Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armed Forces of Liberia edit

Nominator(s): Buckshot06(prof)
Toolbox

Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia/archive2
This is a third nomination, after two last year. I believe I have addressed virtually all the issues raised in the last two reviews, and want to see if it's ready to be promoted. Thanks to all who review the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • there is one dab link reported, but per the previous review I don't believe this can be fixed (no action required);
    • images have alt text (no action required);
    • images seem to be correctly licenced (no action required);
    • a few of the external links show up as dead with the Featured article tools, can you please investigate? [1];Green tickY
    • in the History section you have this in single quotation marks: 'tend[ing] to be brief and uninspired [with little] accomplished other than some desultory close-order drill' - however, per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks, I believe that it should be it double or "..." quotes;Green tickY
    • in the History section, this needs a citation: "U.S. forces also established a officer candidate school during the later part of the war, using instructors selected from the American troops in the country. The school conducted two courses and graduated nearly 300 new officers. Just under twenty years later in 1964, the group still made up over 50% of the officer corps of the AFL";Green tickY
    • in the Doe regime and civil war section, this needs a citation: "By May 1990 the AFL had been forced back to Gbarnga, still under the control of Bowen's troops, but they lost the town to a NPFL assault on 28 May 1990";Green tickY
    • in the Rebuilding the AFL section, the final paragraph needs a citation: "In October 2009 a State Partnership Program relationship was begun between the AFL and the U.S. state of Michigan's Michigan National Guard";Green tickY
    • in the Organization section, this needs a citation: "Samukai is attempting to alleviate the problem by relocating some personnel to Camp Tubman in Gbarnga, though this will initially only involve some of the engineers";Green tickY
    • in the Organization section, this needs a citation: "Construction of the Coast Guard boat ramp was scheduled for completion by early June 2010";Green tickY
    • Citation # 80 the url chain is showing, but it should probably be embedded in the title of the work as you've done with the others;Green tickY
    • in the Bibliography section the titles of books (e.g. the Ellis work) should be in italics;Green tickY
    • in the Bibliography section you sometimes have the authors' with first names first (Festus B Aboagye) but then sometimes surnames first (e.g. Ellis, Stephen), I think they should all be the same, with the normal standard to be Surname, First name I believe;Green tickY
    • same as above for the Further reading section.Green tickY AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • some of the citation formats are a little different, for example # 38 "Adebajo, 2002, p.58. See also Hubard, 118-125" (in this case I think you need to add "pp." to Hubard, and the page range should have an endash);
    • as per above, with Citation # 9 "T.D. Roberts et al," you have "p. 389–90", but I think it should be "pp.389–390" for consistency - the issue being the "pp." but also displaying the full page number;Green tickY
    • in the citations there are still a few that have the bare url links, e.g # 46 ("Bowen joined the AFL"), # 47 ("Kromah was a former police officer"), # 58 (where it talks about the 2007-2009 funding) - this "2007-2009" also needs an endash;
    • some of the web citations don't have accessdates, for instance Citation # 12 "NewLiberian.com" and # 34 "2006/2007 Budget";
    • Citation # 45 "Adebayo, 2002, p.233-235" should have an endash for the page range, but should also be "pp. 233–235" as it is a multiple page range. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Rebuilding the AFL section, this sentence needs a citation: "A number of the current senior AFL officers have been drawn from the ranks of the previous 1993–94 Interim Government of National Unity paramilitary police force, the 'Black Berets.'"
    • in the last sentence of the History section you have used single quotation marks when you should have double quotations (as per the comment above that you've fixed): "Sawyer also comments that 'recruitment of such individuals for the military was part of Tolbert's efforts to replace aging, illiterate soldiers with younger, literate men who were capable of absorbing technical and professional training.'"Green tickY AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Doe regime and civil war section, check your usage of "lead" and "led" in the first paragraph;Green tickY
    • in the Doe regime and civil war section, check that your capitalisation of military ranks is consistent with Wikipedia:MILMOS#Capitalization. For instance "...Doe, as a Master Sergeant..." should be "...Doe, as a master sergeant..." as it is not being used as a title/proper noun in this case. Also later "Captain to Lieutenant General" which should be "capitain to lieutenant general";Green tickY
    • check for overlink, for instance Samuel Doe is linked in both the History section and the Doe regime and civil war section;Green tickY
    • some of the citations still have inconsistent formats, for instance Citations # 7 is "Roberts, 1964, pp.392–3", but Citation # 8 is "T.D. Roberts et al, US Army Area Handbook 1964, pp.389–90". The difference here is that one is using the short citation style and the other is using a longer variation. Compare this then with Citation # 29, which has "Ellis, Stephen (2001). The Mask of Anarchy. London: Hurst and Company. p. 56. ISBN 1-85065-417-4";
    • in the Taylor Regime section you have "demobilization", however, before that in the History section you have "mobilisation", and then later in the Organization section you have "demobilisation" (the issue here being a mixture of US and British/Commonwealth spelling);Green tickY
    • in the History section, there appears to be a tense issue in this clause: "By 1978 the program has been..." (the word "has" is the issue here, as it is in the past it should probably be "had");Green tickY
    • in this sentence there is a capitalisation issue: "By 1978, the LNG Brigade had been established and the Brigade was described as comprising a Headquarters and Headquarters Company at..." (the issue is with "Headquarters" and "Headquarters Company" as these should be lower case as they are being used as improper nouns in this case. For instance in the paragraph above you have "headquarters company");Green tickY Current usage is correct - all the units are given proper titles.
