Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 23 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 promoted by Karanacs 18:14, 13 October 2009 [1].

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident[edit]

Nominator(s): Ryan4314 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article has been C/E'd by a number of different editors since it's construction in my sandbox and has recently just passed a MiliHist A-class review. Due to the nature of my work my chances to reply to comments may be sporadic (at the latest 7 days!) I humbly ask for your patience please. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review:
  • http://hmscardiff.co.uk/rop.aspx is the website run by the former crew of HMS Cardiff and was accepted at Cardiff's FAC
  • Re: http://www.british-towns.net/ After some investigation I concur that this does not meet the FAC reliability criteria. It does however state the actual truth: that there is definitely a cross on Pleasant Peak [3] (there's actually two crosses, one by the number, the other at the top). In light of this fact being true and it being supported by the Ministry of Defence ref, would it just be best to remove this controversial source all together?
  • Yes, if it is supported by another ref, just remove the non-reliable one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I removed the suspect ref. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source problem: fixed
  • Fixed: the one instance of "www.mod.uk" has been changed to "Ministry of Defence". Ryan4314 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that this very interesting, well written and well illustrated article meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs independent copy-edit. Support Much better; well done, Ryan. Here are random issues at the top.

  • I may be wrong, but "killing all on-board" doesn't seem to need the hyphen.
  • "... [the] transmitter was turned off due to it causing interference with the army's land based Rapier anti-aircraft missile system." Ouch. See noun plus -ing; why not "because it caused"? And "land-based", please.
  • "Until that time"—you mean at the inquiry? If so, "until the inquiry".
  • "comprising of"? Remove one word.
  • "approximately": see Default approximation.
  • "The conflict ended in June with the surrender of the Argentine forces, with battles being fought on land, sea and in the air, costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides." Here's another awkward with plus noun plus -ing (they're not all, but this is). And worse, was it the Arg. surrender that involved the battles, or were the battles the cause of the surrender? Being, costing. So "... forces after land, sea and air battles that had cost the ..."? Use "some 900", perhaps.
  • "milkrunswere"—if the typo is in the original, you're allowed to correct it "silently". See Allowable typographical changes.
  • Start of next para, a comma splice. See [[this at MoS, where you'll find advice also on quotations within quotations. Tony (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Most of the images are tiny. See Size. The "Memorial section could be tacked on to the end of the previous section, which would avoid the downwards drift of the image (which should be larger anyway—looks like the close-up of a mineralogical specimen: double size? Tony (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and do you think you could mention the deaths of the four soldiers before the loss of the helicopter in the infobox???
  • I've interpolated my rejoinders; otherwise it's really hard to keep track of what refers to what. Tony (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, thanks for reviewing the article. I'm not at my home computer at the moment, so I might not be able to make the grammatical changes you suggested until Monday. In my defence, a lot of the changes you've suggested were how I originally wrote the artice and have since been changed by other editors "helping". Ryan4314 (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Done. Out of curiosity, is this sentence any better: [the] transmitter was turned off due to it causing interference with their land based anti-aircraft missile system, Rapier.
  • "'Fraid not! "its causing" is fine grammatically, if you can cope with the old-fashionedness of it. Otherwise, the one I suggested. I'm interested to know whether you find the "it causing" clunky ... (I want to know whether my instincts are shared by writers more broadly when it comes to a head.) Tony (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem is: writing these articles is a bit like a word exercise. I was brought up in school to avoid duplicating words, so an article is made a sentence at a time and therefore doesn't flow well. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Done. But per your guide, should I leave the number as "28,000 or change it to "twenty eight thousand" or something?
  • I think either, or even "28 thousand"; personally, I'd go for the numeral-only version, but it's up to you. Needs to be consistent within the article, if there are other such instances. Tony (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the numerical version as well. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's gonna take me a little more time, fixed "some 900" though.
  • Er that was my mistake, made a couple of edits ago, lol well spotted.
  • I've changed it, what do you think now? I'm worried there are too many "to"'s.
  • Agreed, The memorial section was split out by someone else. I'll change the sizes later as well. Could you do me a favour and consider how many columns I should have for the Notes ection. Also where can I put the Commons link?
  • Err, not my thing; one or two columns? Unsure. Tony (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides" is ambiguous; does it refer to 450 from each side, 900 from each, or 1 from the UK and 899 from Argentina? Some clarification is needed. Seegoon (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fix this one when I action Tony's 6th point, thankyou for commenting. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The article's just had an independent copyedit, who tried to tackle your point[4], what do you think now? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support I've been through and copyedited - you'll need to check I haven't altered the sense of anything, and if Tony doesn't like it now you can blame me :) I changed the lead fairly drastically, so please feel free to revert back anything you don't like! I left the blue-on-blue wikilink in that quotation for now, as I think you made a case for it :) I've also increased the image sizes a little. Only one thing preventing my support: File:HMS Cardiff Sea Dart Launcher.JPG could do with straightening up or cropping or something. EyeSerenetalk 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have indeed been bold in your copyedit lol. The real question is: Does Tony approve???
  • I was a bit shocked by the "The board of inquiry's findings led to allegations of a cover-up" though. Only Bicheno and Dalyell have hinted at it and we're kind of declaring it outright, in the lead!
  • Re: the launcher pic, here's the original, I spun it to align it, which do you prefer? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, apologies for that. It's the difference between copyediting and copytasting :)
  • Re "cover-up", I agree it's only mentioned in the Bicheno quote, so maybe I've over-egged it. I've toned that sentence down. Better?
  • Re the image, I understand why you've rotated it to get the vertices vertical, but I think cropping it in that configuration will cut off too much of the launcher. Maybe there's a happy medium, where it can be rotated slightly then cropped? I may have a play with it later if I've got the time. EyeSerenetalk 11:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, like I said I appreciate any help I can get
  • Better
  • Yea if you look at the image history you can see I also tried morphing it as well, but I think it squashed the image too much, not very encyclopaedic. I also wonder if the BOLD font in the lead should encapsulate the words "friendly fire". Ryan4314 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended per your last (though from WP:MOSBOLD, I wonder if losing the bolded text altogether might be appropriate in this case). I haven't had a chance to try altering the image yet; I think the prior version may be better, though it is slightly wonky. Whatever, I've decided to support regardless, as I feel the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, informative, and complies with enough of our house style guide to warrant FA status :) EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, you've read my mind, that bold text does look a bit ugly, I think we should chop it all together as well, are we allowed to? Thankyou very much for your support. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why not (I've done it anyway). "If the title of the article is a non-trivial description, it is not bold in the text (and need not appear verbatim at all)" seems to be the relevant part of WP:MOSBOLD. EyeSerenetalk 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but is ok if you move your "support" !vote up to the top of this post like Tony did, I'm just so paranoid the closing admin will miss it lol. Sorry to be panicky, just really want this article to succeed. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) EyeSerenetalk 08:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Argentine Hercules.jpg - Why do you believe this is covered by Argentinian law and not, for example, British law? It looks like it could be an official British photo taken by an Argentinian, but I'm not sure what law applied at the time it was taken - Argentinian or British.

