Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Barras/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Ian Rose 00:31, 8 December 2012 [1].

Operation Barras edit

Operation Barras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2000, the United Kingdom intervened in the Sierra Leone Civil War. When the intervention had mostly concluded, and only around 250 British soldiers remained in the country to train the Sierra Leone Army, a patrol of 11 soldiers was captured by a group of bandits known as the West Side Boys. Six were eventually released through negotiation. Operation Barras was the operation to retrieve the remaining five. The operation was full of military and political risks, but its aims were achieved, and it success had a profound impact on the British government and was seen as a vindication of Tony Blair's policy of "humanitarian intervention". The legacy of Barras (and indeed the entire intervention in Sierra Leone) is overshadowed by Britain's later engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, but is important nonetheless.

It's been a year or so since I nominated anything here, but I'm confident this meets the criteria, and it hasn't had any problems passing an A-class review within MilHist. However, all comments are of course welcome! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reaper Eternal
  • The sources all look reliable, but I have not done spotchecks because I don't have the books.
  • All information appears to be sourced.
  • Why are the footnotes below the citations?
    • Because that's the way I did it? I don't know. Does it make a difference? It's the same citation style as Iranian Embassy siege.
      • I really don't think it matters—I've just never seen it that way before, and was wondering if it was accidental. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes are inconsistent—some give the year of publication while others do not.
    • That's deliberate—I cite two book by the same author and publication year seems to be the best way to distinguish between them in footnotes.
  • Foday Kallay and West Side Boys are linked several times, and Foday Kallay just redirects to the West Side Boys article. Is this a WP:OVERLINK issue?
    • Kallay was redirected after my rewrite, so I hadn't spotted that. Unlinked.
  • Image copyrights appear fine.
  • In note #1: "...or sometimes the 'West Side Niggers', which they changed to 'West Side Boys' as the latter would not be acceptable for use in news reports." - Who is "they", the West Side Boys or reporters?
    • The West Side Boys, but I don't think it's really ambiguous.
      • Oh. No, it's not ambiguous; I just couldn't believe that they really cared how their name looked in the media. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose generally looks good.
  • You mention balaclavas, but many people will not know what they are. You might want to wikilink it to Balaclava (clothing).
    • They're only mentioned once, and in a quote. I'm generally loathe to put links in quotes, and balaclavas aren't directly relevant to the topic.
      • True. I can't see putting it in a "See also" section, since readers wouldn't recognize why it is there, so leaving it unlinked is fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they seem so related, you may wish to join the two paragraphs under the "Conclusion of the assault" section.
    • Done.
  • I found no links to disambiguation pages.
  • The external links resolve correctly.
  • The alt text for the images looks good.
  • Overall this article looks excellent. Good work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: File:UNsierraleone.PNG should have an {{information}} template (but copyright seems fine). File:Royal Air Force Regiment in Afghanistan.JPG seems fine. File:Gen. Sir David Richards at NATO Summit in Chicago May 20, 2012.jpg seems fine. File:US Navy 080925-N-2074H-085 Marines practice fast-rope techniques.jpg seems fine. File:RAF Chinook.jpg seems fine. File:WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING 2009 - Tony Blair.jpg seems fine. I'm not very sure about File:David Frost Rumsfeld interview cropped.jpg: can an interview be considered as "official duties"? Doesn't the BBC has the copyright? Cambalachero (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are "my" images, so I don't know anything more about them than you. However, with the last one, it appears that the photo was taken by someone from the US DOD's public affairs unit, so I would imagine that photographing the interview was part of his official duties and since he wasn't employed by the BBC, the Beeb don't have any claim to copyright. Thanks for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article review: First, this was not a proper war, campain or battle, with armies on both sides, but a stealth military operation. Perhaps {{Infobox operational plan}} may be better than the {{Infobox military conflict}} currently used. As for the rest, I will go section by section
  • Background: Do we need the first two paragraphs? The description of the SAS and the Parachute Regiment seem unrelated to the conflict. Has they been involved in previous operations of the Sierra Leone cvil war? If not, there is no background for them. "(similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland)" seems a bit derogatory, the country size should be enough. "The West Side Boys[note 1] were a militia group who had been involved in the civil war". You mentioned the civil war in the previous sentence, "involved in it" should be enough.
    • I like to give a little background information. Remember that a reader should be able to print this article out and still have a full understanding of the topic (without needing to click any of the links). A few sentences on the units involved in a military operation is useful for context.
