Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arrow (Israeli missile)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow (missile) edit

Nominator(s): Flayer (talk)
Toolbox

I am renominating this article for A-Class review because I think it has a better chance now to receive the A-class status.
Previous discussion: [1] Flayer (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am skeptical about the army-technology website profile, which is used about 45 times for citing. The website is a bit evasive about who runs it and what it is about, and it has a large testimonial page, with endorsements from military industry groups. Is this a website for advertising military hardware? If so, it can't be a reliable source as it would talk up the goods on behalf of its partners. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Reduced the dependency on army-technology website, now almost everywhere it appears with another supporting reliable source. Flayer (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referecing There is an inconsistency with firstname surname, and surname, firstname in your references YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Flayer (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the quote boxes are needed. I would expect the high brass of the IDF to be trumpeting the quality of the missile at ceremonies and stuff, even if it wasn't good quality, and I think making it so prominent is POV. Also, newspaper titles like JP and Haaretz are supposed to be italicised. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wish to keep the quote boxes, they represent the attitude that IDF gives to Arrow. Should only JP and Haaretz be italicized? What about Globes, Reuters, Jane's? Should I italicize strictly newspapers? Flayer (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magazines and book titles and all those as well. Reuters/Penguin Publ BBC etc are companies. Jane's Defence Weekly would be it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Flayer (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Could do with a spruce up. The writer is, however, clearly skilled.

User:Poliocretes is clearly skilled, I owe the copy-editing to him. :) Flayer (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it all in summary style? Seems long. Are there opportunities for spinning off one or two daughter articles?
 Done It is. Arrow 3 has some potential for its own article, but not yet. Flayer (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking: "United States" and other anglophone country-names are not normally linked (better to a section or a daughter article, if at all ... here, it doesn't seem necessary at all). "Israel" link better to a focused article (Isn't there one on the Israeli def. forces?, and within it a section on equipment? But your got the Min. of Def. linked anyway, a second later, so I'd drop the vague link and save the blue carpet.) "Hebrew" linked twice? Nor is it neceesary to link US$ in the infobox. Nor kg and lb. Ration them links and the readers are more likely to click on them, we say.
 Done Hebrew linked twice because of the template "lang-he", I can't change it. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bolding: well, if you have to link the other names in the middle of the lead, but bolding looks messy like that.
 Done Removed. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Elta ...", to be fussy?
 Done Added. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the construction and testing of". When there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left (usually).
 Done Added. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need "currently in existence"? I'd rather "ever to have been developed", but you hardly need that either.
 Done I think yes. "Currently in existence" appears as it is in the source I quote. Flayer (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please audit the ref section. For example, the publisher of "Defense Update" is not listed (it is really British, with US spelling of the title?). A lot of the items seem short on documentation. Can you check the rules? And if an online publication is a regular publication, can you cite the date of publication as well as of retrieval? Mixture of title and sentence case in the ref list. Sentence case much preferred for article/page/chapter titles.
 Done "Defense Update" appears to be British with US spelling of the title. I don't know why. I added the date of publication as well as of retrieval wherever there is any date of publication. Sentence case fixed. Flayer (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • long-ranged (I guess it can't be just "long-range", can it?).
 Done Done. Flayer (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More link-focussing possibilities: Rabin's name is linked, fine, but PM of Israel (and probably DM of I) will be prominently linked at the top of that article, surely. So just retain the one link. "Chinese" ... not usually linked.
 Done Done. Flayer (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Flayer (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the little box for US contribs usual formatting?
Sorry, I didn't understand what do you mean. Flayer (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Successfully intercept"—lose one word?
 Done Should it be "successfully intercepted"? Flayer (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • two-stage
 Done Flayer (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image placement in "Arrow 2" is a bit messy, and the Feb. image could be larger (image use policy has recently changed so that default thumbnail is no longer a strict norm). Put both on the right, or one further down? The Block-2 images are too small to see important details. Could they possibly be enlarged and arranged vertically? Unsure.
 Done Should look better now. Flayer (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in order to: drop two words, please.
Where? Which? Sorry for my bad English. Flayer (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Golden Citron": is it a diagram? Maybe. But why not "Stages of ...".
 Done Flayer (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Israel map caption: en dash. Tony (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you for your comments! Flayer (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • "Also with an eye on the advanced missile programs of Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Fragment.
OK, I moved it up. Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "Green Pine" reportedly detected and tracked similar launches of Syrian "Scuds" also in 2005[80] and in 2008.[81]" Awkward, rephrase please.
"In 2005 and in 2008 "Green Pine" detected and tracked similar drills of Syrian "Scuds".[80][81]" - is it better now? Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much, thanks. – Joe N 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely comprehensive and seems to be well-referenced, just a few problems with the readability. – Joe N 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • File:Arrow2 96feb.jpg source is a dead link. If source cannot be verified and/or PD established, then the image needs to go.
 Done MDA did some changes on their website. I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  1. Please, read carefully the summary of IsraeOMC.png: "This map's source is here, with the uploader's modifications, and the GMT homepage says that the tools are released under the GNU General Public License".
  2. Now read the description of the "Online Map Creation" website: "You may create maps interactively at this site. Fill out the form, submit your entries and a page with the desired map will be returned to your browser."
  3. Now tell me please, how one can put a direct weblink to an image that is only temporarily available at the website? It was created with this website, it is not kept there. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the images are now gone from the MDA website, that doesn't mean that they can't be used. It just needs to explain that in the image file. Cla68 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you reconsider your objection now. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again at the image files and see the changes I made to the source descriptions to make it more clear the source of the images and the context in which they are used in the source site. Although it is a pain in the neck to include this much detail in the image file pages, especially since most uploaders don't usually bother to do so, it is important in GA-class articles or above to make it easy for readers to see where the images come from and why they are freely licensed. Your description above as to where the map comes from and why it is freely licensed needs to be included on the image page so that when someone clicks on the link they'll understand exactly why the map does not appear to them. I'll proofread the article text, hopefully later today. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done OK, thanks. Flayer (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the alterations made during this review, I believe the article meets milhist's A-Class criteria. If anything it's perhaps over-cited (see WP:CITE and WP:LEADCITE; unless an article comes under WP:BIO, I see no need for extensive citations in the lead). However, it's an excellent, comprehensive article - well done. EyeSerenetalk 09:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much! I hope "Green Pine" and "Arrow 3" will grow to main articles, so the amount of citations here will drop. I also removed extensive citations in the lead as you mentioned. Flayer (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice work Flayer. EyeSerene is right about the citations in the lead; as long as it's mentioned and cited in the body of the article, there's no need for citations in the intro. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I removed most of the citations from the intro. Flayer (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)&oldid=1138361087"