Talk:IAVA

Dab CU

   The accompanying Dab is too perfect an example to pass up the opportunity to comment. It has exactly two entries, and is for an "equal" Dab'n: not too big, not too small. And each looks like the lead sent of an article, i.e. resembles a dict-def.
   MOS:DABENTRY is quite clear:

The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.

In fact:

In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.

In this case, we had

Information Assurance Vulnerability Alert, an announcement of a computer application software or operating system vulnerability by the US DoD Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations.

   An "Alert" is a form of "announcement", and tho it could also mean the activities initiated by the announcement (or perhaps an organization specializing in being alert), such distinctions are unlikely to be of help to the reader in recognizing which article they desire -- unless nothing (in the wording that the reader found "IAVA" surrounded by) provided any insight that a veteran-oriented association could not be intended.

   "[C]omputer application software or operating system". Perhaps because the editor doubted that "Information Assurance" failed to suggest computer security?

   Is "Vulnerability" likely to be construed as, say, a trademark distinct from "vulnerability"?

   "US DoD Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations" would provide pinpoint focus, especially if the user had seen some form of that name mentioned adjacent to "IAVA". But the entry's article's title -- precisely what the four letters stand for -- suffices to eliminate meaningful doubt.

And

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a US group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   The construction "...s of America" already states very effectively everything that "a US group" does.

   Dedicated, what, like "This is Dedicated to the One I Love"? Or "really committed"? Or "limited to a single purpose"?

   (Uh, forgive me for wandering from the topic of "this violation of Dab guidelines" to that of "this general disregard for both guidelines and common sense". But "the Troops and Veterans of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" includes many Iraqi, Afghan, and non-US NATO troops (and a few other coalition-of-the-willing ones), all of whom are excluded from the "United States veterans" cited in the lead sent of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. I'm embarrassed to have spent so long puzzling over the distinction between "troops and veterans", before eventually realizing it's intended -- whether it succeeds or not, since "veter-" means "old" and "veteran" often & perhaps usually implying experience rather than specifically return -- to distinguish "troops" still on duty with "veterans" no longer serving. Whatever our article may say, the org claims (i added the emphasis) "standing with the 2.3 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan from their first day home".)

Bottom line, the two unadorned title-links make a better Dab page than what i found, and are likely to be perfect. If you don't find them adequate, specify what should be added if you can, and in any case a reason why something more is needed.
--Jerzy•t 02:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)