  • Capture of the Royal Irish patrol: Do we have the names of the hostages? Being just 11, it shouldn't be a problem to list them. "...decided to take the patrol to investigate..." Isn't "took the patrol to investigate" better? "British forces in Sierra Leone were operating on the authority of the Sierra Leone government, but President Ahmad Kabbah allowed British forces to conduct the negotiations themselves, as it was apparent that his government lacked the requisite expertise". That seems an important claim, and should have a footnote immediately after.
    • 1) Not full names (the ranks and surnames are in one of the books), but knowing their names doesn't help the reader understand anything more about the subject. There's also a good chance that several are still serving members of the British Army, so I'd rather err on the side of protecting their privacy. 2) The decision itself is of interest, and is discussed alter in the article. 3) Not really, the government was in tatters at the time, but I can add a citation.
  • Deterioration: "The West Side Boys were unstable, possibly due to prolonged use of cannabis and cocaine, and their behaviour during the crisis was erratic". That can easily be misunderstood for a derogatory comment or even article vandalism, so you should provide a footnote right after it, and perhaps even a hidden comment using <!-- -->.
    • I don't think so. Especially not with further reading of the article. They were nutjobs, which is fairly obvious from the context. But again, it doesn't hurt to add a citation.
  • Military planning: I did not see any problem.
  • Deployment to Sierra Leone: So, the press was openly discussing about a covert operation. Wasn't there any known reaction to that? "There was debate among the commanders as to whether the soldiers should wear body armour—some officers feared that the weight would increase the risk of heat exhaustion—but it was decided that the soldiers would wear body armour as the cooler temperatures of the early morning (when the operation was planned to be launched) would mitigate the effects of the weight". You repeated "body armour" in the sentence, which is 3 lines long. Perhaps you should slip it into 2 sentences.
    • 1) The standard MoD refusal to comment. 2) Good point; I'll have a look at this later.
  • Decision to launch: Isn't just "Launch" a better section title? "...that the West Side Boys might decide to move further inland..." try "might move" instead. The important thing in that scenario would be the move, not the decision itself.
    • 1) the section is predominantly about the decision. 2) Quite right; I have a tendency to use more words than are necessary.
  • Assault: I'm not sure if the photo should be used, as it is about a similar operation, not about the actual operation described in the article.
    • There are no images of the event, but to use no images at all would render the article an unpleasant wall of text, so we resort to using images that aren't directly relevant to illustrate certain terms (like fast-roping or underslung loads) and break the text up.
  • Gberi Bana: "the men were used as servants and put through crude military training by the West Side Boys, possibly with the intention of forcing them to fight in the future, while the women were used as sex slaves". That's very serious stuff: provide a footnote immediately after.
    • Not really—it wasn't uncommon in West Africa at the time; but it doesn't hurt to put an extra ref there.
  • Magbeni: Again, a photo that is not from the event.
    • See above.
  • Conclusion of the assault: It's a subsection of "The operation", simply "Conclusion" should be enough as a title. "Fordham visited the men shortly after the operation and stated "they looked remarkably well considering the ordeal they had been through" and described them as being "physically and mentally exhausted"." Provide a footnote at the end of both quotations.
    • I considered that when I wrote it, but I worried that a section just labelled "conclusion" would look like I was drawing my own conclusions rather than describing the conclusion of the operation.
  • Aftermath: "Also confirmed to have died in the operation were 25 West Side Boys". Provide a footnote after proving numbers.
    • There's one in the infobox.
  • Long-term impact: "...in Bangura's words, "take a closer look"." Provide a footnote after this quotation.
    • Done.
Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, having re-read the parts highlighted, I think the referencing is sufficient. Adding more footnotes would only result in redundant footnotes at the end of every sentence. The rule of thumb is one per paragraph, and none of the claims mentioned are extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
  • What order are you using for your general references?
  • Collins or Coolins? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It started as the order in which they're cited, but I think that got lost after I wrote the lead and background sections; changed to alphabetical. Coolins was a typo; well spotted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very interesting and comprehensive article - great work. I have the following comments and suggestions:
  • The first sentence doesn't read all that well. I'd suggest something like "Operation Barras was a British Army operation that took place in Sierra Leone on 10 September 2000"
    • Done
  • The background section should discuss the background to this operation before introducing the SAS and 1 Para given that these units come in later. That said, I'm not sure what the value of the material on the general characteristics and history of these units is here - the key thing is what they were capable of doing in 2000.
    • I've moved the last paragraph to be the first; I'll have a closer look later but the format basically uses Iranian Embassy siege#Background as a boilerplate.
