Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Sky Monitor
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.
- Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
A relatively short article (about 1200 words), but an entirely comprehensive one on one of NATO's first operations in the Balkans. Cool3 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments References 2-8 are incorrectly formatted, please fix. Four internet sites reported as suspicious, please check and advise. No problems reported with disamgig links. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References re-formatted. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "suspicious", could you please elaborate? Cool3 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The external link checker in the toolbox to the right checks external links and highlights those the diagnosed as potentially problematic based on a predetermined color coded scale. Within this article the tool has four of the websites you are using for sources highlighted green, which implies the possibility the websites in question are malfunctioning or are otherwise not working the way they should. Confirmation is therefore needed to determine to what extent if any the links are malfunctioning and what you intend to do about the problem if the links in question are in fact defective. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I don't know why the tool is flagging those links, but if you click on them they all work just fine. Also, as they are all New York Times articles, the links are not essential as other archives are available. Cool3 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well then. Now on to the article itself:
- the introduction really ought to be at least two paragraphs, more like three if you could find the material for it. See if you can expand that.
- I suppose that I could expand the lead to two paragraphs, but in my opinion the lead adequately summarizes the article. It seems that an expansion would just be expanding it for expansion's sake.
- Op Maritime Guard is a red link, see if you can find some info on that.
- I'll see what I can do.
- Why is the edit tab for the background section beside the template for NATO's intervention in Bosnia?
- That's just where it ends up? I don't really know what to do about it.
- The article states that hungry was willing to provide fighter support, but does not mention the kind of fighters that would be available for use. See what you can do about finding info on that point.
The sources don't say.It appears that the Hungarian Air Force would have provided support with Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 fighters and SAMs. As it never was actually provided, I'm not entirely certain that this is relevant, but I've added in a line.
- For that matter, do what know what kind of fighter support was available for the operation, and if said fighter support ever flew with the sentries? It seems to me that there would be some kind of air combat support available, but nothing is really mentioned in the article.
- No fighters ever flew with the NATO planes.
- Sea support is mentioned in the article. Where there is sea support, there are ships with weapons, where there are ships with weapons there are men on deployment and where there are men on deployment there are records on file somewhere of that deployment. Any idea what was out there? Could be worth looking into to add to the article.
- STANAVFORMED was in the Adriatic for Operation Maritime Monitor and then Operation Maritime Guard. Other than sort of growing out of Maritime Monitor, though, Sky Monitor had little involvement with naval forces.
- Admiral implies rank, rank implies status, and these two factors taken together plus the sea support strongly suggest the presence of an aircraft carrier. If this is in fact correct, it would be nice to know which one was present for the operation. My money says if there was a carrier then the carrier you would be looking for was assigned to the 6th fleet at the time.
- Nope, no carriers. I assume you're referring to Admiral Jeremy Boorda who was very much on the ground at the time in Naples. Perhaps it should be more clear in the article, but Boorda wasn't called in to lead the operation, he was the head of AFSOUTH, which was used to carry out the operation; thus, he commanded it.
- the introduction really ought to be at least two paragraphs, more like three if you could find the material for it. See if you can expand that.
- Overall, Its a good article, but I see room for improvement before green lighting a promotion to A-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Cool3 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a good article which meets the A-class criteria. I've got some comments on the article which you may wish to consider:
- The main type of aircraft used should be identified earlier in the article than the last sentence, and the other aircraft used should be mentioned as well - were fighter aircraft used for surveillance at all?
- Moved up the reference to the E-3 into the lead. It was only the E-3s used in the mission; no fighters flew missions.
- Was the NATO AWACS squadron used, or only USAF aircraft?
- THe NATO AWACS squadron was used, as were French and British squadrons. No US planes were used. The previous lead image in the article of a USAF plane was incorrect; no such aircraft could have participated in the operation. I included the image based on a misreading of the article at de.wikipedia. As you point out, the NATO AWACS squadron is painted with a different pattern (and registered in Luxembourg); thus, no aircraft with USAF markings could possibly have participated.
- What's meant by "combat violation" - it would be better to spell this out, as it's a bit unclear
- Well, the bombing of the villages was the combat violation; it was the only time that the belligerents actually used airpower in a combat role (all of the other violations were the use of aircraft for transportation, reconnaissance, etc.)
- On what date did the UN "eventually called for NATO to use force in response"? (I'd also suggest the the word 'eventually' be removed as it's a bit non-neutral)
- March 31, 1993 (added). "eventually" removed.
- What did the huge number of 'non-combat' violations involve? Were these all smuggling flights, or did they include scheduled civil routes? Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the sources don't give many details. I can say, though, that this would not have included scheduled civil routes. Civil air traffic into Bosnia was at this point rare, and such flights would have been authorized by the UN. The violations would have been mostly smuggling, transportation of military personnel within Bosnia, transportation of military supplies either within Bosnia or to Bosnia, reconnaissance missions, and the like.
- The main type of aircraft used should be identified earlier in the article than the last sentence, and the other aircraft used should be mentioned as well - were fighter aircraft used for surveillance at all?
- Support still think there be room for improvement, but meets A-class minimum requirements. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. Good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Agreed. The article seems fine at its current size. Sourcing and prose look good to me. -Ed!(talk) 06:47, 20 June 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.