Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Falklands War/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 [1].

British logistics in the Falklands War

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an aspect of the Falklands War. If you've heard of this war, you're probably Gen X or older. It has long since become an historical footnote, but is of great interest to logisticians as a high-intensity conflict fought with modern weapons in a remote location lacking roads, thousands of miles from the nearest bases. The article has an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Reads nicely and very little to pick up on (unsurprising, as it's had the A Class review). I'm having to nit-pick to find even these two so far, but:

Done to the end of "Logistical", with more to come. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. It reads very well and is very informative. I have absolutely no knowledge of logistics, particularly in the military, so this is a prose review only, per my caveat. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

Nice article, I remember reading blow-by-blow accounts of the Falklands War over breakfast in the Australian as a teenager... Formed part of my motivation for joining the Army a couple of years later.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fifelfoo

edit

Support. Reviewed on: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check, if sources support claims spot check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1a: Good. I found some smart quotes… “”. So yeah, I checked your double quotes throughout. IFTFY.
    One fixit: Minor: "It was also missing 383 Commando Petroleum Troop, as this was made up of reservists, who were not called up." What was missing? The noun can't be readily located in previous sentences. 3 Commando? 54 Commando Logistics?
    The Commando Logistic Regiment. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    lmftfy en versus em in body
  • 1b: Done: Comprehensive (weight)
  • 1c: Done: Research completeness
  • 1c: Done: checked what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
  • 1c: Done: Checks out: Where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against authorative/seminal HQRS?
    • Done: Full cite in citations: lQRS used for trivium, appropriate to their level.
    • Done: Bibliography, PRIMARIES: Uses checked as appropriate (Movements, reassignments, orders, construction actions, no analysis hangs on them): Clapp, Fursdon (in EXPERT area, cited supplementary to HQRS narrative for EXPERTise), Gardiner, Hellberg, Jolly, Pook (double cited against other unknown on trivium), Thomson 1985, Van der Bijl
    • Done: Bibliography, publishers/modes not known to reviewer, Brown (EXPERT, gpreview), Burden (lower QRS, trivium weight appropriate)
    • Done: Checks out: sandbox, strip (what you consider) primaries / lQRS, check HQRS narrative as you do it. (Why did I do this?, because I could identify PRIMARY uses easily when reading, but couldn't identify lQRS uses as well and wanted to check weight/structure)
  • 1c: Done: Query: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include?
    High-quality sources are used throughout. The article is only about British logistics, and the islands are called the Falklands throughout, per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously a NPOV issie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree on this, but I more meant, did the history itself generate interesting historiographical debate, "Despite the Joan School emphasising X, a new appreciation has extended this in the Bob School." I don't expect that such would exist here, but I think it is worth asking for our high quality history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None within the scope of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, expected this, had to ask. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Done: Query: For debates in military science as a discipline, "For the RAF, the primary lesson of the war was the utility of aerial refuelling…" Did the Argentinians, or other powers, react with military science findings as a result of the war? Privratsky, Kenneth L. (1 April 1986)? Valovcin, Paul (February 1992)?
    Expanded the lessons to an entire section. I would like to editorialise here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant. I expected this might be the , as the British military science response already existed in the article. I can understand the temptation to editorialise given Thompson's block quote, which translated from bureaucratese is very hard on deficiencies. Thanks, will read as I complete this review. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Done: Checking for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Full citations in footnotes checked. Bibliography checked (see above in relation to HQRS/lQRS use).
  • 1c: Done: Query: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". Improper military conducts could be (based off unpalatable military history in general): improper putting down of the PoW riot; forced requisition, billeting and housing (civil population); and, improper labour use of PoWs. When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources?
    No issues of this kind. Alfredo Astiz was wanted by France and Sweden in relation to crimes committed elsewhere, but the Geneva Convention did not permit prisoners to be handed over to a third party, and he was returned to Argentina. I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear there were no issues. I don't think Astiz's correct treatment is weighty for Logistics, but it would of course be to a PoW article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Done: Query: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / race? In this article I'm particularly thinking of gender, and in relation to STUFT—class (owner complaint? seaman industrial issues?).
    Added a bit about the Hong Kong Chinese crewmen on the RFAs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers for doing this. I didn't view this as a weight deficiency in this article, but I think it is worth asking after in our highest quality history articles generally. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism style check
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism spot check [7 (futon)]
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Spot-check if claims are in sources [7 (futon, trivium)]. Didn't have the time resource to check HQRS
  • 1d: Done: Appears neutral over repeated rereadings to do this.
  • 1e: Done: Its stable
  • 2b: Done: Query: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?
    The article draws mostly on Privatsky, Freedman and Thompson. Its structure is similar to Privratsky, in that it is geographical-chronological-topical, but this is also the structure I employed in my PhD thesis. I discussed the logistics of the campaign with Thompson in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for the reply. These sources already stood out in the rereadings of the article so far. I'm sure I'll attend to their use while finishing the content / research portions of the review above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c: Done: Citations checked: consistent. Footnotes checked: consistent.
  • 2c: Done: Miscited: lmftfy so far.
  • 3: Done: Query: The image captioned, "Key locations and the routes taken by British land forces during the Falklands War" is rather terse about unit designations. M&AW, for example, meant nothing to me until I'd spent some time searching?
    Added a legend explaining that SAS = Special Air Service; SBS = Special Boat Squadron; M&AW = Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (the Special Forces of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Marines respectively) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I can picture some readers stumbling over SBS or even SAS when they're excited by the map. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Done: Query: I'm assuming the map reflects your understanding of consensus of the war?
    It hasn't been fully translated from German, but was chosen as the best one we had that showed the locations mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3: Done: The blockquote "The majority of senior officers and their staffs were handicapped by a dearth of understanding of the logistic realities…" is appropriately chosen.
  • 4: Done: I can't see a useful possibility of reducing length. Sub-articles wouldn't stand well on their own. This makes me think the length is appropriate.