    • in the History sentence, this clause: 'other non-military duties.' Is this a direct quote? If so it should be in double quotation marks, also does the full stop appear in the quote in the source? If not, the final quotation mark should come before the full stop rather than after it per WP:LQ;
    • in the final paragraph of the History section, Sawyer should be linked on first mention (currently he is linked on second mention);Green tickY
    • Toulbert should be linked on first mention as per above (currently lined in the Doe regime and civil war, but it appears before this in previous sections);Green tickY
    • in the Doe regime section, please check the capitalisation of this "The Liberian Navy Act Of 1986" (the issue being "Of", should this be capitalised? Elsewhere you have this: "New National Defense Act of 2008" where the of is not capitalised); Green tickY
    • I think the "Taylor Regime" section header should not be capitalised as it is, I think it should be "Taylor regime" (see how it is "Doe regime..." in the previous header?);Green tickY
    • in the Taylor due to the placing of the commas this looks a little unclear: "(Army, 5,160, Navy, 600, and Air Force, 240)". I suggest changing to this "(5,160 Army, 600 Navy and 240 Air Force)";Green tickY
    • Second Liberian Civil War is overlinked (in the Rebuilding the AFL section, but also in the Taylor Regime section above it). It should only be mentioned in the body on first mention (an in lead and infobox if required), but only once in the body;Green tickY
    • in the Organization section, this clause needs a tweak: "...preparation for a assessment exercise" (I think it should be "...preparation for an assessment exercise");Green tickY
    • in the Organization section, "Mi-24" should be linked as it is not linked earlier;Green tickY
    • Citation # 10 "T.D. Roberts et al, US Army Area Handbook 1964, p.389–90" should use "pp." as it is a page range.Green tickY AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am quite happy with the progress of this article since the start of the ACR. There are a couple of minor outstanding points which I would like to see addressed before taking to FAC (if that is the intention), but I am happy to support for A class. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported the previous nominations, and think that this article meets the A class criteria. The sentence "Samukai is attempting to alleviate the problem by relocating some personnel to Camp Tubman in Gbarnga, though this will initially only involve some of the engineers." needs a citation though. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • What happened to the navy? was it disbanded and incorporated into the coast guard? what happened to the patrol craft it operated?XavierGreen (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier you will see in the 'Rebuilding the AFL' section that there is a note that all the AFL personnel were paid off and retired in 2005 with money from international donors. I have now added a specific note saying that that included the former Navy, renamed from the Coast Guard around 1985 (the exact date is in the article.) As for the patrol craft, I do not known what happened to them; the MOD building was looted during the conflict and most records were destroyed. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Those dead external links alone are cause enough for me to oppose the article, and the green "iffy" links to the websites don't much help the article's promotion chances. I'll look at the actual article once the external link issues are worked out. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The International Crisis Group ones are dead as they've moved behind a registration wall in the last few months; ICG reports are plainly very good sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not contesting that, I just want the tool to display no red links if possible. I consider this a factor in A1 & A2 criteria, so I get anal concerning sources that are red linked or otherwise highlighted by the tools. To be fair, I do reevaluate this position based on what the nominator has to say about the problem, so its not as those this is set in stone. Whatever changes I make will have to wait until tomorrow though, its almost 3:30AM here and I am having trouble keeping my eyes open. If there is one thing I know to be true its that editing while you are tired is a bad idea :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I've been working through the issues that AustralianRupert has raised, and have not addressed all of them. The external link fixes were among the last on my list to do - I'll fix them within a couple of days. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed the FA tool external links and added a citation to the engineers statement. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Neutral TomStar81 (Talk) 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm happy now, the article was a n interesting read and everything does seem to be in place. Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Armed_Forces_of_Liberia&oldid=791880405"