Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Deny Flight/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:07, 29 March 2009 [1].
Operation Deny Flight edit
I've been working on this article quite a lot recently, and I think it's finally up to the cut. It's extensively referenced, well-written (or so I hope), and about a topic, that while not too widely known, is quite interesting. I think it's ready, and I welcome your input. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In an article with this many citations, the citation style you have used makes the number and quality of refs you have used hard to read and evaluate. Might I suggest using the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes style instead? Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've fixed some spelling and style issues, but this should be subjected to more thorough copyediting. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested, I've put the article through a fairly thorough copyedit. Hope you find it acceptable now. Cool3 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a few geographic inconsistencies (e.g. Pale instead of Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and I've fixed most of them so far. The only remaining one is Otoka. I'm not sure what's the target of this link, but it certainly shouldn't be a Polish village. I've found some violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and inline citations, but I think there aren't any left. Also, watch out for special Slavic letters (čćžšđ) that often appear in toponyms; and there is no need to repeat the year in every date. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed Otoka, by creating the article Otoka, Bosnia and Herzegovina. That article is currently a pathetic placeholder, but it gets the job done for now and I'll improve it later. I've reduced some of the over-use of years in dates, gone through the article for another copyedit, and I think we're now up to speed with WP:MOS. Cool3 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a few geographic inconsistencies (e.g. Pale instead of Pale, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and I've fixed most of them so far. The only remaining one is Otoka. I'm not sure what's the target of this link, but it certainly shouldn't be a Polish village. I've found some violations of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and inline citations, but I think there aren't any left. Also, watch out for special Slavic letters (čćžšđ) that often appear in toponyms; and there is no need to repeat the year in every date. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have nothing more to worry about. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE AS GARBAGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, 1a. It's interesting and thorough, for sure. However, the prose really needs a once-over by someone new to the text. A lot of the sentences are long strings of phrases that will exhaust the reader. These are difficult to see when they are your own work. Comma use is all over the map—sometimes you use commas where a natural pause in speech would occur, and sometimes they are nowhere to be found. It's really not far off, but please get a competent copyedit to run through it. Examples:
- "The United States had already taken unilateral action aimed at ameliorating the conflict by dropping humanitarian supplies into Bosnia under Operation Provide Promise, and some American officials were eager to expand US air operations, out of the hope that an aggressive no-fly zone and/or bombing raids could end the war more quickly." This is pretty much a train wreck—please slice it up into smaller concepts. "And/or" should be avoided.
- "Furthermore, all sides in the conflict made extensive use of helicopters for a variety of purposes, including non-military ones." The "furthermore" implies you are offering additional information; since you have already outlined a military use of helicopters, it makes more sense to write "Furthermore, all sides in the conflict made extensive use of helicopters for non-military purposes."
- "Because of the rules of engagement, and difficulties in identification, NATO was unable to stop most unauthorized helicopter flights, and documented a total of 5711 unauthorized helicopter flights in Bosnian airspace over the course of the conflict." Another long, meandering sequence of phrases. Please break up and revise for readability.
- "In June, partly in response to the pressure from the United States ..." Why not "response to pressure"? These little bits of wordiness are pervasive.
- "Operation Deny Flight, and other NATO operations during the Bosnian War resulted in significant tension within NATO and the Atlantic relationship." Awkward comma use. You have the comma before "and" but not the logical follow-up after "War". A pervasive problem.
- "None of the air strikes in Deny Flight were on the scale of those in Deliberate Force, and it did not significantly change the balance of power." What is "it" referring to? It seems to be referring to "None" but then it should be "they".
- --Laser brain (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, this had been dormant too long! I've addressed all of the specific points you raised and done my best to generally improve the style of the article with a fairly thorough once-through. I'd be happy to deal with any other specific points you may raise, and if you still think the article is just generally weak stylistically I can try to find an outside copyeditors. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, time to get this thing moving. As I mentioned, some of these issues are exceedingly difficult to recognize when they are your own work. I strongly encourage you to get someone fresh to run through it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've asked a (non-WP) colleague and committed grammar nazi to run through this, whenever he gets back to me, I'll make the edits he recommends. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the help of my colleague, I have once again given the article a thorough look for grammar and style. I think you'll find it's now more readable, and as always I'd be happy to fix any particular areas that you still think are weak. Cool3 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On revisiting just now, I found plenty of stuff to do just in the lead. It's going to need a work-through, not just a skimming. Find a WikiProject copy editor or someone from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers with an expressed interest in military history or general copyediting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your work on the lead, which I think was undoubtedly the weakest section prose-wise. However, I'm just not seeing any other serious prose issues in the article, and I hate to bother a copyeditor when I just don't see what's wrong. I essentially write for a living, and I would have no problem considering this as up to my professional standards. Can you be more specific about what you think the issues are? Cool3 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On revisiting just now, I found plenty of stuff to do just in the lead. It's going to need a work-through, not just a skimming. Find a WikiProject copy editor or someone from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers with an expressed interest in military history or general copyediting. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the help of my colleague, I have once again given the article a thorough look for grammar and style. I think you'll find it's now more readable, and as always I'd be happy to fix any particular areas that you still think are weak. Cool3 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I've asked a (non-WP) colleague and committed grammar nazi to run through this, whenever he gets back to me, I'll make the edits he recommends. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, time to get this thing moving. As I mentioned, some of these issues are exceedingly difficult to recognize when they are your own work. I strongly encourage you to get someone fresh to run through it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, this had been dormant too long! I've addressed all of the specific points you raised and done my best to generally improve the style of the article with a fairly thorough once-through. I'd be happy to deal with any other specific points you may raise, and if you still think the article is just generally weak stylistically I can try to find an outside copyeditors. Thanks again! Cool3 (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Please review my initial comments—they are examples of what I think are the issues. On many of them, I've noted that it is an example of a problem found throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks. I think you may be right, and the only way to fix this is to find an outside set of eyes. I'll start looking for someone. Cool3 (talk)
- Check with Eurocopter—he is a terrific writer with an interest in military history. I did get your request on my Talk page, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it justice within the time frame of this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.