers from Nicaragua": did he face any punishment for his earlier mutiny and murder of Valdés?
    • It doesn't seem like it. No punishment was mentioned in my sources and he even became a deputy of the Legislative Assembly in 1994, so, I don't think so.
  • "presented evidence that one hundred FMLN fighters arrived to La Unión on boats from Nicaragua, of which fifty-three were killed in battle" --> "presented evidence that one hundred FMLN fighters had arrived at La Unión on boats from Nicaragua, of which fifty-three had been killed in battle"?
    • Changed.
  • "The engagement killed three army soldiers and the army learned that the pilots were sent to" --> "The engagement resulted in the deaths of three soldiers and the army learned that the pilots had been sent to..."
    • Changed.
  • "They believed that their actions against" --> "They had believed that their actions against"
    • Fixed.
  • "would mutiny like what occurred in Nicaragua" --> "would mutiny like what had occurred in Nicaragua"
    • Fixed.
  • in the Further reading section, suggest adding an OCLC number for the Haggerty work. It can be sourced here: [3]
    • Added.
  • for the External link, suggest adding the work and publisher to the entry
    • Added. "The "Final Offensive"" is the name of the work.
  • in the infobox, the result is listed as a strategic government victory but a tactical guerilla victory -- to an extent this seems a little counter-intuative so needs some clarification, I believe. In this regard, is this result spelt out clearly in the Aftermath? I'm not sure it is clear, but I have just come off a 24 hour shift so may have missed something (sorry) -- can you please check?
    • Pretty much, it's a strategic government victory in the regard that the government still existed after the offensive and didn't completely collapse, which was the objective of the FMLN, to overthrow the junta. This is stated in the first paragraph of the aftermath section. It's a tactical FMLN victory in the regard that they did capture 82 towns and villages (I moved that from second phase to aftermath) and that the FMLN didn't get completely evaporated by the government during the second phase of the final offensive. This is stated in the second paragraph of the aftermath section. And no worries about the delay, I myself have been exhausted after coming back from El Salvador on 5 July and I've been dealing with a cold because of the rain that drenched me on my last day there. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 03:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. For FAC, I think you will need to use the term "tactical" and "strategic" victory in the aftermath to make it clear it is the way it is described in a reliable source rather than your assessment of the outcome. Nevertheless, I have added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HF[edit]

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the first six months of 1980, guerrillas committed 3,140 acts of violence, including arson, assassination, and destruction of infrastructure." - This is surely an estimate, right? Presumably, there's not gonna be a known quantity of guerilla violence. Might be worth including the source of the estimate, as different people and sources likely have different definitions of guerilla acts of violence
    • Bosch cites most of his information from retired USMC Colonel Ronald J. Cruz, so I'll cite him as the source of the estimate. In the acknowledgements section, Bosch states that Cruz gathered the information regarding the final offensive.
  • Worth noting why the various juntas were dissolved?
    • Added information.
  • Link the Green Cross
    • Linked, but it is a red link since the source states that it is a Salvadoran Green Cross, which has no page.
  • "During the attack, Lieutenant Ricardo Guillén Palma was killed by guerrillas with machine guns" - I feel like, given the overall number of casualties in this offensive, that an explanation as to the significance of this particular incident is needed
    • Added that he was one of the first government/military officials to be killed at night while driving, which kinda started the precedent of "don't drive at night in El Salvador"
  • Sources look reliable, and the licensing for the sole image looks fine

Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

Interesting topic. A few comments from me:

