Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 page.
For your perusal. RM Gillespie 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but rephrase the last sentences:
Wandalstouring 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]Although the operation was a success, it was not the end. Henry Kissinger may have announced that peace was at hand, but it was not going to come easily. American bombers would return once again to the skys of the North Vietnam in Operation Linebacker II before the American commitment to the Vietnam Conflict would come to an end.
- Support, after fixing a few typos, made a few links. Clarify the "ratio" of 1:1 to 4:1 in Going North. Force ratio, or kill ratio? It is inferred that is the kill ratio, but it does not explicitly say so. --Petercorless 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Straightened it out. Is the ending any better? RM Gillespie 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some slight editing. I think it is OK now. Wandalstouring 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport, with one caveat: the line "During and immediately following the PAVN offensive, U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aviators had flown 18,000 sorties in I Corps" needs clarifications - what is "I Corps" in this context? Otherwise, she's all right mate! - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Altered the text to fix the problem. RM Gillespie 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support The first paragraph in the "Build-up and air attacks" section has no citations; that really needs to be adressed. Also, some of you inline citations, like #56-#58, are cited to the same exact source; it may be worth reconfiguring the ref tabs so that multiple source citations go to the same link, rather than seperate links. Othet than that, it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 16 January 2007 (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 page.