Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/North Yemen civil war

< 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.
  • Closed as Promoted. Cam (Chat) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Yemen Civil War

edit

This article passed GAR a while ago. I've added some info, a short Aftermath section and a battle sketch (courtesy of Ynhockey). I hope it meets all the criteria for A-Class. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The second paragraph in the "Royalist offensive" section is without a reference/citation, and should have one.
 Done Don't know how I missed that one.
  • The page ranges in the citations should have an endash (eg. Schmidt (1968), pp. 30-31 to Schmidt (1968), pp. 30–31)
 Done
  • It is best if the access dates for the web references remain consistant; either in the format 23 November 2008/November 23, 2008 or 2008-11-23.
 Done Let me know if I missed any.
  • Also, most of the images are arranged left. Consider moving a few more over to the right, if possible.
 Done Actually, only two images were arranged left, but I moved them to the right.
Whoops! I momentarily got my left and right mixed up! (Embarrassed face) I meant the opposite; most (all now!) are arranged to the right, consider arranging more to the left so it is a little more balanced and attractive to the eye. Sorry about that! Cheers, 08:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I've moved a couple two the left. Nudve (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • "His plot merged into a third conspiracy prodded by the Hashid trival confederation" Is trival a typo?
 Done Typo indeed. -- Nudve (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • " US President, John F. Kennedy" This is awkward. After mentioning the US in the previous sentence, you could remove the US in front of president.
 Done Done. I was trying to avoid two consecutive wikilinks, but I guess it's not a real problem. -- Nudve (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While Bunche was reporting to UN Secretary-General, U Thant," The first comma is awkward and should be removed.
 Done Ditto. -- Nudve (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture caption that mentions a "Russian-manufactured" armored car should be changed to Soviet unless you really do mean that it was manufactured before the October Revolution.
 Done Actually, I just copied the original caption, but I suppose we can safely say that it's Soviet. -- Nudve (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I couldn't find any errors that would prevent it from obtaining A-class, so please fix these and it'll look great. – Joe Nutter 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supportive review! Cheers, Nudve (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References comments - i haven't reviewed anything at A-class for awhile, so I figured that I should stop slacking. :) Anyway...
    • You really should keep the 'References' section to two columns because not all of the refs are short.
 Done -- Nudve (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been awhile since I've seen Encarta as a ref...but shouldn't "Encarta" be capitalized? (Ref #95)
 Done -- Nudve (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shouldn't be a problem for A-class, but a warning: you may be asked to put periods after all of the book citations (i.e. "Schmidt (1968), pp. 180–182[PERIOD HERE]) so that those citations are consistent with the Time and web references.
I doubt it, because book citations are offline, so there is no last retrieval date. -- Nudve (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, Schmidt is in there a lot. Are there any other major literary sources for this? I've found that different authors tend to bring different information and different perspectives to the table. Again, this shouldn't hold up this A-class review because of all the Time references that you also use, but a fair warning for FAC. :))
Yeah, the few books I know about this war are old, rare and expensive. I'll try to locate others. -- Nudve (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullah as-Sallal already has an article. I don't know much about the others, and I'm not completely sure if they're notable. -- Nudve (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops missed that. Fair enough, although I reckon all of them sound pretty notable. Its not essential any way.
  • In the Egypt section, is there any way to replicate the bullet point list in an organised paragraph?
I've converted it into a paragraph with numbered items. I don't know if that's ideal, but it's loyal to the source.
Ah, its direct from a source in bullet point form? If so, then its OK in bullet points, but make absolutely sure that its fully clear that it comes from a source. (i.e. with blockquote or cquote or similar).
  • "Badr's private secretary did pass this message to him, pretending he did not understand the code." - do you mean did not?
 Done Right. I've corrected that. -- Nudve (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "republicans had essentially won the war" - its not really clear how: simply because the royalists ran out of ammunition?
I know it's not that clear, but this is exactly what the source says. I tried to find info on exactly how the war died down (the book I've used was published in 1968) but had little luck.
Its just that basically the royalists seem to be on the verge of victory and then they suddenly lose. It sounds like the withdrawal of Saudi support snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, but anything else you can expand on here would be valuable.
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs of one or two lines that would be better expanded or merged into other paragraphs around them (not essential to passing A-class)
I merged some short paragraphs. Let me know if there are others you feel should be merged.
Looks better. This wasn't a major problem, so don't worry too much about it.
  • Can the aftermath be expanded to give a brief summary of Yemeni history since 1972 and how the war has effected Yemeni history and society?
Again, you are correct. The best source I've found for this is Dresch's book, but he just starts talking about parliamentary politics and such, so I really don't know if that's relevant, and how.
Hmmm, its just that a war of this scale and intensity must have had a significant on subsequent life in Yemen. I suppose information on how Yemen became united and Yemen's place in the changing political landscape in the Middle East at the end of the cold war might be relevent.
I've found another book by Dresch on Google Books and added it.
  • In all, a nice article, but there are a few issues above before I can support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments :) Cheers, Nudve (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article looks very good. It seems comprehensive, is a good length and is well-cited.
  • I would enlist a copy-editor before any attempt at FAC, the prose is a bit flaky in places.
The article has been listed in the logistics department since September 3, and I'm hoping to find more sources before an FAC. -- Nudve (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue is the images: they all need the places of first issue added, including the where it was first published, and its origins (ie where was it scanned from, which book/website).
I've cited the source and original captions in the commons tag. Should I add it to the captions? -- Nudve (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just double-checked all the Commons ones, looks good to me, must have missed them earlier. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also try to stagger the images a bit more in the latter parts of the article: WP:MOS#IMAGES recommends that they snake from left to right where appropriate.
I've already moved them twice during this review. I'll move some of them. -- Nudve (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know they can be a pain sometimes, it is not a deal-breaker and I don't envisage it holding up an FAC. Woody (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These little issues don't stop it meeting the A-Class criteria though, good work. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) -- Nudve (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (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/North_Yemen_civil_war&oldid=1224926060"