Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

Respectfully submit this article for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Good interesting piece. I mention a few minor points which do not affect my support.

"several of the officers involved in the incident received additional administrative actions." Officialese? Perhaps "were administratively disciplined"?
"no fly zone" perhaps hyphenate?
"added 'friendly helicopter' symbology" and later. Symbology is clunky. Tags?
"Enroute" two words
Task Force, and the IFF systems failed. - missed closing quotation mark.
{{cquote}} is deprecated for mainspace. Consider <blockquote> instead?
"In response, the U.S. DoD continues to search for ways to reduce or eliminate friendly fire incidents although they continue to occur." Sources? And perhaps more encyclopedic? It sounds like an extract from a DOD press release.
Footnotes, for FAC (if you go there), the page ranges need en dashes (alt + 0150), not hyphens.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent feedback, thank you, and I'll make the corrections you suggest, although I'm not sure of a better word for "symbology". Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My problem with it is that it refers to the study of symbols, not the use of them. From my limited knowledge of air traffic control, I presume it refers to an on-screen flag or tag.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is case of the military use of a word being different than the general use of the word. I think "tag" works fine so I'll use that word or just the word "symbol". Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common habit of the military that. I have no preference over which you use :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another excellent article. My only comments are that it might be a bit too long - the section on the inquiries seems a bit too detailed (though the excellent introduction makes up for this) and there doesn't seem to be anything about the reaction to this accident and the flawed inquiries in the UK and France (yes, I do realise that these comments are a bit contradictory ;-) ) --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many difficulties with writing this article was trying to decide which details to include and which ones to exclude. I didn't find any information on the UK and French inquiries but I'll do some more Google searching to be sure. Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I will ask for a point of clarification: Your time demominations have no corralation, are they local Iraqi time or Washington time?

That's a good point and I'll make that more clear in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Kyriakos (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.