Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Septentrion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Operation Septentrion

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the French military used the "Mikado strategy" during Operation Septentrion in the Uzbin Valley of Afghanistan?

• Comment: I originally contributed this material on 22 January 2012 to the article 2009 in Afghanistan then created the new article soon after. Please also be aware that the key sources are in French.

Created/expanded by Mathew5000 (talk). Self nom at 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the article has not been reviewed for DYK nom since its original date of 25 Jan it seems to pass the "new" requirement, even with the original post on 22 Jan with a new article 3 days later it would pass. Length is good. Sourcing is up to par, including that of the hook. However, i just cleaned and reorganised the articleinto section but a few thing sneeds clarification so as not to POV/Synthesis. Also no barerefs , so thats a plus too.Lihaas (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I find the article fairly neutral. Regarding the which, clarification, and other tags, none of the sources I've looked at have the information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with POV either. Moswento (talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• About the tags in the article (two “which”es and one “clarification needed”), I have not come across any sources containing the requested information. I am nevertheless reluctant to remove the tags because it is certainly true that the article would be improved by adding this additional information if it were available in reliable sources. Wikipedia is a work in progress and even if the information is unavailable now, it might become available in the future. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Time to put this one to bed. At the time of the nom it was new enough and long enough. Foreign language source accepted in good faith. HOWEVER: I think it should have stayed in the old article. And I personally do not find the hook that interesting.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)