Talk:Egyptian–Libyan War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article following its GA nomination. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• there are no dab links (no action required)
• everything in the infobox appears in the body of the article (no action required)
• all paragraphs are referenced (no action required)
• all English language references appear reliable based on publishers; I don't know enough about the Arabic sources, though. Can you please give me a quick synopsis of how they meet the criteria?
  • They're all Egyptian daily newspapers, with the exception of RT Arabic. Albawaba seems to be defunct, but it apparently also released material in English and had a print edition. Aldefaaalarabi.com lists their editorial staff here. The Al Shorouk article is mostly a review of what the Egyptian press was reporting during the war, and they have pictures of the relevant articles to back up their claims. RT Arabic is run by RT, which is known to have a pro-Russian government bias. The information from that article is about Ahmed Qaddaf al-Dum's account of the war, which quite clearly paints Sadat and the US in a negative light, but it's simply a recounting of al-Dum's view, and as much is stated, so I don't think there are any issues revolving around that.
    • Thanks, that sounds ok to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• in the lead, mediate a solution, Nasser suddenly declared --> Sadat?
  • Fixed.
• 15 miles into Libyan --> add convert template
  • Done.
• Gadafi was angered --> "Gaddafi"?
  • Fixed.
• Gadaffi ordered his forces --> "Gaddafi"
  • Fixed.
• inconsistent: "counterattack" and "counter-attack"
  • Fixed, should all be Anglicanised.
• suggest linking battalion, brigade, division, commando, armoured personnel carrier, artillery, squadron
  • Done.
• is there a sub heading that might be added to the top of the Prelude section? Currently there is a subheading part way down, which looks a little out of place by itself
  • Err I haven't really come up with one satisfactory, so I've elevated Opposing forces to a normal heading.
    • No worries, that works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• terrorist camps -- is there a different way of wording this? One imagines that the Libyans didn't see themselves as "terrorists"?
  • Changed to "insurgent". They might have not been Libyans, but actually anti-Sadat Egyptian insurgents.
• The Libyans' aircraft were still left exposed --> "Libyan aircraft were still left exposed"?
  • Changed.
• Over the course of the war Libyans --> "Over the course of the war the Libyans"
  • Fixed.
• The Egyptians captured 12 Libyan soldiers.[24] The Egyptians --> as both sentences start with "The Egyptians" it might be better to combine the two
  • Changed to In addition to this, 12 Libyan soldiers were captured. The Egyptians suffered...
• Gadafi trading insults --> Gaddafi
  • Fixed.
• told the press that "Our forces --> the "O" can probably be decapitalised here
  • Done.
• in the References, is there an ISSN for the Professional Journal of the United States Army?
  • Added. Journal name also corrected and volume and issue added.
• in the References, remove the space before the colon in the title for the Hodson work
  • Done.
• same as above for the Metz work
  • Done.
• same as above for the translation of the title in Citation # 27
  • Done.
• in the References, suggest adding the country after "Cham" and state after "Lincoln" as both a not well known
  • Done.
• for A-class (and FAC) "File:Libya-Egypt.png" might need a source on the description page -- but is probably ok for our purposes here (no action required)
• "File:Libya-Egypt.png": some of the spelling used in the map isn't the English variant - for instance Middelhavet and Kairo; is there perhaps a better map that could be used (suggestion only)
  • Yes, it seems to be German. Unfortunately I'm not finding a satisfactory alternative atm, even the CIA isn't proving all too helpful.
    • No worries, it's ok for this review, but might be something to consider for the long term improvement of the article. You might be able to request the creation of a translated version of the map at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• "File:Egyptian MiG-21.jpg": AGF that the photo was taken by the uploader (no action required)

@AustralianRupert: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A couple of follow up points: Sorry, I missed these earlier: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• translation for the title of the El Gohary work?
  • I tried, but that one was simply to clunky to figure out a satisfactory translation.
• in the Aftermath, do we know why the UNSC declined to discuss the matter?
  • No reason was given in the source. I'd surmise that the UNSC was probably reluctant to step into the affair for global political reasons, and probably felt there was little point in doing so in wake of the ceasefire.
• is there any information about the major powers' reactions to the war?
  • The US was sympathetic to Egypt and the Soviet Union had armed the Libyans, but I've found little in regards as to what their public thoughts on the war were. According to The New York Times, the US State Department told the press on 21 July, when fighting broke out, that it was not in a position to "confirm, to assess or to characterize" the reports of a clash. This journal article states that the US "backed" Egpyt during the war, but this is without elaboration, and Pollack seems to adequately discuss what the US's true role was.
• suggest linking anti-aircraft warfare (where you mention anti-aircraft fire) and armoured warfare (probably where you mention mechanised division)
  • Done.
• Earwig reports no copyright violation likely (no action required): [1]

@AustralianRupert: I've responded to your follow-ups. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for following this up. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.