      • It looks a bit stilted here to be honest. I'd suggest that this section be structured as 1) the para which begins with "Sierra Leone is a former British colony" 2) the para which starts with "British forces were deployed" and then 3) a newish para on the characteristics of the British forces in the country (including a brief description of the RIR; eg, that it was a 'line' infantry battalion) and the special forces/para back-up available in the UK if they got into trouble Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's sufficient to say what the RIR were doing in Sierra Leone, since it could have been any regiment that ended up in the situation they did; I go into more detail on the SAS and the Parachute Regiment because they were hand-picked for the mission. I've re-ordered the paragraphs per your suggestion, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "engrossed in a civil war" - I don't think that 'engrossed' is an appropriate term ('consumed by a civil war', perhaps? - though that's a bit dramatic)
    • I'm inlcined to agree but I can't think of a better word to describe the situation; I'm open to other sugestions
      • 'Consumed' works; engrossed is now normally used to describe something people are deeply interested in (eg, I'm engrossed in the history of medieval Briton I'm currently reading). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed British forces to conduct the negotiations themselves" - what these negotiations were need to be introduced here
    • Done
  • "the three rangers and two of the corporals" - what's a ranger in this context? (the RIR equivalent of a private, I presume?)
  • "The West Side Boys told the British negotiators that the officers and NCOs would not be released until the West Side Boys' remaining demands were met." - watch out for duplication here
    • Fixed.
  • "However, several specialist units from elsewhere in 1 PARA were attached to A Company in order to bring the company group up to the required strength, including a signals group, snipers, heavy machine gun sections, and a mortar section." - the 'however' seems unnecessary given that, by definition, a company group includes elements from other parts of a battalion (also, did the group include multiple heavy machine gun sections as this states?)
    • I'll have to check the source for this and I'm away from home so it might be a couple of days.
      • I take it that the multiple MG sections is correct? (it's certaintly feasible) Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There were three according to Fowler.
  • "The additional firepower was included in order to maximise the options available to the planners and operational commanders, given that additional resources would not be immediately available should the operation run into difficulties, and that the West Side Boys had a numerical advantage" - this is a bit wordy
    • I've tweaked it slightly
  • The sentence which begins with "The purpose of the Magbeni assault" is a bit lengthy; I'd suggest splitting into two sentences
    • Also tweaked slightly
      • That reads really well now Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a water-borne insertion using the same method with which the SAS observation teams had been inserted" - this could be rephrased to avoid duplication
    • Tweaked
  • " At around the same time, the SAS observation teams, which had been in place near the West Side Boys' base for four days, had seen no sign of the captive soldiers in that time." - this is a little bit awkward and unclear (how about " At around the same time, the SAS teams near the West Side Boys' base reported that they had seen no sign of the captive soldiers during the four days they had been in position" or similar?)
    • Done
  • " with Claymore" - I'd suggest adding 'mines' after 'claymore'
    • Done.
  • "The paras were flown to RFA Argus, where they spent the night, and flown back to the United Kingdom the next day" - the tense should change in the middle of this sentence (eg, the second 'flown' should be 'flew' or something along those lines)
    • Re-worded slightly
  • Do we know why Marshall asked to be transferred from the RIR? Was this linked to the criticism of his actions? Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest slightly expanding the early material on the RIR to explain why they were unable to rescue their own personnel, but this is fairly self-evident from the article's content (and will be obvious to people with any knowledge of this kind of topic). Nick-D (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Agreed with Nick's comments, and I have a couple more:
  • "it is rumoured": Understood that there are good historians who say this, but they mean something different than WP's writers or (most) readers understand from that. WP:WEASEL more or less disallows this. Say who said it, and then we'll see if it needs a tweak.
    • All the source says is that there were rumours. The MoD doesn't comment on special forces (or anything that has potential to embarrass Her Majesty's Government).
      • "were involved in at least one operation directed by British officers and, it is rumoured, special forces": The question is how reliable you believe this source to be, and what this source typically means when it says "it is rumoured". If you trust this source, and if the source has a habit of saying "it is rumoured" for things the source knows are true, then the best way to assert the truth of the statement is to drop the "it is rumoured". If the source literally meant that there were rumours, or if you are less than positive what was meant, then omit this less-than-credible information. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source literally means there are rumours. They're credible—I don't think the source would mention them if they weren't—but there's no official confirmation. But it's not crucial to the article so I've taken it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's the safer and cleaner way to handle it. I think if you just asserted it as truth, we'd probably need a footnote to explain. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cocaine made them paranoid": "paranoid", as it's loosely used in the media, means nothing; for the psychiatric diagnosis, anyone competent to diagnose that wouldn't try it on someone they'd never met, and they wouldn't diagnose the cause, either. Probably just drop this bit; the first part of the sentence is fine, and you've mentioned cocaine use already at this point. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Paranoid" is the term used in the source (though the author is a military historian, not a psychiatrist) and I think it's important to mention the effect it had on their behavior. Do you have a suggestion for a different term? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be fine to say that they were distrustful, particularly after drug use, if you believe that's what the source or sources meant. Casual use of the word "paranoid" is out of fashion in serious writing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. The paragraph that begins "The Parachute Regiment" repeats the word "regiment" more than it needs to, and "the Parachute Regiment contribute" doesn't sound right to me after many uses as a singular noun in the same paragraph.