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking the the time to review the article.

  • Done
  • He was the there mate, he took em. These same images were scrutinized at HMS Cardiff's FAC too. Although can I just remind you, only one of those images was taken in actual "war time" as per the image descriptions.
  • This link should contain the data you need. The photo was taken just after the islands came under Argentine occupation by official Argentine photographers. Whilst under occupation the Argentines enacted martial law, installed a governor and even changed place names. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but how do we know it was published at that time and not, say, later by the British Ministry of Defence in Britain? Note that the photo appears to be a British photo. If you would like, I can bring in some expert advice on this one. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some expert advice would be much appreciated. At this time I can't confirm, I'll research a little deeper. I'm sure it would've been published, at the time, by the Argentines, as this Hercules was the plane that deported the British marines on the same day as the invasion.[5] The mass amount of PR photos taken on that day and then subsequently published by the Argentines has been documented by Falklands war historians such as Freedman, Hastings and Brooks. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is looking like at this time, we simply don't have enough information about the photo. Perhaps another photo could be found? Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unstruck image listed above cannot remain in the article with the current information listed on the image description page. I would suggest removing it and finding another photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of this FAC I have simply removed the image. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I contributed the memorial image, glad that it is being used. The references seem to be mainly web based, is this incident recorded in the many books that have been written on the war? Is there scope for a 'Further reading' section? I believe that the commons link is treated as an external link so we should have an 'External links' header above it. Are there any relevant external links that have not been used as references that could be added? Having just steered an article successfully through FAC I was amazed at the apparently obvious things that I had missed. Best regards. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not in regards to the "further reading" section. The incident isn't explored in Falklands War books as the details weren't published until last year. I don't think there are any external links that I haven't used as references either, which leads to the style question, do we want an "External links" section with just the commons box in it? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I checked Template:Commons, it normally goes in the EL section, if there is not one then it goes at the top of the last section (I learned something!), I moved it to the top of 'Notes' and added the aviation list navbox that goes in all av project articles while I was there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your contributions, is there anything else outstanding? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts... I bumped the Commonscat box upto the above section per WP:IAR, as it's placement in the "notes" section creates a huge column of white space. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A really nice article to which I have no comments for improvement. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (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/1982_British_Army_Gazelle_friendly_fire_incident/archive1&oldid=1078785146"