Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Grandslam/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 [1].

Operation Grandslam

edit
Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Operation Grandslam, a UN peacekeeping operation undertaken in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (presently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1962–1963 to suppress the secessionist State of Katanga. This little-discussed episode formed a part of the Congo Crisis, a tense moment in the Cold War. The operation is unusual in the sense that it, in spite of being a "peacekeeping" action, involved thousands of soldiers and included a UN air raid on a rebel air base. This article extends beyond the purely military aspects of the conflict and showcases an interesting moment in international and Congolese affairs as UN member states debated over what courses of action to take while the Congo struggled to rebuild. Though marking the end of a formal secession movement, insurgency continued to be a large problem in the region until October 2016. This article has passed both a GA review and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. I have extensively researched this topic and developed this article to a point where I believe it qualifies for FA status. At this point, the only improvements I can make are those suggested to me be others. Considering that I have already had such reviews conducted, there is no further step for me to make but to nominate this article for featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In my view this is a clear pass. The article is well-written in that the prose is simple and never tries to do too much. The structure is logical. The sourcing is of a high standard; I did limited spot-checking of the early parts of the article. I made some minor wording changes myself, which I hope are correct. I then had the following two very minor points which I raise here only because I hesitated before dealing with them myself:

  • "Shortly thereafter South Kasai and the State of Katanga declared independence from the central government."” – As far as I’m aware, one secedes from a country, not from a government.
  • "Peacekeeping contingents from Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia were officially earmarked to carry out Operation Grandslam." – earmarked by whom? (The passive voice here doesn’t work well on this occasion). Also, “officially” seems unnecessary, as does "publicly" in "publicly announced" later on in the article.

Those points are nowhere near consequential enough to delay me from marking my review as a support. Syek88 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: - I think I've addressed these criticisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As an aside, concerning this edit, I agree with Dank. The term "damages" does not have a generic meaning; it has only a specific meaning in a legal context, namely compensation payable for loss. I think "damage" is correct here. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - Before any other reviewers proceed, I, the nominator and primary author, feel one point must be drawn to their attention. In the WikiProject Military history A-class review for this article (under my response to HJ Mitchell) the matter of two UN Security Council resolutions were brought up. In the end, I never really got a clear answer on whether to include information about the two resolutions in the article. These resolutions are what gave ONUC the ability to use force against Katanga. I've found no sources that make an explicit connection between these resolutions and Operation Grandslam. I have found a source that makes the connection between those resolutions and Operations Rumpunch, Morthor, and perhaps Unokat, as well as the suppression of the Stanleyville government. I have also found that Dorn and Kille (which, for the record, is a chapter written by Dorn) make implicit and vague references to the resolutions in the context of Grandslam. So, my question is, should I provide information on these two resolutions in the "Background" section of the article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some source that might help in drawing a link: pages 244 to 245 of this book, which says quite firmly that Operation Grandslam was the UN making "effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", having previously referred to the 24 November 1961 resolution as "more robust" and "much less ambiguous" than the earlier authorising resolution. That looks rather solid to me. There is also page 72 of this book and page 217 of this book, which aren't as strong. I would think that (a) if there are scholars who say the operation was authorised by UNSC resolutions, and there no significant contrary view, only silence, the article should present that view as fact, and (b) if there is genuine scholarly debate, the article should present that debate. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, @Syek88:. I have added the info on the security council resolutions to the best of my ability. That's some good stuff you've found, but I'm afraid those sources are somewhat inaccurate. I've come across this issue before. In attempt to put everything into summary style, a number of authors have ended up combining the events of Operation Unokat and Operation Grandslam. This is apparent in Klose (first source you provided) because that sources says that a combined strike force of Swedish, Ethiopian, and Indian aircraft were fielded in Grandslam. We know from Dorn that this is not true, because India and Ethiopia had withdrawn their aircraft by November 1962. Only in Unokat were all three country's air forces operated simultaneously. So when the source says, "It would be another year before the UN made effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", it's in effect whitewashing the whole occurrence of Unokat. I can try and make the connection between Unokat and the second resolution distinct (there are sources that support the relation), but I think in terms of Grandslam I've added all that I can accurately do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds entirely prudent. The authors of the books to which I linked may well be generalist international relations or legal scholars who aren't sufficiently across the facts of the Congo operations. Syek88 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Response: The first file was uploaded by Katangais, a good fellow here on Wikipedia and on the Commons. However, it does seem they give little info on the source of the image. As such, I've removed it from this article. I've replaced it with a quotebox with a statement by Thant. The second file was a blatant copyright violation and has been removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

