Wikipedia:Peer review/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War/archive1

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think this is an excellent list and I would like to know what should I do to improve it. This is my first request for peer review. My goal is to get this list to featured list status.

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Socrates2008

As lists go, I found this to be one of the more interesting. However you might want to take a look at verb tense as you're mixing present and past tense from one point to the next. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What tense would be more appropriate? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, as long as it's consistent. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done (I think). I made a check and corrected all I found. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting article, clearly the product of much work.

• You should not link terms in the article's title (as repeated in the first line of the lead). "Iraq war" is linked any way, later in the the opening sentence, and "aviation" is an everyday term that doesn't need a link.  Done
• You should remove the words "accidents and" from the first sentence (A list of accidents clearly includes accidents)  Done
• You could link "Coalition", via a pipe, to Multinational force in Iraq  Done
• The term "at least" is used repeatedly in the lead. Are there doubts about the numbers that you give? I would have thought that the numbers of incidents, and the casualties, were precisely known; if they are not, some word of explanation is necessary.  Done all numbers were checked again and the numbers are accurate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree with the advice above, that it doesn't matter what tense you use. It would be better to fix your list as complete at a particular point in time. Thus: "At least 118 helicopters, and 20 fixed-wing aircraft, had been lost in Iraq to end-January 2009", with similar adjustments to the other "at least" sentences.  Done by rephrasing "118 helicopters and 20 fixed-wing aircraft have been reported by media to be lost in Iraq", etc.
• Second sentence of second paragraph refers to the incidents as "crashes". Is this the right word when an aircaft is shot down by hostile fire?  Done by replacing with "incidents
• Is the Brigadier-General's concern about replacement speeds relevant to this list?

A faster replacement would reduce the number of incidents. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The US military said..." Presumably, a spokesperson said it.  Done
• Final sentence: some words of explanation should be added, saying what effect the deployment of these advanced aircraft would have.
• You have presented the list in reverse chronological order. Is there a reason for this? It seems to cut across the list convention; you wouldn't, for example, start a list of US presidents with Obama and work back to Washington. Perhaps you have a good reason, but I'd like to know what it is.

I think this is common for lists updated frequently. This helps editor who revisit an article to read the new entries easier. List of Coalition aircraft losses in Afghanistan follows the same system. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• List format: it seems a little untidy - had you considered presenting the list in tables? Natural headings would seem to be: Date | Craft description | Location | Incident summary | Casualties | References. This might enable information to be picked up more easily.

It's interesting. I could try it in my sandbox first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would consider these points. Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)