Talk:Operation Sky Monitor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial Comment

I will be reviewing this article in the next day or two. MarquisCostello (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Review

An overview:

well written =Y
accuracy =Y
thorough =?
NPOV =Y
stable =YY
images =Y

Some section specific comments:

Lead

*Several points in the lead could do with a citation, even if they are cited later in the article as well. These include "The operation documented more than 500 violations of the no-fly zone by the beginning of April 1993" and the details of the two resolutions mentioned.

I cited the 500 violations as that's most likely to be something contentious. As for the security council resolutions, I've left them uncited as they are mentioned in the very next section. If you disagree, I could go ahead and cite them there again. Cool3 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that will be fine. MarquisCostello (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Background

• If you look you can see that the 'edit' link for the section overlaps with the text. Can this be resolved?

What browser are you using? It looks fine on my screen in Firefox. Cool3 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am using firefox too, but my screen resolution may be different. It is just a browser issue then, not an article one. MarquisCostello (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

*"In the resolution, the Security Council expressed"

This use of 'security council' could be replaced with it or 'the Council', as the term is used in the previous sentence.

Changed. Cool3 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation

• "The rules of engagement for Sky Monitor were very restrictive. Because the purpose of the operation was to monitor, rather than prevent, unauthorized flights, participating aircraft were only authorized to use force in self-defense"

:This needs a citation.

Well the citation at the end of the paragraph covers all of the material in it, I could put a separate footnote in the middle of the paragraph to make this more clear, but I wonder if that might be overkill. Cool3 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it seems fine as it is now. MarquisCostello (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

*Is there any more detail available for this section? It seems rather short.

I've dragged a couple more books out of the library to fill in some more information on the operation itself. To be honest, it was pretty uneventful, so there's not a tremendous amount of relevant information. If there's anything specific you think is missing, I'll do my best to find it. Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

General Comments

*Are there any more categories that the article could be added too?

Categorized more fully now. Cool3 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• I will out the article on hold to give you time to consider my comments. It would be good if you could strike through or check mark each point as you consider it. If you have any comments/questions please put them here or on my talk page. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional Review Comments

• Firstly, please see my responses to some of your comments made above. I like the improvements that have been made!

*I recognise that the operation is not an exciting one. Is there however any information on: problems in the operation, any controversies, any major incidents etc.?

I've added what few details I can find on the one major incident: a Serb combat mission

*Are there any examples available of the violations that occurred [i know that the fact that all-sides were involved is mentioned, but are there any significant violations etc.?]

Well the incident just mentioned above was the single most significant one.

• I know that the aim of the operation is stated, but it might be better to have a seperate short and simple 'aims' section, as this is not immediately obvious when reading through. Only a thought.

I don't like the idea of a separate section personally, I think it would be short and choppy. I've done some rewording to try to make the aim more clear, I look forward to seeing what you think.

*Is there any information on major personnel involved in the co-ordination or organisation of the operation?

Admiral Boorda (mentioned in the article) was the overall commander. I suppose I could also mention Lt. General Joseph Ashby, COMAIRSOUTH (Commander of Allied Air Forces Southern Europe) as he had day-to-day responsibility for the Air Force components of Sky Monitor, but really there are no particular people associated with the operation.

*In the 'Results' section: "Thus, it set the precedent for future NATO-UN cooperation."

Did it set the precedent because it was successful/well co-orinated? What made it a benchmark for future NATO-UN operations?

I've clarified this a bit

• Also in 'Results': "as it proved the utility of the E-3 Sentry in monitoring aircraft"

You may just want to add in brackets that this was an aircraft involved in OSM (just to help the reader, especially as there is alot of military jargon and antonyms in the article).

Good point, I explained that out.

*Any other references other than the two listed?

Yes, I've redone the reference style to be a bit better in my opinion and make it clear I'm citing more than two works.

• Perhaps wikilinks for Germany, Italy, and Greece in the lead section?

Done.

These are things i thought of on another look through. Again, striking-through would be great, and drop me a message when you have taken a look or if you want to discuss things more. Thanks, MarquisCostello (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Cool3 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some More Comments

*"Sky Monitor documented many violations of the no-fly zone, the most significant of which came in March, 1993 when Serb aircraft bombed two Muslim villages. This violation, the first "combat violation" of the no-fly zone led to calls for NATO to actively enforce the zone, rather than just monitoring compliance."

It is good you found an important example. The commas just need some rearranging. I believe this is gramatically correct: "Sky Monitor documented many violations of the no-fly zone, the most significant of which came in March 1993, when Serb aircraft bombed two Muslim villages. This violation, the first "combat violation" of the no-fly zone, led to calls for NATO to actively enforce the zone, rather than just monitoring compliance."

Fixed.

*In "Results"- "Although most of the violations were not combat missions, the NATO allies decided that the ban was not holding, several months before Sky Monitor ended."

I would rearrange this sentence slightly- "Although most of the violations were not combat missions, NATO decided (several months before Sky Monitor ended) that the ban was not holding".

I've changed to a slightly different wording than that, but I think it's a good one..

*Also in "Results"- "The use of force to enforce the zone also gained the crucial backing of US President-elect Bill Clinton in December, adding an additional push."

As the use of force has already been mentioned, i think it would be fine to simply say "This new measure also gained the crucial backing of US President-elect Bill Clinton in December". What do you mean by an "additional push"?

Good point, I removed the redundancy. Additional push didn't really mean anything other than extra support, which was already said, so I removed it.

*In "Background"- "These aircraft flew more than 200 mission over the course of the operation."

Mission should be a plural.

Absolutely, can't believe I didn't catch that before. It has now been fixed.

• The aim of OSM is a little clearer now- good edit.

I'll leave you to have a look at these further comments. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. Hope I've knocked out that round. Cool3 (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

More Comments

*"Sky Monitor documented many violations of the no-fly zone, the most significant of which came in March, 1993 when Serb aircraft bombed two Muslim villages."

As i said above, i think the comma after "March" should actually go after "1993".

I would've sworn I changed that already. Anyway, it's done now.

*"Although most of the violations were not combat missions, NATO had decided even before the end of Sky Monitor that the ban was not holding."

I would reword this slightly: "Although most of the violations were not combat missions, NATO decided even before the end of Sky Monitor that the ban was not holding." Does "not holding" mean that it was ineffective. Because it might be better to work an expression like this in. What do you think?

Changed to was ineffective, that probably is clearer.

*"The UN eventually did call for NATO to use force in response to the "blatant violations of the ban on military flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina"

I would make this "The UN eventually called for NATO..."

Changed

*"NATO deactivated Sky Monitor"

Is deactivated the right word here? It implies Sky Monitor was some kind of physical object rather than an operation. Perhaps something like "called off"?

Deactivated is the right term. You "deactivate" or "close" a NATO operation. It may sound odd, but it's just how it's said.

*"when Serb aircraft bombed two Muslim villages." I would make this "Serbian", with a wikilink if there is one.

I wikilinked Serb to Republika Srpska, but I don't think a change to Serbian is appropriate. While technically Serb and Serbian mean exactly the same thing (at least in my dictionary), in most histories of the Bosnian War it has become conventional to use Serbian to refer to people from Serbia and Serb to refer to people of Serb-ethnicity who are natives of other areas.

I'll leave you to have a look at these points. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

• Thanks for your work on the article. I will transfer it to GA status now. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)