Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mole Cricket 19

Add links
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 discussion.

Operation Mole Cricket 19

[edit]
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Nudve (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it passed a GA review yesterday and I just expanded it. I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have external links, and the ones in the refs seem to be working. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the external link tool on the right, its a pdf file thats registering as problematic. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The error message is "Invalid type (application/octet-stream) for .pdf file". I don't know what that means and if and how it can be fixed. All I know is that when I click on it in the article, it opens without problems. -- Nudve (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found Two dab links and fixed them. Is it OK now? -- Nudve (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't know for roughly 24 hours, the dab tool is slow to update after corrections have been made. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the tool, and it found no dab links. -- Nudve (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, its fixed. Well done on such a prompt reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox picture needs the source spelled-out in the image file, not just a blank link to the website. That way, if the source website disappears the original source of the photo is still recorded. Same thing with the picture for Ariel Sharon.
  • "RPV" isn't spelled-out in the infobox or in the intro. It needs to be spelled out the first time it appears in the article.
  • "On May 28, 1980, IAF guided missiles destroyed two armored cars carrying SA-9 batteries..." where did the Israeli guided missiles come from, aircraft, land, or sea?
  • Sort of, but no one has ever taken issue with me doing that. You might say something like, "So-in-so (source name) does not specify where the missiles originated." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first task force planes attacked the radar at the top of Jebel Baruk, which was commanding a large area." Was this Syrian radar, and were the First Task Force planes from the aircraft already airborne or launched specifically for the radar strike?
  • "Tadiran Mastiff and IAI Scout RPVs were used for this purpose." Used for what purpose?
  • The source for File:HPIM0320.jpg is "24-5-07." What is that? The source needs to be better identified.
  • "By evening, twenty-nine MiGs were shot down and seventeen of the nineteen SAM batteries were destroyed. The IAF suffered no losses.[1] Near 4:00 PM, with fourteen batteries destroyed and an hour left until dark, Ivry decided to call off the operation..." This seems to be a contradiction. Seventeen batteries were destroyed, but only 14 were destroyed when the operation was called off? Were the other three destroyed after the operation was terminated? Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the last three were destroyed between Ivry's decision and the time the last plane landed. The decision was due to the fact that he was running out of daylight, so I guess the order was not "abort immediately!" but rather something like "do not launch another wave". -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article, I only have two suggestions: the Bibliography could be made a level one heading, instead of a sub-heading (optional, just think it looks better), and I'd like it if the casualties and strength were ref'd in the infobox. Shouldn't be much trouble since they are later in the article, but I'd like it if they were there. – Joe Nutter 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the heading could be a good idea. I'll see if I can see how it's done. If I don't manage, I'll ask you. I have provided ref in the infobox, except for the "decisive victory" part: No source actually uses those words, but results are almost never cited, probably because of that reason. I've removed that "fixbunch" thing: how does it help? from what I could see, it only ruined the image fitting in the infobox and the campiagnbox size. Anyway, thanks for the review! Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed format. Better now? -- Nudve (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2009 (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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference pollack533 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19&oldid=1138360013"