Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mole Cricket 19

< 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.

Operation Mole Cricket 19 edit

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Nudve (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it passed a GA review yesterday and I just expanded it. I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks, Nudve (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Two dab links need to be located and if at all addressed. One external links is apparently suffering connection issues and needs to be fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have external links, and the ones in the refs seem to be working. Can you be more specific? -- Nudve (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the external link tool on the right, its a pdf file thats registering as problematic. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The error message is "Invalid type (application/octet-stream) for .pdf file". I don't know what that means and if and how it can be fixed. All I know is that when I click on it in the article, it opens without problems. -- Nudve (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found Two dab links and fixed them. Is it OK now? -- Nudve (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't know for roughly 24 hours, the dab tool is slow to update after corrections have been made. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the tool, and it found no dab links. -- Nudve (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, its fixed. Well done on such a prompt reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References all fine and now made consistent. Do remember to not use the ampersand per WP:MOS unless part of proper noun named by someone else. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Now where have I seen this article before? Being the one who passed this article to GA status, I have already expressed my concerns and I believe the article meets the criteria in order to boost it up to A-Class.-Kieran4 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, conditional support - (this version)
    • What is an RPV? Can you explain that again in the "battle" section for those of us who skip right to the juicy battle story? ;)
    • File:HPIM0320.jpg needs author information.
      • Could be. I'm not the one who uploaded it to Commons. Do you think I should inquire? BTW, I noticed you removed one of the RPV pictures, saying it was "random". Why do you think it's more random than the other one? -- Nudve (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • References pass MoS and RS. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Issues resolved. Good work. Comments and questions: Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox picture needs the source spelled-out in the image file, not just a blank link to the website. That way, if the source website disappears the original source of the photo is still recorded. Same thing with the picture for Ariel Sharon.
  • I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by "spelled-out". Can you explain? -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • State the name of the website, the site owner/publisher, and the date on the image page. Cla68 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've added the site's title. Is it OK? -- Nudve (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RPV" isn't spelled-out in the infobox or in the intro. It needs to be spelled out the first time it appears in the article.
  •  Done also clarified that it was one squadron. -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 28, 1980, IAF guided missiles destroyed two armored cars carrying SA-9 batteries..." where did the Israeli guided missiles come from, aircraft, land, or sea?
  • The source does not say explicitly. The context, as well as common sense, suggest an aircraft, but I'm not 100% sure. Is it critical? -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest placing what you just said in the footnote for that paragraph in case anyone else has the same question. Cla68 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could, but wouldn't that just be adding my personal analysis? -- Nudve (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of, but no one has ever taken issue with me doing that. You might say something like, "So-in-so (source name) does not specify where the missiles originated." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first task force planes attacked the radar at the top of Jebel Baruk, which was commanding a large area." Was this Syrian radar, and were the First Task Force planes from the aircraft already airborne or launched specifically for the radar strike?
  •  Done Yes, it's safe enough to assume from the source that it was Syrian, or at least Syrian operated. -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tadiran Mastiff and IAI Scout RPVs were used for this purpose." Used for what purpose?
  • Communication. I've merged that sentence into the previous one. The thing was that one source says it was a squadron, and another specified the types. -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for File:HPIM0320.jpg is "24-5-07." What is that? The source needs to be better identified.
  • I'll try to contact the uploader to see if they can clarify. -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is of course the date that the image was taken. The original uploader made a mistake; I fixed all the main parameters. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By evening, twenty-nine MiGs were shot down and seventeen of the nineteen SAM batteries were destroyed. The IAF suffered no losses.[1] Near 4:00 PM, with fourteen batteries destroyed and an hour left until dark, Ivry decided to call off the operation..." This seems to be a contradiction. Seventeen batteries were destroyed, but only 14 were destroyed when the operation was called off? Were the other three destroyed after the operation was terminated? Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the last three were destroyed between Ivry's decision and the time the last plane landed. The decision was due to the fact that he was running out of daylight, so I guess the order was not "abort immediately!" but rather something like "do not launch another wave". -- Nudve (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you might explain that in the footnote also. Cla68 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reread the source, and it turns out it actually says the operation was stopped shortly after 4:00 PM. I've added that, and I hope this clears the issue. -- Nudve (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent article, I only have two suggestions: the Bibliography could be made a level one heading, instead of a sub-heading (optional, just think it looks better), and I'd like it if the casualties and strength were ref'd in the infobox. Shouldn't be much trouble since they are later in the article, but I'd like it if they were there. – Joe Nutter 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the heading could be a good idea. I'll see if I can see how it's done. If I don't manage, I'll ask you. I have provided ref in the infobox, except for the "decisive victory" part: No source actually uses those words, but results are almost never cited, probably because of that reason. I've removed that "fixbunch" thing: how does it help? from what I could see, it only ruined the image fitting in the infobox and the campiagnbox size. Anyway, thanks for the review! Cheers, Nudve (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed format. Better now? -- Nudve (talk) 06:28, 16 February 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.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference pollack533 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19&oldid=1138360013"