Support Comments from JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye7, thoroughly readable, fascinating and informative. (And yes I remember it, seemed to come out of nowhere and be over quickly.) As usual most of my comments are gnomish plus suggested wlinks...

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to sign support. (Hee hee, you added the snowcats wlink here instead of article?) Thanks for all. JennyOz (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

edit
  • The hyphen in "re-take" is rare, and here an unnecessary disruption in the opening phrase.
    Changed to "recapture" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a sense in the opening sentence that the campaign was specifically designed to do it in 1982?
    Changed to "The 1982 British military campaign to recapture the Falkland Islands" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why repeat the year in the third sentence? And could we abbreviate the name so soon after? Perhaps: "Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in April had come ...".
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • That's a very long sentence. Could there be a semicolon after "down"?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ships Taken Up From Trade "—The linked article does not upcase, and nor should it. I don't care what ignorant military clerks write (they upcase everything in sight); on WP we minimise capping.
    De-capped, per MOS:CAPSACRS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a rationale for using nautical miles in the second para, but not in the first? And I must say that it really gums up the text to flash three units at readers every time. Naval experts know how to convert, silently, if it matters that much to them.
    Switched to nmi + km only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was only a small hardstand area for parking aircraft, and no parallel taxiways"—grammar. Same problem in the subsequent sentence, which also contains a comma splice.
    Removed the first comma? Not sure what to do with the other sentence. @Dank:
  • "This was used". What is the referent: "an anchorage"?
    Changed to "Ascension". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as a base for Hercules transport aircraft, which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability"—was the modification in situ, at the time, ongoing? If not, "had been" might be better.
    Yes, it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were modified by the addition of auxiliary fuel tanks and aerial refuelling capability. With the support of Victor tankers, they were able to deliver priority supplies to the South Atlantic." First, does "they" refer to the fuel tanks? Second, did these aircraft actually deliver, or just have the ability to do so? And it's not clear whether it's their modifications + support of Victor tankers that enabled the delivery. Pity about "capability ... able", but I can't think of an alternative. Perhaps that region of text needs recasting to clarify the causality.
    Changed to "the transports". Added "these modifications" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opening two paragraphs. Not yet ready for promotion. Tony (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, good changes, but watch the passive voice where you have to wait for a phrase before getting the agency. The Argentine military has already been referred to; then we have:

