Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Infinite Reach/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2016 [1].

Operation Infinite Reach

[edit]
Nominator(s): GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first-ever American attack against al-Qaeda: the Clinton Administration's August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's Afghan bases and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons for militants. This GA, which incorporates international journalism, academic and popular literature, and government reports, has already received a peer review. I hope you find this interesting! GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Operation_Infinite_Reach.jpg: I don't see this image on the given source page, and the only Sudanese photos there are credited to a private company. Do you have a source to support the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Upon further inspection, it doesn't appear that the photo was correctly attributed by its uploader (indeed, it's not on the given site); I've removed it and replaced it with a separate photo. I've also taken the liberty to upload a new, public-domain version in place of the old one. Thank you for pointing this out. GABgab 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi GAB, welcome to FAC.
  • First up: See WP:INTEXT. All quotes need to be attributed to whoever said them, with a short (sometimes one-word) description of the author (such as "historian") at the first mention of that author. Also, there are too many quotes for FAC; reword at least two-thirds of them. Keep the quotes that are memorable, or the quotes that have some subtle or precise meaning that might be lost in any paraphrase. Also lose the quote marks in almost all cases where you're not actually quoting someone. (For instance, I'd paraphrase "green light" as approval, regardless of whether someone said "green light".) - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  • This appears to be a case of wp:overcite: could the citations be consolidated, or at least put to the end of the sentence?
At about 01:30 EDT (17:30 GMT),[1] two American warships in the Red Sea[2] fired thirteen missiles[3] into Sudan.

References

  1. ^ "U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. August 21, 1998. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
  2. ^ Younge, Gary (August 22, 1998). "We are in a new ball game, says Pentagon". The Guardian.
  3. ^ Wright 2006, p. 282.
  • The sections are quite long. Has there been any thought given to breaking up some of them into subsections? I.e. the Aftermath section could be subdivided into "Reactions in the West"; "Reactions in the Arab world", etc. Same could be perhaps done to the the factory attack section and some others. I think this would improve readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll work on the overcite. I think the aftermath section could be easily broken up by region, and the Al-Shifa section could be split into 2 on the attack and the subsequent controversy. GABgab 01:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up the Al-Shifa section into two separate sections on the attack and the controversy; I've also dealt with the aftermath section, as recommended. GABgab 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the U.S. reaction section could do with some extra meat on its bones; I'll see what I can do to augment that part. GABgab 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support (Harry Mitchell)

  • Nice chunky background section; I like that. It nicely sets the scene.
  • I note that Bin Laden isn't linked in the background section. My general rule with linking (especially for key subjects) is to link once in the lead and once in the body, but it's up to you.
  • "Turki demanded that the Taliban either expel bin Laden from their country or hand him over to the Saudis, insisting that removing bin Laden from Afghanistan was the price of cordial relations with the Kingdom". This is the first mention of Afghanistan in the body—perhaps put it earlier in the sentence so we know what "their country" is referring to.
  • Is it really necessary to link all the job titles in the sentence that starts "That day, Clinton started meeting with his "Small Group""?
  • "On August 11, according to the 9/11 Commission Report," Is the information following this disputed? If not, is it necessary to specify its origin? There are quite a few occurrences of this phrase in the article
  • "slam dunk," I know this is common in American writing but our MoS frowns on it, see MOS:LQ.
  • "At 7:30 PM local time" What is the local timezone, and can we have a conversion to UTC/GMT like we do for the preceding EDT time?
  • "American military personnel based in Saudi Arabia.[71][72]" isn't the link on "based" a bit of an easter egg?
  • Would the "Al-Shifa controversy" work better as a subsection of the "Al-Shifa plant attack" section, rather than as a section in its own right?
  • The first paragraph of the "Attack on Afghan camps" section in particular feels very cluttered with references; are they all really necessary?
  • Perhaps link salvo? I'm not sure it's a common term.
  • Watch out for more easter egg links; I removed one besides the one mentioned above, the link to flag desecration is another (and is also unlikely to aid the reader's understanding)
  • Were there any longer-term impacts on the forces involved or US politics? See the bottom of British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War for an example. It might be that the answer is no, especially given that this is only a few years before 9/11 and that's fine, but you know the source material.

