Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Deny Flight

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.

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Deny Flight

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Deny Flight/archive1

This article recently failed an FAC (here), mainly because of a lack of paarticipation and one user's concern about style issues. That said, I don't think anything in the FAC would disqualify the article at all from A-Class. I've also initiated a GAC for it, so if you stop by to review for A-class feel free to also review for GA. Thanks Cool3 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References comments - (this version)
  • Disambigs/links checked.
  • Sources look good.
  • References:
    • For the shortened article refs, you have just the author for some and just the article name for others. Pick one please! (Refs #2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 32, 40, 44, 45, 53; pick one format.)
• Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I put the name of the author when there was an author. When there was no author listed, or the same author had written multiple cited works, I went with the name of the article. In your opinion, should I just always go with article name? Cool3 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The cites should have both the author and title of the work. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In shortened' refs? Cool3 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe add the date to differentiate. The year is used for book footnotes (examples at WP:CITE footnotes). Or put the one time use references all inline. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (@ Cool3) - see WP:CITESHORT for what I mean by "shortened footnotes". —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)}

  Alright then, I've converted to author and date as needed. Some of the article have no (named) author, so those are still left as article title, as I see no other way to handle them. Cool3 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Either that or "Jane's (date)" or "BBC (date)" is fine. Whatever you think would look better. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)}

  If no one objects, I think I'll just use the title rather than the publisher as it makes it easier to find the corresponding article in the references section. Cool3 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote. According to the FAC, A4 might be an issue, but WP:A? points out that minor style problems should be expected in A-class articles. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought: MILHIST has its own A-class criteria that is more comprehensive then 1.0; see WP:MH/A and WP:MH/A?. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are the criteria I used, I just linked to the wrong page. Also, I have supported this article on the FAC nomination, so I'm fairly sure it meets any A criteria. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies; I was not aware that you knew of them. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No major prose issues, but please move some images left for balance, and I would recommend adding some more images in the Close air support and air strikes section, there is a long part there with no images and only one or two section headers to break up the text wall. – Joe N 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review. I've moved a few images left to balance it out as you suggested. As for adding more images, I've been on the lookout for more to add, but I've been unable to find any that are accurate and would convey much encyclopedic value. I could add more image of aircraft in the operation in general, but I haven't had any success finding pictures of the actual events described. If anyone has any ideas, be sure to let me know (I've been through defenseimagery.mil pretty extensively). Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Second review - (this version)
  • Beale, Michael (1997). Bombs over Bosnia: The Role of Airpower in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Air University Press.
    • ISBN?

      ISBN added

  • "Foster, Edward (1995). NATO's Military in the Age of Crisis Management. Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. ISBN 0-85516-0999 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-3."
    • ISBN's are 10 or 13 numbers long, not 11.

      There was a typo, one of the nines was extraneous and has been removed.

  • Holbrooke, Richard (1999). To End a War. Modern Library.
    • ISBN?

      ISBN added

  • Rohde, David (1997). A Safe Area, Srebrenica: Europe's Worst Massacre Since the Second World War. Pocket Books.
    • ISBN?

      ISBN added

      • Um, double check this? :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Locations for any of these? (OCLC's would be nice, but aren't required).

    OCLC's?

    • For publishing locations and OCLC's, type worldcat.org/isbn/##########, replacing the #'s with the ISBN of the book. Then, with the info that is there, add |location=city and |oclc=number to {{cite book}}. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compare the following:
    • Safire, William (November 23, 1995). "Essay: Biting Bosnia's Bullet". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 February 2009.
    • "Operation Deny Flight". AFSOUTH Fact Sheets. NATO Regional Headquarters Allied Forces Southern Europe. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
      • The retrieval dates are not consistent. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to a consistent style. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies for my tone above; rereading what I said, it sounded like I was mad! :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. OCLCs and locations added. Missing ISBNs fixed. Cool3 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you; it looks great! Support. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:23, 14 April 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.