Template:Did you know nominations/Lungi Lol confrontation
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Lungi Lol confrontation
[edit]- ... that the Lungi Lol confrontation was the only direct engagement between British forces and the Revolutionary United Front during British operations in Sierra Leone in 2000?
Created/expanded by HJ Mitchell (talk). Self nom at 19:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The sentence in the article that backs up the hook fact does not have an inline citation. My other concern with this article is that I believe it violates NPOV. Rather than stating "... the RUF reneged on the agreement " it might be better to say " the agreement broke down" without apportioning blame.- I am also puzzled by the fact that the engagement started at 04:45, then there were "several hours of fighting" after which the RUF withdrew and the article continues "At first light, the bodies of four rebel soldiers were discovered". My query - "What time did the sun rise?", bearing in mind that this was the middle of May and Sierra Leone is in the Northern Hemisphere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- The inline citation is at the end of the very next sentence, but I've added a duplicate (ie redundant) citation at the end of that sentence. I have also removed the reference to first light as the sources are confused on this. Your query about neutrality is valid on the face of it, but if you were to read the sources (or read British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War or Sierra Leone Civil War), you will see that the academic consensus is that the RUF were solely responsible for the continuation of hostilities after 1999. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough and the hook fact is now sourced. I have taken the liberty of rephrasing the sentence to which I objected above. (I was amused by your comment "sigh; hoop-jumping to satisfy DYK" ) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