Lead
  • suggest "The final offensive of 1981 (Spanish: ofensiva final de 1981), also known as the general offensive of 1981 (Spanish: ofensiva general de 1981), was the unsuccessful first military offensive conducted by the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) during the Salvadoran Civil War."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "The objective of the offensive was to initiate a popular revolution to overthrow the Revolutionary Government Junta, which had been ruling the country since the 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état. It was hoped that the overthrow would be achieved by 20 January 1981, the date Ronald Reagan was to be inaugurated as President of the United States."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "During the first phase of the offensive from 10 to 17 January, the FMLN carried out attacks across northern and western El Salvador, incited a general strike across the nation and a military mutiny in the second largest city, Santa Ana, and secured several important cities and villages."
    • I'm hesitant to change that since the Wikipedia pages of the populations Santa Ana and Soyapango are inconsistent with the largest cities template, and the websites of the cities don't mention their populations. I also don't know if Santa Ana was the second-largest city at the time of the offensive, since Soyapango.
Then I suggest "During the first phase of the offensive from 10 to 17 January, the FMLN carried out attacks across northern and western El Salvador, incited a general strike across the nation and a military mutiny in Santa Ana, and secured several important cities and villages." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion taken. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 05:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a source right now that did verify that Santa Ana was the second-largest city at the time so I added your original suggestion. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 06:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "During the second phase from 18 to 26 January, the FMLN began what they termed a "temporary tactical retreat", as government forces began to recapture previously lost territory. The offensive ended in a military defeat for the FMLN but it solidified the group as an effective fighting force."
    • Suggestion taken.
Infobox
  • did the FMLN really hold 82 cities and villages at the time the offensive ended? Given they were retreating it seems improbable.
    • I went through the source again, and the 82 cities and villages were captured by the end of the first phase, so I'll move that mention to the end of that section and remove it from the infobox. I can't find how many they held on to after the civil war, but all I know is they were mostly in Morazán and Chalatenango.
  • the results need to be supported in the body by citations to reliable sources that state what type of victory was achieved by each side
    • The only things I could find are the military saying it was "extremely proud" with how it preformed and the FMLN saying that the offensive didn't spark the uprising they wanted.
Yes, I think either "Government victory" or "Rebel defeat" is fine, results need to be cited to reliable sources, and we tend to avoid "strategic this, but tactical that". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guatemala's "support" for the junta isn't really supported in the body. Not allowing neighboring rebels to enter your country is hardly taking sides, it is just sensible.
    • Fair, I'll remove it.
  • The addition of the USSR as "supporting" the rebels also isn't really supported by the body. Cuba and Nicaragua both received arms from the USSR, them then passing the same weapons on to the rebels is hardly Soviet support.
    • Fair, I'll remove it.
  • the infobox says 195 wounded, but the body says injured.
    • They are meant to be the same, but I'll change injured to wounded since it is the more correct term to use in this context. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 18:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • suggesting Revolutionary Government Junta (Spanish: Junta Revolucionaria de Gobierno, JRG)
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "ending 48 years of exclusively military dictatorship"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "one of the biggest threats to the JRG" and use JRG thereafter
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest replacing "The government noted that indicators such as guerrilla attacks in small numbers, guerrillas bearing nothing heavier than semiautomatic weapons, and attacking guerrillas refusing to hold on to captured territory implied that leftist groups in the country were carrying out "war of the flea" strategies and attacks" with "the government detected signs of a classic guerilla insurgency developing, with small attacks by leftist rebels using only light arms who did not hold the territory they captured."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • who is/was Colonel Ronald J. Cruz? ie place his claim in context, was he American or Venezuelan, what role did he have?
    • He was the individual where Bosch got much of his information from. "I am indebted to Col. Ron Cruz, USMC, retired, who, as naval attaché, participated with me in the gathering of information on the Salvadoran insurgency war when we both served together in El Salvador." (Bosch 1999, vii) Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 04:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, then I suggest "According to United States Marine Corps Colonel Ronald J. Cruz – a former naval attaché to El Salvador – in the first six months..." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbat
  • suggest "In the 1970s, with the rise of left-wing militant groups in El Salvador and after the very brief Football War against Honduras in 1969, the Salvadoran government structured the army to plan and prepare for counter-insurgency operations. By the beginning of the offensive, the army was already on a counter-insurgency footing."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest summarising the orbat info as follows: "At the beginning of the offensive, the Salvadoran Army comprised three infantry brigades, seven frontier detachments, an artillery brigade and a cavalry regiment, along with several training centers. They were located as follows:" (then insert your list of units and locations)
    • Thank you, suggestion taken.
  • suggest "The Salvadoran Air Force was equipped with eight Dassault Ouragan jet fighter-bombers and six Fouga CM.170 Magister jet close air support/trainer aircraft purchased from Israel, which were originally used during the Football War against Honduras. It also had twelve French SOCATA Rallye trainers, three Israeli IAI Arava 201 STOL light utility transports, and two Douglas DC-6 and three Douglas C-47 Skytrain transports. The air force also possessed five Aérospatiale Alouette III and five Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama helicopters. Six Bell UH-1H helicopters were also leased from the United States. The Salvadoran Navy only possessed ten patrol boats, one Sewart patrol craft, and two harbor patrol craft, only one of which was fully operational. In total, the armed forces numbered between 13,000 to 20,000 personnel." Was it really a US Swift boat? Were any of the helicopters armed?
    • Suggestion taken. I couldn't find why i linked it to the patrol craft fast so that's been taken out. I know from footage of the war that the UH-1Hs were armed (although from after the offensive), but Bosch does not mention if any of the helicopters were armed.
  • suggest "Exact deployments of the FMLN are unknown, but the guerrillas numbered between 2,500 to 5,000 soldiers." A ratio of four to one in COIN is not at all decisive, and many of the government troops would have been in training centers or in support roles, so I suggest dropping the "outnumbered" bit.
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "rocket launcher" is a bit vague, as these are RPG-2 copies, I would use "Type 56 rocket-propelled grenade launchers"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • same with grenades, suggest "hand grenades"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive
  • suggest "On 9 January 1981, Duarte announced that the Salvadoran Armed Forces believed that guerrilla forces would begin an anticipated nationwide offensive and also stated that the military was ready to combat the offensive, which was expected to begin that day."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • drop "local time" and "on 10 January 1981", unneeded
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Division in Santa Ana"?
    • Yes, added.
  • where was the HQ of the Treasury Police?
    • San Salvador, added.
  • is there a breakdown of the nationalities of the aircraft destroyed in the Battle of Ilopango Airport? This seems to have been a major success, and would have severely limited the close air support and tactical transport capabilities of the armed forces, assuming they were all airworthy and trained crews were available. Does any source make this point?
    • They were all Salvadoran. No idea how the USAF mention got in there, so it's been removed.
  • why has [¡Revolución o muerte, Venceremos!] been added to the translation of the broadcast?
    • I genuinely don't remember. Probably because it was a common saying and is still used by the FMLN if i recall correctly. I removed it.
  • "54 soldiers continued the mutiny and held the city under the banner of the FMLN" 54 soldiers against a brigade? Seems improbable.
    • Correction. The soldiers did continue the mutiny but they fled the city with Mena Sandoval, while the rest of the brigade returned to the barracks. I clarified that in the sentence.
  • suggest "after its main road connection to San Salvador was severed by the FMLN"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • what vehicles did the Cavalry Regiment operate?
    • Unspecified.
  • suggest "to defend the capital from a guerrilla assault" as the overall thing was an offensive
    • Suggestion taken.
  • Chinese rocket launchers→rocket-propelled grenades
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "was machinegunned and killed by guerrillas"
    • An early suggestion by AustralianRupert was ("was machine gunned by guerrillas" --> suggest avoiding using a noun to create a verb --> "was was killed by guerrillas with machine guns") so I'll keep it how it is.
  • 85%→85 percent per MOS:PERCENT
    • Thank you.
  • "which came under nighttime attacks from the FMLN"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • drop the link to Guatemala (country), this is called an MOS:EASTEREGG link, and is discouraged. Generally, countries shouldn't need to be linked, and I wouldn't link in these circumstances anyway
    • Ok.
  • the civil war link is also eastereggy, I'd link "its own civil war"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • say what the FDR was
    • Added.
  • suggest "were similar to those wfielded by"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "and the air force airlifted reinforcements and supplies to several isolated pockets in northern El Salvador and retrieved wounded from them."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "Salvadoran Navy by sending reports"
    • Suggestion taken. Should have been that in the first place.
  • suggest "the rape and murder of four American missionaries by members of the National Guard"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "military intelligence allegedwarned"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • where is the Golden Bridge?
    • "55 miles east of the capital" is all a NYT article about its destruction in November 1981 says about its location.
  • suggest "they were the only other bridges"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • is there any breakdown between cities and villages captured? Saying "cities" makes is seem more significant than it probably was, the vast majority are likely to have been villages or small towns, surely? Esp given the small number of insurgents.
    • I tried very hard one day to try to find a list of what exactly the FMLN captured, but I couldn't find anything.
      • OK, but does Crandall actually use the word "cities"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, cities and villages. No specifics are mentioned, however.
  • "renamed the "final offensive" as the "general offensive""
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "were engulfed in the fighting of the offensive"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "the FMLN used hit-and-run tactics, including burning buses in cities and stopping buses in the countryside and forcing passengers to join their ranks"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "Piper PA-23 light aircraft
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "sent infantry troops by a helicopter to capture the aircraft, supported by a Magister aircraft."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "which had crashed while being used"

