Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Igloo White/Archive 2

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 page.

Operation Igloo White[edit]

Previous nomination

Finally finished this article. Hope past criticisms have been addressed. RM Gillespie 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose. I think it is almost there but not yet.

1) The introduction is lenghty and should preferably be focussed.

2) Some of the supporting pictures are really low quality book or newspaper scans (including the lead figure).

3) Some sections, including the conclusions are riddled with jargon and abbreviations. Although some helpful between bracket explanations have been given; and many were explained. adding so many highly cryptical abbreviations, even if explained asks a lot of the readers and should be sparingly if at all be used - consider this sentence from the conclusion: The stated goal of the American aerial interdiction campaigns was to force the DRV to pay too high a price in blood to make the continued support of its goals in the RVN tenable.[50] In this effort, the U.S. failed. Not only were the PAVN/NLF.

4) Notes (including inline references) and References are largely overlapping sections and should be merged.

IMHO none of these is in itself a major problem, but taken togehter I see some room for improvement before A-class. Arnoutf 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the intro should briefly summarize the entire article. Am I wrong in this assumption? As to the illustrations, there are very few sources in the public domain that pertain to this topic. RM Gillespie 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, from WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article. Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my carefull wording; I do not say it is definitely too lengthy; only that a slightly shorter intro may help readers. The second line, for example may also read: The operation used state-of-the art technology in an effort to automate intelligence collection. But take that remark more as an advice than as a definite do. Arnoutf 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the pictures; of course I understand there is limited material available, however the scans used are of low quality; and should preferably be replace with better (i.e. a better version of the same picture). E.g. the lead picture shows something of a rainbow colour scattering that maybe removed with some 'polishing' of the picture; or other scan-options. The picture is also slightly skewed; which is easily corrected, and some remaining caption is visible, which should be removed by cropping the scanned image. These issues go for some of the other images as well. Arnoutf 14:38, 17 February 2007 (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 page.