In reply to your request for assistance, I can tell you how I do it, but take that with a grain of salt. I've only skimmed some of the wikipedia how-to articles and much of what I've authored comes from mimicking how somebody else did it. For instance, I've added a lot of images, but I went into the edit page to learn "how to". I've tried many times to download images into the wiki database but without success so far.
I checked and saw that you visited the Battle of Hamburger Hill article and discussion page. Although I did not author that article, I did extensively revise it (much of the original came from a military unit history and IMHO was poorly written), referring heavily to Samuel Zaffiri because he was a member of the 101 and interviewed so many of the participants for his book. I take it you want to expand on Apache Snow more than Hamburger Hill. I read your well-written comments but would caution you to note a source/documentation for disputes over casualty figures.
The discussion itself would probably fit in the HH article as "analysis"--Wiki supports disagreement in POV as long as one POV is not deleted in favor of another--i.e. your discussion of WIA figures, with source, would be welcomed, but personal opinion as to "who won" would not. That needs to be approached from the "some historians say" approach--Wiki mods generally won't allow an article editor's opinion be a basis for conclusion, no matter how soundly thought out--that's what the talk page is for. We editors do not as a rule have the credentials--altho that's not always the case. Check out the talk page on the SR-71--one of the editors of that page actually flew the Blackbird!
On my user page are a list of draft articles I eventually added. I started each on my user page as a place to write out my article until it was ready for addition to Wikipedia. (Not all my articles started this way--only the longer ones). I don't grasp the concept of the sandbox and found this works fine for me.
There I organized the article, experimented with format, added images, wikified links, collected my sources (I don't footnote--first, I don't know how yet, and it seems pretty tedious a task so I'm not inclined to learn; second, no paper encyclopedia footnotes, although they do list sources; third, many of the footnotes on featured articles are IMO frivolous), and wrote and editted my own writing. Even with proof-reading, you won't catch all the mistakes, omissions, etc, but by writing a draft on your user page first, you'll eliminate the huge bulk of them before you "publish" the article.
After all was said and done, I then wikified the name of my article somewhere in the draft article (it's supposed to be in bold in the opening sentence per wiki standards) and used it to open the page. Then I copied and pasted the draft onto the article page, added the category or categories (again, I checked other similar articles to get the category names), and saved. Voila, article written.
On the average, the articles I wrote using drafts took 2-3 weeks to compose and prep for wiki before adding them to the encyclopedia. I kept finding material to add, images, templates, etc.
A few recommendations. The opening paragraph should contain two summaries, and possibly a template. The first summary should be a succinct, one-sentence summary of what "it" is. Such as "'Operation Apache Snow' was a military operation by the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War". The second summary should expand upon that in one or two paragraphs to briefly summarize the who-what-where-when-how without going into details. (The templates are also a form of this). These summaries are to satisfy different levels of inquiry which may not want or need a detailed story.
Also, check periodically to see how it will appear visually. Very long paragraphs do not get read by most, but neither do a plethora of one-line paragraphs (which also draw the ire of wiki mods). Watch article length. Do not overly-segment the article (I used the Table of Contents feature to guide me on this), but judicious use of them does provide an easier way of making corrections or additions. If the look of the article pleases you, or looks interesting, chances are it will do so to others. Assume your reader does not know the material (so as to be complete) but don't treat them as idiots either. Your paragraphs on the Hamburger Hill talk page are IMO a very readable style--but if it were me I'd break the big one up into smaller chunks for easier digestion.
An article becomes an article when you add the categories at the bottom. If you don't, a moderator will, and even if you do, some of them change them anyway. I wrote an article on a novel and placed it in several categories, only to have them all removed and replaced by a generic "1971 novels".
My suggestion would be that you do your article on Operation Apache Snow, with links to Hamburger Hill. When its ready to go, just click on any red link to Operation Apache Snow (this one, the one in the opening of the HH article, or one in your own draft) and it opens the blank page. Copy, paste, categorize, and it's done.
This is a lot of verbiage, but if you have specific questions--just ask me over on my user talk page. Be more than happy to help if I can. --Buckboard 08:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)