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
  • suggest "would mutiny as had happened in Nicaragua two years earlier"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "the FMLN theorized that the thousands of killings committed by the Armed Forces and various death squads over the previous year had deprived the FMLN of allies that would have helped launch a popular revolution."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "oligarch supporter" is introduced without explanation, what oligarchy are we talking about here?
    • Oh boy. The "oligarchy" is one of the thing of Salvadoran history I have no information on at all, and in like every source I see "oligarchy" thrown in and around. The only oligarchy I have any information on is the Fourteen Families of 1871–1921. Information on the oligarchy in the dictatorship? No idea.
  • "were another reason for the uprising's failure" - programs not singular
    • Thank you.
  • "The government arrested several politicians that were suspected of being involved in the offensive throughout 1981" actual involvement, or being sympathetic towards it or supporting it?
    • Actual involvement.
  • I think the García quote is WP:UNDUE, as it is essentially government propaganda. It would be better to use a summary or conclusion by an academic who has studied the offensive or civil war.
    • Removed and summarized.
  • "struck by rockets" same query as before. Are we talking about RPGs or artillery rockets using indirect fire?
  • "The FMLN subsequently claimed that the offensive was a military defeat but political victory..." Is there any independent view available in the reliable sources regarding this conclusion?
    • Not that I could find.
  • I think you are using AmEng, in which case I understand "combating" is the preferred spelling?
    • Fixed. There are some words that I unconsciously use the British form because I'm used to using it, for some reason. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 04:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, formatting etc
  • you've mixed sfn with ref tags, which isn't ideal but is ok as long as you treat different types of sources differently ie books one way, web cites another.
    • Ok. All the books use SFN while the web sources use their own ref.
  • a couple of formatting issues with citations. Firstly, Betancur et al. If you want the short citations to link to the full citation, then you need to change the short citation to {{sfn|Betancur|Figueredo Planchart|Buergenthal|1993|p=X}}. Similarly, you probably should acknowledge the co-authors of Buckalew in the short citation, which will then link to the full citation, by changing the short citation to {{sfn|Buckalew|Knowles|Waite|James|Laprevote|1998|p=X}} and the full citation from |author=Buckalew, James O., Knowles, Robert B., Waite, Laura, James, Maurice, Laprevote, Jim to |last1=Buckalew|first1=James O.|last2=Knowles|first2=Robert B.|last3=Waite|first3=Laura|last4=James|first4=Maurice|last5=Laprevote|first5=Jim
    • Thank you. I couldn't figure out how to get the sfn for Betancur et al to work.
  • you could add |ref=none to the Further reading full citations to stop the auto anchor error generates by the scripts many editors use (optional)
    • Added
  • add something to the link explaining what "Unfinished Sentences" is
    • Added
  • you could add |name-list-style=amp to insert an ampersand between the last two names of the multiple author sources
Overall
  • are there any secondary reliable studies that examine the progress and outcomes of this offensive that could be added? In particular, Bosch's conclusions about its consequences for both the government and the rebels?
    • I couldn't find any. I remember trying to find something like this before but found nothing.
  • That's me done. Quite a bit there, but great effort on this so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Pizzaking13, it's been a while when PM has put their comments here. Could you address them or give us a little update? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for the delay. I've been busy with moving into the college this past month. I'll to this this week. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 00:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries Pizzaking13, great effort on this pretty obscure conflict. I have made a couple of addition suggestions (look for my signatures above). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Peacemaker67. Should be caught up with these suggestions. This conflict being obscure is what makes it hard for me to find specific details. I only found out about this conflict through my parents about a month before I started this page. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 16:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref errors[edit]

