Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident

Hi guys, plan to put this article up for GA review, so I'd really appreciate any feedback that you think may help with that, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harley

It should be made clear in the last paragraph of the lead that the incident was written off after "on-site" investigation as "lost in action". Otherwise, it is (for me) easy to conclude that some sort of cover-up took place. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know from the literature I've read that there had always been a suspicion that Cardiff had indeed shot down XX377 and that some people believe the government simply tried to ignore it. It was pressure form Cockton's mother Winifred and Tam Dalyell that forced them to re-investigate/hold board of inquiry, hence why I put the quote in there from Bicheno.

So in the interest of being neutral I made it ambiguous and up for the reader to decide. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

This is a wonderfully detailed and illustrated article which provides a great demonstration of how Wikipedia can be used to cover topics which wouldn't be touched in conventional encyclopedias. My suggestions for ways it could be improved are:

~~I think that 'friendly fire' should be used in the first sentence rather than the more obscure term 'blue on blue'~~
~~The first para of the 'Background' section needs citations. I think that the British force comprised more than 5,000 troops as well.~~
~~You could name the Gazelle's crew in the first sentence of the 'Incident' section's second para~~
~~"Radio contact with the helicopter was lost" - with whom was it in contact with? The way this is written suggests that it was with Cardiff.~~
~~Why were the Gurkhas unaware of the location of signalers from their own brigade?~~
Why were repeated investigations undertaken into the cause of the loss after the first investigations concluded that the helicopter had been shot down by Argentine forces? - did the families of the dead request these investigations?
~~The 'Causes' section could be merged with the 'investigations' section given that it presents the results of the final investigation~~
~~The 'Effects' section needs more citations, and it's a bit unclear whether the changes were the result of just this incident.~~ Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however others may not, recommendation for RFC made. Any help with this matter, should it occur, would be much appreciated. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the only citation required for that section is the troop levels, as the rest is general knowledge? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good practice to reference everything in articles, even when it is common knowledge. This or a general source like it would make a suitable source Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crew was named, however the names were removed and labelled as as an attempt by me to "memorial creep", leading to a compromise discussed here in which we were lucky enough to keep the table. Any help with this matter would be much appreciated. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit silly to me - it's perfectly standard for people to be named in this kind of article in military history publications. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, also considering RFC should this be opposed. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the same communication errors that lead to the shootdown I presume, fog of war. The only quote I have is from Freedman, I can find no expansion on this other than that, what do you recommend? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much really, I'd suggest Feedman, but you've already used it! Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I just checked my copy of Freedman (which is the second/paperback edition with slightly different page numbers to those you've used), and he states that these were 5 Brigade's first casualties of the war in the endnote for his coverage of this incident, which you may wish to include. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Winifred Cockton is a name that appears a lot, also unnamed others probably pressured the government much in the same way people do now with current military fuck ups. It is hard to explain the cause for the multiple investigations without saying "ZOMG conspiracy!!!" Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will do at a later date. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the main reason for the bigger focus on joint warfare practise is this current global need for it as war changes. However I believe incidents like this are one of many that indicated to Britain it's time to begin modernization. Added refs as well (they were there originally but removed). Ryan4314 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 inch, use 5 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 inch.^[?]

Was in a caption's text. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).

Honestly can't find this one. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ryan4314 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]