Talk:Chadian–Libyan War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to do this review. I'll do a thorough readthrough of the article's prose first, noting any initial issues, and then I'll begin the formal checklist. I hope to do most of this tomorrow, otherwise it may have to wait until Monday. Looking forward to working with you -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First readthrough

• The three ibids should be changed to more explicit citations. Do you have access to these sources, and can you verify that the page numbers are indeed to the previous source in the reference list? Sometimes these get mixed up in WP articles when someone inserts additional information. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I looked up the pages for those three and verified that they were the correct sources for that info :) Jeancey (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to that so fast! I'm doing a slow readthrough now, and will post a few more miscellaneous points when finished. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• "state of sporadic warfare events" is unusual phrasing; I wonder if just removing the word "events" would work better. "Sporadic warfare" seems to sum it up fairly.

 Done. I think. I changed it to a series of sporadic clashes, since when I tried some other options, it just didn't sound right to me. This could still change though. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "military pattern of the war" -- the word "military" seems redundant here (a war's pattern could be assumed to be "military"), but I won't change it in case I'm misunderstanding.

 Done. That made sense to me. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article appears to me a bit overlinked. I've delinked some common terms (major world religions, country names, etc.) that readers are very unlikely to click through to. However, this isn't a factor in the GA criteria at all, and if you revert all of these, I won't be the least offended, and it won't affect a bit whether this article is listed/unlisted.
• The external link [1] seems unnecessary; it only gives a bit of passing information about the conflict, and isn't a major resource. I'd suggest incorporating it into the text (or not) and removing it, but that's not a factor for the GA criteria and won't impact the review.

 Done. I commented it out for now, and I'll look into incorporating it into the article when I have a good chuck of time :). Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "nominated Goukouni as the secretary-general" -- was he only nominated, or actually named to the post?

From what I can tell, he was just nominated, but more conflict prevented any official transfer of power to him. I'll look into this more tomorrow. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine then; just wanted to verify. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "and Sudan's Vice-President" --for parallelism with the Nigerien president, can we include his name? If you don't have it for sure, no problem.

 Done. It's a red link, but I added it. Jeancey (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The Kano Accord was signed on 16 March by all those present" -- what were the terms of this accord? Are the actions that follow directly called for by it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. The directly following sentences were from the accord. The Wikipage about the accord has all the terms, there are 6 main terms and several smaller ones, but the main terms are mentioned in the paragraph there, including the resignations, formation of GUNT as a national army, amnesty for those involved (politically). Those were the main terms, and I think all but the amnesty was mentioned, but since they were mentioned as part of the government after the accord, it's clear they weren't arrested or anything. Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The GDR is once called East Germany, once the German Democratic Republic; I'd suggest sticking with one name or the other throughout the article for clarity. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Changed it to east germany, since that would be the least confusing for people I think. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "leaving 700 FANT troops on the ground" -- wounded or dead? Or is it unclear from the source?

I actually don't have access to this source until after the new year, so this one will probably have to wait until then. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "the pichipichi FROLINAT Originel" -- what does pichipichi mean here? This could probably use a link or an explanatory footnote.

 Done. Sort of. I can't find any definition for pichipichi in this context, but I believe it means piecemeal, or fragmented, because the Original FROLINAT was basically a group of veterans from the first FROLINAT who joined together, it wasn't a formal military force as far as I can tell. More like a well trained militia. so I replaced pichipichi with piecemeal. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "also through the use of napalm and, allegedly, poison gas." Uncertain allegations of chemical weapon use should probably get an inline source right at the end of the sentence. Is this from Nolutshungu or Pollack? (Or both?)

 Done. The use of napalm is for sure, and the chadian government accused them of using poison gas, but the french said there was no evidence of that, so I have removed the poison gas bit. Jeancey (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it'd be fine to say that "the Chadian government accused them of..." just as you did here, adding the French denial. But I think it's fine to remove it, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Libyan retaliation against France and the United States" --I'm not sure I understand this section title. How did Libya retaliate against France and the US? Or does it simply mean that Gaddafi was angry with the two countries? I wonder if this might just be combined into "Aftermath".

 Done. I also replaced a dead link that was there and I hadn't noticed. Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a factor for the GA review, but I'd suggest at some point revising the article's structure; instead of one Level-2 header and thirteen Level-3 headers, it might be prefereable to have those 13 divided between 3-4 Level-2 headers.

I'll try to get to this in the next week or so. I have an idea about how it can be divided, but I don't have the time right now :) Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• " J. Jessup, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Conflict, p. 116" -- it's not an issue for the GA review, but this could use a fuller citation (publisher, year, etc.)

 Done. Added it to the book references below. Jeancey (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall this looks like really solid work to me. I still need to check for a few things, but the article is comprehensive and well-written, and does a terrific job breaking down a very complicated situation for a non-expert reader. I'll begin the checklist at some point today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Impressively clear for the complexity of the subject. Ten spot checks of sources show no evidence of close paraphrasing or other copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are properly tagged with copyright status, and the non-free image in the infobox was previously approved for use in the article.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work.