Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khafji

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.

Battle of Khafji

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working a bit on the article, trying to get in about 2kB more admittedly (so I can suggest a DYK), so I will probably add a table of Coalition armored vehicles, similar to the one on Iraqi armored vehicles. But, I want to put this through an A-class review. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments and questions:~~
You might want to mention in the background section that the coalition gave Hussein an ultimatum to withdraw by a certain date or military action would commence, if that was the case.
Since articles exist already, those tables for the armored vehicles aren't necessary.
I believe that its customary to use headings like "First day" or "Initial attack" instead of dates as section headings.
What nationality was Lieutenant Colonel Matar?
What happened to the two Americans who were taken prisoner? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

I added some information on the ultimatums issued by the United Nations. Unfortunately, I don't have a better source for the Gulf War, and so that's all the information I can really offer.
The tables aren't only just to give information on the vehicles, but to allow the reader to compare without having to go to each specific article. The idea is the same as the comparison tables in articles such as Leopard 2E and AMX-30E. It's a nice quasi-visualization.
I've seen both, including featured articles with both the date and a more elaborate section title. That's how I went with Third Battle of Kharkov. I went ahead and did this for this article, as well.
Saudi. I've added this in.
I added that they were released after the war in the footnote.

Thanks! I hope these answered your questions! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I really have a problem with having the vehicle tables. I don't think they belong. If however, you nominate the article for FA and it passes with those tables present, then I'll eat my hat and will no longer worry about it. Otherwise, I think it's an excellent article and meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

'Most of their attacks were fought off by U.S. Marines units and Coalition aircraft, but one of the Iraqi columns occupied Khafji on the night of 29–30 January.' - 'Units' doesn't seem quite right to me, but it's a minor quibble

'two Saudi national guard battalions' -should national guard be capitalized?

'The battle demonstrated that air power could halt and defeat a major ground operation' - Hasn't that been shown before? If so, editing it to reflect that would be better - 'another example' perhaps, or a 'modern example', something like that

'The invasion, which followed the inconclusive Iran–Iraq War and three decades of political conflict with Kuwait, offered Saddam Hussein a chance to quell political dissent at home and add Kuwait's oil resources to Iraq's own, a boon in a time of declining petroleum prices.' - How did it give him a chance?

'In an attempt to provoke a ground battle, he directed Iraqi forces to launch Scud missiles against Israel, while continuing to threaten the destruction of oilfields in Kuwait' - Did these do any damage?

'The Iraqi Army had between 350,000 and 500,000 effectives in theater,' -Effective whats?

'Slated for the offensive into Saudi Arabia was the Iraqi Third Corps' - 'Slated' isn't a good word to use

'For many in the Arab world, the battle of Khafji was an Iraqi victory' - 'was seen as'

That'll do, I think. Just a few prose issues to sort out, and then I can support this article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it should be fixed. I changed some words, like "effectives" (to soldiers) and "slated" (I used it three times, so I chose different words for each time), and National Guard was capitalized. Some things I couldn't really address completely. For example, "how did it offer him a chance"; I changed it to "offered him the ability to distract political dissent". I was thinking of how to include an explanation of this, but it would make the text choppy (it's similar to how the Falklands War did the same for the Argentine government, or how a war with Spain would do the same for the Moroccan government). And, I don't know the extent of damage on Israel from the Scud attacks; I don't think I have a ready source which does, but I don't think that adding in how much was damaged in Israel would be relevant to the topic of this article. Otherwise, it should be fixed! JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support
- "Initially, Saddam Hussein attempted to deter Coalition military action by threatening Kuwait's and Iraq's petroleum production and export." Awkward and ambiguous, rephrase please.
- "In December 1990, Iraq experimented with the use of explosives to destroy wellheads in the area of the Ahmadi loading complex, improving their capabilities of destroying Kuwait's petroleum infrastructure on a large scale." How did the experimentation improve their capabilities? Did they discover new technologies? Please clarify.
- "This quickly grew to over 600,000 personnel, of which over 500,000 were provided by the United States,[28] including 3,600 tanks." Does this mean that 3,600 tanks were provided by the US, or that there were 3,600 tanks in total? Please clarify.
- I've fixed terms that have been linked twice that I noticed.
- Don't link dates in the references section, and perhaps you should use an nbsp between the ISBN and the number for the Rottman source, it looks weird to have the number at the start of a new column.
  Make those changes, and it should look good. Good luck on FA. Joe (Talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and comments. How do you suggest that I rephrase that first sentence you noted? For me that sentence is clear, but it might be because I know the context in which I wrote it in, so it's difficult for me to find a better sentence. It's explained in the rest of the paragraph (i.e. his experiments with exploding oil well heads, et cetera). I'd appreciate any help in rewording that sentence. In regards to how the experimentation improved their capabilities, the source doesn't really specify, so I assume that it improved it just because they had prior experience (the experiments). Nothing mentions whether or not they had new technologies and what not, so I'd figure it's just a matter of experience and know-how.

I fixed the sentence with the deployment numbers by moving the final portion of the sentence in front of the statement that says that the U.S. deployed over 500,000. Hopefully, now it should be clearer. For the dates in the references; those are autoformatted by the citation template. I don't know what they're going to decide to do with that over there (although, I believe they're talking about the issue). Again, thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading that first sentence I mentioned, it's fine. I guess I was doing this too late at night yesterday, my apologies. If the dates are autoformatted and the source isn't clear about the wellhead destruction then everything else is fine. Joe (Talk) 20:31, 27 October 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.