Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Unokat/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2024 [1].

Operation Unokat[edit]

Nominator(s): Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1961 UN peacekeeping offensive against forces of the seccionist State of Katanga during the Congo Crisis. The article is well written and structured, informative and I believe comes to a FA standard. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swedish_troops_during_Operation_Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops clear building of Katangese resistance.jpg, File:Swedish roadblock in action during Operation Unokat.jpg, File:Swedish troops detain white Katangese sniper.jpg No evidence that these photographs were first published outside the US before 1989 as required by the posted license tag
  • Other images OK (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not great with images so please bear with me. Are these images not PD-1996 as they are in public domain in Sweden?Lankyant (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe just for info Lankyant (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be PD-1996, the images must have been published outside the United States before 1989. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe so does this image from Operation Grandslam fall foul of this? [2]
    Comes from same source. Lankyant (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an archive, so it doesn't prove that the images were published before they appeared on the website (which must have been after 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe apologies for being a pain, I have uploaded a new image with correct tags and will take the others out. Does this image comply, associated press photo [3] Lankyant (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that licensing is not correct. This is an AP (US company) photograph by a German photographer, so it is unlikely that Swedish copyright rules apply. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh heck. Okay let me try again. I need one for the infobox would this be acceptable? [4]
I will remove the rest Lankyant (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe pictures removed. Lankyant (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one should be ok (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture added and all the problem ones removed. Thank you so much Lankyant (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

A personal interest of mine - I'm claiming a spot here. If I don't return after a reasonable time, please ping me. ~ HAL333 21:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Ping! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, better late than never:

  • Should "central Africa" be capitalized? As it is on its own entry?
  • "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese to cut off and limit the movement of UN forces within the city called for military action" is a bit overlong.
  • However, the agreement would not be carried out --- >"However, the agreement was not carried out" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
  • was brought in to provide --> "was sent to provide" for concision.
  • The United States also wanted reintegration to be achieved for this end --> something like "The United States also desired reintegration for this end"
  • The US and USSR are not wikilinked, although other countries are.
  • "Tshombe secured Urquhart's released"
  • If the UN is abbreviated, why not do so with the United States?
  • "have to take action against them" - "against them" is redundant
  • "UN officials came to believe that" --> "UN officials concluded that" for concision again
  • The captain beginning with "A Ferret armoured car formerly..." does not need a full stop
  • "It also had been reinforced" - what is 'it' referring to?
  • "At the request of Thant" --> "At Thant's request"
  • "destroying a dummy of" - clarify

Nice work. ~ HAL333 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the above changes, thank you Lankyant (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 04:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker: I'll review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude
  • "On 28 November members": I think you should add the year in here too – it's a new section and as a prelude, it could have been any time before the action started.
  • "assaulted UN Representative in Katanga": -> assaulted the UN Representative in Katanga"
  • I'm not sure what variant of English this is in: you seem to be using Commonwealth British (you have "authorisation", "realised", "travelled" and multiple others), but then you have the US spellings "signaled" "armored" and "fueling". Consistency is key throughout, and it may be advantageous to add a tag to the top to stop people swapping spellings later
Initial actions
  • 'enact a "scorched-earth policy".': I'm not sure you need the quotes on this – they come across as scare quotes with just the three words
  • "a patrol sent out to locate their position but was unsuccessful.": the grammar has gone a little awry here

Done to the start of "UN offensive"; more to follow. Interesting article so far, nicely written with the right balance between big picture and detail. – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything above! Lankyant (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nothing more from me on the rest (I made only MOS tweak to save having to hold up the review for that to be done), and I'm happy that—from a prose point of view—this meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Operation Morthor and the death of UN General Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld had led to a ceasefire between UN and Katangese forces earlier in the year." The main text does not mention a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death.
  • There is still a discrepancy between the lead, which mentions a ceasefire after Hammarskjöld's death, and the main text, which does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did a poor job on a lack of sleep! I believe I have addressed it now, but please check for me. Would take suggestions on how to reword it.Lankyant (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of skirmishes with UN forces in the Katangese capital of Élisabethville and the establishment of roadblocks by the Katangese called for military action." People call for action, not events.
  • "Following the Republic of the Congo's independence from Belgium in 1960 following over 50 years of colonial rule". Repetition of "following". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All addressed Lankyant (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point occurs to me. You show the country name as Republic of the Congo, which was then its name, with a redirect to Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville). Republic of the Congo goes to the other Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) as it is its current name. You need to clarify in both the lead and the main text in order to avoid confusion. You could add (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) or add a footnote explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Operation Grandslam which is a FA doesn't have that clarification but if it is vital I'm happy to add Lankyant (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the current name to the Grandslam article and I think something similar is needed for Unokat. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it Lankyant (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review(ish)[edit]

Reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent and nothing jumps out as unreliable or questionable. Keep in mind that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, any chance of a first-timer's plagiarism review and source to text integrity spotcheck? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not without a number of screenshots, since most sauces are offline:

  • 4 Can I have a copy of the article? The TimesMachine does not work.
added a link Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, pp. 35–36)
  • 20 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kennes & Larmer 2016, p. 47)
  • 21 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 130)
  • 25 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 122–123)
  • 27 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Hoskyns 1965, p. 451)
    • Sent. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is "suicidal" here really "politically disastrous"? Sometimes, these concerns are literal, not metaphorical, especially in case of wars. And the source does not say "local presence". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 36 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, p. 79)
  • 39 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Lefever & Joshua 1966, p. P-22)
  • 40 Not sure I see the hour in the source. (The Desert Sun. 5 December 1961)
it's there at the bottom of the first column highlighted. Got the job done by 2:30pm. Lankyant (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Prasad 2005, p. 173)
  • 56 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 54–55)
  • 64 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Forest 1964, pp. 127–128)
  • 65 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Harvey 2017, pp. 56–57)
  • 70 OK providing that the other sources support the rest of the claims. (Raleigh, David (16 December 2018))
  • 72 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Meisler 2011, p. 131)
  • 74 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Kent 2010, pp. 76, 79)
  • 83 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Boulden 2001, p. 38.)
  • 85 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Dobbins et al. 2001, p. 17)
  • 89 OK (International Review of the Red Cross. March 1962)
  • 98 Can I have a screenshot or anything of the pages? (Mockaitis 1999, p. 35)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm pinging @Indy beetle as he has access to most of the sources used and experience with source reviews. Lankyant (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Gog the Mild: I'm the editor who contributed most of the substantive content of this article, while Lankyant laid the foundation and has done most of the sanding around edges since then. I've got several FAs under my belt. Thus I don't know what the true necessity of a full source review is, but I'll try my best to access the source material at least in the spirit of the matter. Extra scrutiny never hurts in the long run and keeps us all honest. Anything cited to Lefever and Joshua 1966 should be accessible here, I think. I have Hoskyns 1965 in print so I can email you, Jo-Jo, a photo of Ref 27 "Hoskyns 1965, p. 451." Just use my email this user function or send me a token email at indy_beetle@yahoo.com so I can attach the file in a return message (best I can tell, I can't directly email you a file with the Wikipedia email function). -Indy beetle (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Seems you're going to have to send me a direct email, since WMF didn't provide me a return address. Otherwise I cannot send you non-text files (screenshots etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lankyant and Indy beetle: What's the status on sending the sources to Jo-Jo? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After having scoured my Wikipedia Library account, Google Books, and my physical collection, what I've provided above is what I can still access. I've exhausted my resources, so I can't provide anything to verify Harvey, Kent, Boulden, Mockaitis, or Forest. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-FAC comment) Those five sources constitute ~50 out of ~170 discrete references, amounting to slightly over 30% of the total. Having said that, three are used less than 20 times between them, so are hardly major players. ——Serial 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lankyant: Assuming you return to the process for the first time in three weeks (!!!), another thing. Indy beetle clearly wrote the vast majority of this article, so why isn't this a joint nom? Especially as the instructions are clear that Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. You would appear to be wholly unfamiliar with them. If this candidate is archived, I'd personally hope that the caveat is not so much a two-week period, but that you do not reopen as sole nom. ——Serial 18:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of progress in the source review and the length this has been open, the nomination is being archived. Serial's comments above are germane—nominators should be expected to speak to the content and address points brought up by reviewers in a timely manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Unokat/archive1&oldid=1202533884"