    • Copy-edited slightly.
  • "(27,700 square miles) (similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland)": (27,700 square miles), similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland
    • Replaced the parentheses with an emdash
  • "In 2000, the country was engrossed in a civil war, which had been ongoing since a coup in 1997": Nick was correct, "engrossed" is the wrong word. "consumed by" or "engaged in" would work. Our article on the Sierra Leone Civil War says it began in 1991; I don't know.
    • 1997 must have been a typo (it was 1991); "engrossed" change to "consumed by"
  • "was brought ashore in order to assess the soldiers": was brought ashore to assess the soldiers [but the "in order to" in the previous sentence is fine]
    • Done
  • "were attached to A Company in order to bring the company group up to the required strength": remove "in order" here, too
    • Also done
  • "With the operation becoming more likely to be launched": with+noun+"ing"; maybe "as the need for an operation became more certain"
    • Would it work if I just removed the "with"?
      • How about "As the operation became more likely"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several purpose": several purposes
    • Already fixed, but well spotted
  • "By 5 September, the likelihood that an operation would be mounted to free the remaining six soldiers had increased, and the British media was openly speculating on the possibility": First you describe a lot of planning for the operation, as if it's quite likely ... then you say the odds have increased, now they've increased again; at some point, readers get skeptical about odds-making. This would probably work better if you shorten it to: "By 5 September, there was open speculation in the British media on an operation to free the remaining six soldiers".
    • Tweaked
  • "several of the paras ... the Paras focused": consistency in capitalization
    • Fixed
  • "the tropical heat of the area": the tropical heat
    • Done
  • "The DSF attends COBRA meetings during crises which may require the use of special forces": This feels like it's inserted out of sequence; it should probably be shorter and earlier in the paragraph.
    • Copy-edited slightly to improve its flow.
  • - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting either way on Nick's suggestion at "It looks a bit stilted". - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tinnion was posthumously Mentioned in Despatches": lowercase, or: Tinnion received a posthumous Mention in Despatches. (Some writers believe that there's such a thing as a "proper verb", but I can't find support for that.)
    • I don't know about this—"Mentioned in Despatches" is the proper name and (bizarre capitalisation or otherwise) I'm inclined to stick with the proper name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ask anyone who uses the phrase regularly at FAC ... Ian, Nick, Hawkeye, etc., and we'll talk more if people aren't sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Harry, Dan has it right, the consensus now is lower case for "mentioned" (verb form) and title case for "Mention" (noun form) -- if this seems like WP conventions are overriding common usage in the real world, well it wouldn't be the first time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to think we should follow the conventions used in the real world, because to do otherwise would be getting very close to making it up as we go along. But for the sake of a quiet life, I've changed it to the noun form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that "Mentioned" isn't a name at all; it's a verb. I can't think of another "proper verb" that a copy editor would accept, apart from a few proper names used as verbs ("xeroxed" used to be uppercased, but it's not a very common word any more). I think it goes without saying that we don't want to write an encyclopedia in militarese ... when it gets to the point that they're not just making up words, but making up new parts of speech (which they do), copy editors don't generally follow their lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query - did the spotcheck of sources ever get done? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No; I think it's because almost all of it is sourced to books. (If it makes any difference, spotchecks have been done on my previous FACs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true, Harry, although I think the last time was Baron Dannett in August 2011 -- I like to see even experienced FAC nominators spotchecked at least once a year to keep 'em on their toes... ;-) Moreover, even if there was a more recent one, we couldn't automatically assume that Reaper would drop it as a condition of his support. I notice Tim Riley is back on the scene, and he's been very helpful with offline-source spotchecks in the past -- will give him a shout. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, before we do that, the Dorman and I think the Osprey-published books are available on GoogleBooks preview, which might suffice for spotchecking -- any volunteers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to check the two Fremont-Barnes cites, but the Dorman and Fowler (2010) Googlebooks previews were too short to be useful, and I was unable to find the other sources online in any form (with the exception of the Connaughton piece, which is behind one of the most shockingly priced paywalls I've seen). I just checked my local library catalog and none of these sources are available on short order. Hope Tim or someone else can help. