Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Rolling Thunder

Operation Rolling Thunder

Rounding out work on this article and would appreciate any critical input. RM Gillespie 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin

A couple very minor editorial notes before actually reading the article:

The plural for "p" (as in pages) is "pp", and not, as far as I know, "pps". The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style recommends not using "p" or "pp" at all, since it's understood that the numbers refer to pages, but that choice is up to you.
Page ranges in your notes and date ranges in your book titles should be en dashes rather than hypens, but no one will ever care except me. ;-)
Your list of notes is long enough that they probably should be made smaller, using the standard trick.

That's it for now from the overly nitpicky department. —Kevin 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I notice that there are several assertions within the notes, such as "Contrary to opinion, the U.S. public still supported the American effort..." or "The most accurate description of the incidents is...." These sorts of things have to be cited as well, as you have done with some other notes. —Kevin 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Looks quite good; a few points to work on, though:

The lead should be longer; about 2–4 paragraphs for an article of this size is appropriate.
Everything cited in the notes should appear in the full list of sources. This will also allow you to remove the bibliographical information from the notes in favor of short-form citation throughout.
The final paragraph of the article could use some editing for tone. Judgemental wording ("enviable", "tragic", etc.) is probably best avoided.

Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy J. Ray

I went in and wiki-fied dates. While there, I re-did some links to specific aircraft to keep a consistent style throughout, and while I was at it I changed all the "pps." to "pp.". Rjray 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PocklingtonDan

I think I read somewhere that articles entitled "Operation X" are frowned upon because they inherently cover only one side of the conflict. Is there an alternative non-combatant-specific term that oculd be used instead here?
List of cites is excellent, so you are to be commended on that
Acronyms are overused. I know it is handy to use a phrase once, assign it an acronym, and thereafter use the acronym, but I feel you have overused this. Quite apart from it being good to refer to a thing using a variety of terms for reader interest, if you forget what an acronym means, you have to scroll up to find out. I would especially avoid using acronyms in section headers, and I would introduce each term using its full name at least once per section in case someone clicks down fromt he TOC without having read the sections above it, especially since many are clearly USMIL acronyms I for one am not familiar with
I would try and balance the account with more Vietnamese sources, since almost all (maybe absolutely all?) your sources are western.

Generally, though, a very impressive article - PocklingtonDan 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the title goes, I suspect there isn't a better one, since this isn't really a typical battle at some particular location, but rather a particular sub-type/phase of the broader bombing campaign against North Vietnam. I've never seen this particular effort given a name other than Rolling Thunder, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 10:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]