All in all a nice, well-rounded article that you've obviously put a lot of work into. I can't see any major stumbling blocks to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @HJ Mitchell: I've done most of the fixes you've suggested - I'll handle the last ones soon. Regarding the long-term impacts, I think the true significance of Op. Infinite Reach was that there really weren't any; Bin Laden survived, of course. The later sections do go on to mention how the strikes enhanced his public image in the Muslim world as an anti-American champion, and how the strikes' failure spurred the UAV program. Not to mention the fascinating tidbit from the PDB, and that the Tomahawks may have helped out Pakistan and China. Regarding the Al-Shifa section, I really don't know, since it looks rather bulky with the two sections combined. Thanks for all your help, GABgab 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment -- I made minor adjustments to section headings for easier navigation, but there's not much else I can see that needs improvement. Very well researched article and an interesting read. One suggestion would be to highlight "propaganda victory" (mentioned in the infobox) but turning it into its own subsection in the Aftermath section. This way people who read the infobox can easily find the material to learn more. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Unless I missed it, we need the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we ask for in every FAC.
  • Also, as this will be your first FA if promoted, GAB, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really impressive article. I'm not sure how this works but here are a few suggestions:
Lead
  1. The lead should not have any references. Since the lead only summarizes information in the article, there is no need to have references there because they should be in the article.
  2. The lead is a bit too long IMO. Maybe trim it down a little
  3. In the lead, I recommend changing "The U.S. suspected that the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to" to "The U.S. suspected the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to"
General comment
  1. there seems to be a lot of that's throughout. Recommend reviewing them and see if it sounds better with or without them
  2. There seem to be a lot of things in quotes for emphasis. I'm not sure these are all needed such as "was largely "human."" which appears a couple sections above the Al-Shifa plant attack section.

I hope these little things help. Sorry I didn't have the time or experience in this process to do a better review. Great job so far though. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes are consistently formatted.
  • All sources seem reliable.
  • Suggest linking publication names, especially those that might not be commonly known (I had to look up U.S. News & World Report, for example); the references are there to help the reader track the information down, after all.
  • Speaking of U.S. News & World Report, shouldn't the title be italicised?
  • If you're not going to link publications (I really think you should, but it's not compulsory), you need to be consistent and unlink footnotes 72, 74, and 76
  • ISBN for Reeve is incorrect (appears to be a copy/paste error)
  • Check the ISBN for Temple-Raston (doesn't work on Google Books but I found the book by the title)
  • Are you sure The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should be italicised? Is that the work or the publisher?
  • No other issues found. Will return later to do spotchecks.
Hi Harry, do you think you can have a go at that spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Besides some annoying issues with the accessdates not showing up, I think I've resolved all issues. Thanks, GABgab 17:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GAB, good to see you back; hope your break was productive. I'm satisfied that you've resolved all the quibbles above. @Ian Rose: I'll bump the spot check up my to-do list. I'll try to get to it this week but obviously the weekend is Christmas so it might end up being next week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: I checked a majority of the online sources (mainly news publications) and found no problems with close paraphrasing; it confirmed my impression that his is a very well put-together article. I found only one verification issue: I couldn't verify "The UN office in Jalalabad was burned and looted by a mob" or "in Karachi, thousands burned effigies of Clinton" from reference number 9 (the LA Times). @GeneralizationsAreBad and Ian Rose: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: It indeed seemed like a problem when I checked on this, but it turns out that the pertinent information is actually on the second page of the same LA Times news article. I hope that clears things up. Best, GABgab 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up ping for Ian Rose. GABgab 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm. I missed the second page; my apologies. It does indeed support that information. I'm more than happy to renew my support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 25 December 2016 (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/Operation_Infinite_Reach/archive1&oldid=1075706270"