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for having a go, Maralia -- I'll try Tim in that case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho! I've ordered Collins, Dorman, and Fowler (2010), which will be available later this morning. I'll report back this afternoon. Tim riley (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed. If there are problems getting hold of the books, I can take "my" (most of them actually belong to Wikimedia UK, who kindly footed the bill for my research) copies to the London meetup on Sunday and get someone there to do the checking. Just FYI, Tim, I built the article around Fowler (2010) and used the other sources mainly for detail and background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks – done on three books and one online source. May I make a general point about page-ranges in references? It is fair enough to use ranges of several pages when the matter cited is a broad theme (e.g. note 57) but I cursed a bit at having to search seven pages to verify one short, self-contained factual statement, such as 18a, which should, I think, have referred to p. 23 rather than to pp. 21–27. (I admit that the average reader won't care, but still…)
  • Fowler (2010)
    • 3 a and b: fine
    • 14 a–e: fine
    • 16 a and b: fine
    • 18 a–c: fine
    • 25: fine
    • 28 a and b: fine
    • 31 – I couldn't find the information quoted on the page cited
      • Fowler says "At Seaview Hose, the British military HQ above the High Commission in Freetown, the DSF with his small HQ including CO 22 SAS and OC D Squadron had been in place with secure radio links to the observation teams since Thursday 7 September. DSF was also in communication upwards with PJHQ and CBR [sic]" (paragraph two) and "A critical part of his HQ were the three members of the Tactical Communication Wing, RAF who would coordinate the operation of the attack helicopters and the Chinooks" (paragraph four)
    • 33 a and b: fine
    • 34 a and b: fine
    • 37: fine
    • 38: fine
    • 41: fine
    • 42: fine
    • 43: fine
    • 44 a–d: fine
    • 45: fine
    • 46: fine
    • 48 a and b: fine
    • 52: fine
    • 53 a–d: fine
  • Collins
    • 32: fine
    • 50 – I couldn't find reference to Marshall here, or to there being two men moved to Home Service units
      • He's mentioned by his position rather than by name and buried in Collins' rather colourful way of telling his story, but it's there.
  • Dorman
    • 12: fine
    • 17: fine
    • 20 a and b: fine
    • 24 a and b: fine
    • 54: fine
    • 55 – Unless I stared through it the statement referred to is not on this page
      • Dorman says "Issues about casualties, proportionality and the decision to use force were inextricably linked with concerns about potential winners and losers from the deliberate assault. A great deal was at risk for the British government. Its' [sic] attitude towards ensuring the its hostages were released and the manner in which they were released sent signals to the RUF and and to other groups within Sierra Leone, the African continent and globally. If the assault had indeed failed and there had been a significant loss of life then the policy of the British government towards Sierra Leone would have been forced to change and almost certainly involved the complete withdrawal of British forces". And I removed the "inextricably linked" quote as I can't figure out where I got that from. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 57: fine
  • Connaughton
    • 15 a and b: As far as I can see, the statements referred to are not on this page
      • For "a", Connaughton says What Kallay did concede after five days of holding the hostages captive was the release of five of the eleven British hostages in exchange for a satellite telephone. I added a citation to Fowler (2010) for the medical supplies.
      • Couldn't find "b", so I've removed that.
    • 27: ditto
      • Connaughton says [...] enabled models and a replica camp to be made up, which greatly assisted the briefing and training [...]; Fowler goes into more detail, but I added that in case somebody found it easier to check the journal.
    • 47a: I think this should read p. 116, not 117
      • Quite right; fixed
    • 47b: I think this should read p. 111
      • Also fixed
    • 47c: as for 47a.
      • And fixed.
Note that I checked these four sources at the British Library, and being back at Château Riley I cannot now comment further on any amendments or explanations put forward by the nominator of this excellent article. Quibbles, above, notwithstanding, I have full confidence in the accuracy of the statements made. – Tim riley (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: I should have added, and now do, that I detected nothing that looked even faintly like a crib or close paraphrase; indeed, the facts have been most skilfully and freshly re-presented. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking these, Tim, and thanks for the compliment. I'm travelling at the minute, so I'll look at your queries wrt Dorman and Fowler in a day or two (Collins is fresh in my mind and I have a copy of Connaughton on my laptop). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to the specific queries above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And replied wholly satisfactorily in my view. I have no further quibbles, and look forward to seeing this article on the front page at some point. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Barras/archive1&oldid=1075706253"