  • Found by Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
  • (unlinked) Betancur, Figueredo Planchart, and Buergenthal 1993, p. 27
    • Fixed.
  • Harv error: link from CITEREFBuckalew1998 doesn't point to any citation.
    • Fixed.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBetancurFigueredo_PlanchartBuergenthal1993.
    • Fixed.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuckalew,_James_O.,_Knowles,_Robert_B.,_Waite,_Laura,_James,_Maurice,_Laprevote,_Jim1998.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
    • Harv error: link from CITEREFBuckalew1998 doesn't point to any citation.
      • Fixed.
    • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuckalew,_James_O.,_Knowles,_Robert_B.,_Waite,_Laura,_James,_Maurice,_Laprevote,_Jim1998. [CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list]
      • Fixed.
    • You can either format the citation and the sfn correctly (which I suggest), or you can fudge by adding ref=CITEREFBuckalew1998 to the citation. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Random, CPA-5, and Peacemaker67: There we go. Apologies for the delay. I've finally had the time and effort to get back to this. Replies should be quicker now. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 05:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi.Random, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random seems to have retired, so I will pick up where they left off.

Source review - pass[edit]

Note the comments above on formatting, all now satisfactorily resolved.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What is there from here on? Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 17:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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/Final_Offensive_of_1981&oldid=1049188014"