Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atlantique Incident/archive1
- 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 not promoted 18:16, 6 August 2007.
The article is very through, properly cited and explains the whole incident in great detail. So I am nominating it for FA. Mercenary2k 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Because I'm the main contributor to this article, I was planning to list it as a FA but Mercenary2k has listed it showing there is some consensus already. Naturally I would support it. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idleguy (talk • contribs) 13:25, July 21, 2007.
- Oppose This article is pretty good, but isn't FA quality yet. The quality of the writing could be improved, and more citations are needed. Some suggestions:
- The lead sentance states that this was a 'major event' but why this is the case isn't explained in the introduction. The article never really explains this either - it is stated that it lead to increased tensions, but not that there was ever a serious risk of things getting worse.
- The 'The Confrontation' section really needs at least one inline citation supporting this account of the shoot down - the current citations appear to only confirm the plane's callsign and that it was approaching the international border.
- The description of the plane and it's mission should be seperated into seperate sentances.
- The 'Claims and counter claims' section is rather tiresome to read. Is there a neutral account which can be drawn on? - the 'he said' 'she said' paragraphs probably reflect how the two Governments responded, but it's hard to read.
- Actually the final paragraph does talk about the neutral viewpoints in detail. The reason why both accounts seem to be lengthy was to ensure that NPOV was held as the discussion on the article's talk page would reveal. The current version is the one that is accepted by both pak and indian editors without compromising facts. However, the section does finish off with the neutral account. Idleguy 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'Rise in tensions' section states that "both the countries' militaries near the Rann of Kutch and nearby were put on high alert" this needs a citation, especially as the only example of this alert is the redeployment of a single infantry company (eg, only about 100 troops). A citation is also needed for the claim that the US State Department said that there was "continued high-stakes tension" --Nick Dowling 10:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Few things:
- The formatting of the refs need standardising. Some haven't got publisher info, publication dates, retrieval dates. Sometimes the publisher is first, sometimes the date. Sometimes there's a full stop before the "Retrieved on", sometimes there isn't. It's hardly crucial, I know, but should be fixed.
- Surely the one link in "See also" can be merged into the text or discarded.
- Check the dashes with regards to the guidelines.
- first and only - "first" is redundant, "only" is sufficient.
- Check for redundant or ambiguous use of "also", there are more than necessary in the "Claims and counter claims" section and possibly in others. Possibly "counter claims" should be hyphenated, but I'm not sure.
- "Claim" is in the list of words to avoid. It might not matter too much in this case because it's used for both sides, but just wanted to raise it for consideration.
- Overall looks fairly good, nice work. Trebor 15:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all possible aspects given as suggestion by Trebor. Claim word has been reduced, though not entirely eliminated since it still is needed in some cases. The publishers where given are produced faithfully - however if I have omitted any specific instance , then pl. inform me and I will correct it. The retrieval and publishing dates too have been taken care of. The dash issue is I'm sure according to the MoS, i.e. en dashes for the right places and em dashes only sparingly (total 3 instances) and according to the context/application. Redundant words and sections have also been removed as per suggestion. Thanks. Idleguy 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—1a, 2a. Is this really the lead?
- "The Atlantique Incident was an event in which a Pakistan Navy plane, Breguet Atlantique, carrying 16 people on board, was shot down by the Indian Air Force citing violation of airspace. The episode took place in the Rann of Kutch on 10 August 1999 just a month after the Kargil War, creating a tense atmosphere between India and Pakistan. This was the Pakistan Navy's only loss of an airplane to hostile fire in its history."
Totally inadequate in scope and length. "Citing" is a problem, and better "shot down by an Indian Air Force ?fighter plane. "Carrying 16 people on board"? Not on the wings?
The prose is faulty throughout. Just the tip of the iceberg: read MOS on captions. "further added"—one word redundant. The use and neglect of commas is awkward. "Pakistan said"—what, millions of people uttered at once? Read MOS on en dashes for ranges (Notes). Pity there's little but websites as references. Tony 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If needed the lead can be expanded. Not sure what the issue exactly is about "citing". Pl. elaborate also on the 16 people issue. I'm really not with you, unless you're saying perhaps that "on board" is redundant? I can make changes on commas soon and the redundancy can be removed. As for the references, 1/4 of the sources I obtained were originally offline (like newspapers etc.) for which I tried to get an online equivalent for easy access. So they're not just websites but links to stories/editorials/journal publications. There are also no books that deal primarily with this incident. Idleguy 10:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.