  • "A base was developed at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands with an airfield." Could we repeat the actor at the risk of repetition?
  • "The Royal Navy developed a base with an airfield at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." This also solves (does it?) the ungainliness of the airfield right at the end.
    Changed to "The British Army and Royal Navy developed a base at Ascension Island, a British territory in the mid-Atlantic 3,700 nautical miles (6,900 km) from the UK and 3,300 nautical miles (6,100 km) from the Falkland Islands." There is a repetition of "British" now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was an anchorage, but no port facilities, just a lone jetty." You haven't fixed the comma splice. Is this a solution? ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities—just a lone jetty." Or less marked: ""There was an anchorage, but no port facilities aside from a lone jetty."
    I didn't know how to resolve it. Changed comma to em-dash per your suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the long sentences need taming, and the grammar is a bit la-de-da at the start: "A serious loss was that of SS Atlantic Conveyor, which was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters still on board, ..." What about: "The loss of SS Atlantic Conveyor was a setback: it was struck by a missile and sank with three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters on board, ...". Note my removal of "still".
    Then we have adjacent sentences starting with the same phrase. Changed to "SS Atlantic Conveyor was struck by a missile, and sank... The loss of the helicopters on Atlantic Conveyor was a serious blow;
  • "Yomp"—the article linked says it's slang. Is this appropriate? Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to extract a non-technical meaning.
    The issue here is that it does have a technical meaning. In the Australian Army, we would call it a "route march"; the US Army calls it a "forced foot march"; in the British Army it is a "loaded march". Our article is called loaded march; the others redirect to it. If I just wrote "marched" the reader might well visualise parade marching. So I would need to use and link loaded march. The question then becomes whether that is a better term and article than yomp, which is more evocative of the Falklands War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, some passive voice is ok, but: "were destroyed ... were established ... were stocked ...".
    Changed to "The Brigade Maintenance Area (BMA) was struck by an Argentine air attack on 27 May that destroyed hundreds of rounds of mortar and artillery ammunition. " Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another snake tamed? "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters to enable the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley, resulting in the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." What about: "Some 500 rounds per gun were stocked at the gun positions by helicopters, enabling the artillery to support the attacks on the mountains ringing Port Stanley. The result was the surrender of the Argentine forces on 14 June." I might have changed the meaning at the end undesirably, but you could find a way that suits.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just the lead. Tony (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WCM

edit

Thank you for inviting me to review your nomination, I have some knowledge of the Falklands War, though my speciality is really Falklands history.

  • YOMP or Your Own Marching Pace (allegedly). This is a term unique to the Royal Marines, the Paras TAB (Tactical Advance to Battle). After the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor the Paras and Marines TABbed/YOMPed across the islands. You may have inadvertently favoured one side in a cap badge battle.
    Removed from the lead, added "tab" to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Georgia - maybe a little too much information but it may be worth mentioning that the "scrap workers" included Argentine Marines, their parading and raising of the Argentine flag pretty much kicked off the confrontation.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it mentioned anyway but the original Argentine plan called for a much later invasion. If the Argentines had invaded to their original schedule, Invincible would have been sold to Australia and both Fearless and Intrepid would have been in mothballs. It would have been more difficult for the British to respond, ironically when they moved up the schedule, they made the British recovery possible.
  • The Rapier missile system shown is the wrong version, this is from a much later development. Are there no photos available for the period?
    Have a look at commons:Category:Rapier missiles and see it there's one you like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you've missed a significant incident from the first day. Argentine forces at Fanning Head ambushed 3 helicopters, shooting down 2 Gazelle and damaging a Sea King that was dropping supplies. Dealing with this threat caused a significant delay.
    Added the loss of two Gazeles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the Red and Green Life Machine, there is a fairly amusing anecdote from Rick Jolly concerning a "Water Heater, Field Kitchen, Portable". This was the sole source of hot water for the surgical team at Ajax Bay. It was loaned from an American unit for a crate of beer, the British kit they were supposed to use never made it ashore.
    I can include this if we have a source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [[1]] I can ping you a photo of the pages if it helps? WCMemail 02:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word for it. Added. I have that book, but am away at the moment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foxtrot 4, an LCU from HMS Fearless was lost on 8 June.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repairs to the airfield at Stanley after the conflict, its worth mentioning that the Argentine attempts to repair the airstrip were somewhat amateur affairs. Effectively they had to dig the lot out and start again.
    The Australian experience at Tarakan was that repairing craters is a lot more difficult than it looks.
  • Not sure if its worth mentioning, the Argentine cemetery was built in 1983 after the personal intervention of Margaret Thatcher, the Argentine military was posturing still about the dead and refusing to help in their identification. A significant portion of the Argentine dead were buried as unknowns as a result.
    The treatment of the dead differs greatly from one country to another. In Turkey, they put a skull with a bullet between the eye sockets on display in a museum as "Turkish soldier with .303 bullet that killed him"; this would not happen in Australia. I don't know if they put much on identification of the dead in Argentina. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a really excellent article and clearly a lot of work has gone into it, my compliments. WCMemail 00:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've tried to address your concerns as best I can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're not really concerns mate, merely suggestions to help. WCMemail 02:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

Don't think we've had an image review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of my time I'll comment only on images which actually have problems:
This is actually the wrong version of Rapier. Is there none from the correct period? WCMemail 00:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:BAC Rapier fielded.png is the correct period version, shame its black and white. I had a go at the simulator of one of these, its not the easiest piece of kit to use and took a lot of skill. WCMemail 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text is not required for FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm fairly sure that Fifelfoo's review covered sourcing, but I had a quick look myself at the formatting side of things and found no problems. Sarastro (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Rick Jolly (May 2007). The Red and Green Life Machine. Maritime Books. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-9514305-4-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_logistics_in_the_Falklands_War/archive1&oldid=855394829"