Support on prose
This flows along nicely. I made 15 or so small changes to the prose or punctuation; please revert any that seem wrong. In addition, I have a few questions or suggestions.
Background
  • "first Congolese prime minister" - Name and link him, Patrice Lumumba?
  • "There, Bunch worked with local UN Mission Chief Robert Gardiner..." - Since Wikipedia has no article on Gardiner, perhaps identifying him as "Robert K. A. Gardiner (Ghana)" would help to distinguish him from the world's many other Robert Gardiners.
ONUC
  • "ONUC forces in Katanga were under the command of General Prem Chand and his operational deputy, Brigadier Reginald Noronha, both professional and capable officers." – The phrase "both professional and capable officers" seems unnecessary and possibly patronizing, though that's not your intention.
First phase
  • "...there may be some who would be inclined to refer a United Nations 'military victory.'" – Is the quote from U Thant missing a word? Should it say "be inclined to refer to"?
ONUC communications breakdown
  • "I have found beyond doubt that it is our machinery, that is at fault,..." – Is the first odd comma here part of the original?
Fate of Katanga
  • "A new constitutional commission was established, and in March 1964 it was recommended that the Congo switch from its parliamentary system to a presidential model of government." – If the commission did the recommending, flip to active voice by deleting "was" from "was recommended"? Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to @Finetooth:
  1. Done. I had originally avoided doing that because I thought it might distract from the focus of the article but it does seem fitting.
  2. Done.
  3. I've removed that information. "[P]rofessional and capable" is how Urquhart described both of them, and I think he meant that in a positive light. ONUC's previous Katanga commander, R. S. Raja, had been criticised as not fit for his post.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Fixed.
  6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Highly readable and informative. I've noted my support on prose above. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one somewhere, I think this still needs a source review. Also, as I believe this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Tony1

edit

Lead:

  • "gendarmerie"—better not to force readers to click on the link; a lot of people won't know what it means, so "(police)"?
  • Up to you: I'd write "Republic of the Congo" in central Africa. Same issue.
  • Can't we have "UN" after the first use? Without "(UN)", too, since it's so well-known.
  • "causing an incident among the United Nations leadership"—what, fisticuffs in the office?
  • "sued for peace"—yes, elegant, but many readers won't know what "sued" means in this context.
  • "Tshombe initially participated but feared his arrest and fled to Europe."—comma after "participated"?
  • "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders, acting under orders from Tshombe, evacuated to Angola to reorganize."—consider "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders evacuated to Angola to reorganize, acting under orders from Tshombe."
  • "upon" requires special justification. Why not "on"?
  • "gendarmes"—why not "gerndarmerie" as above ... unless you want to imply individual police officers?
  • "Insurgent activities aimed at Katangese secession continued until late 2016." the "at" slightly unclear. Would you consider: "Insurgent activities striving for Katangese secession continued until late 2016."

Tony (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Tony1:

  1. "Gendarmerie" is what the Katangese force is called in nearly all sources on the topic, and in fact what they called themselves. If you read into the article, you'll find that I've elaborated that the Gendarmerie was, for all intents and purposes, a fully equipped army. Think of the Force Publique. To call them "police" is inappropriate, as the Katangese Police was an entirely separate entity. I'd say the only other option is to change it to "forces", but that would be redundant. Perhaps "military". I think it's best as is.
    I don't care what the English word is: just provide a translation smoothly in parenthese after first mention. "Military" sounds ok. Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. Revised as "embarrassing United Nations leadership."
    Needs "the". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This phrase actually has a specific meaning and I don't see how I can modify it without going into unnecessary detail. I could say "petitioned" for peace, but I'm not sure that does it any good. I've wikilinked it for the moment.
    Petitioned/sued whom for peace? That's the core problem in either wording. Can't you say? Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. Done.
  9. When I say "gendarmerie", I'm referring to the entire organization. When I say "gendarmes" I am indeed referring to a selection of members of that organization.
    But the back-reference is a bit hard for readers. Why not: "Relations between the new central government and the expatriate gendarmes soured"? Or "the gendarmes in Angola". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response part 2 to @Tony1:
I've corrected everything else except for 9. I'm not sure how the "back-reference" is confusing. The gendarmes weren't expatriates at that time. They had returned to the Congo to suppress the revolts. Only after the mutiny did they go back to Angola. Does this need clarity? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

edit
  • @Sarastro1: Sources looked good. Paraphrasing is good. presumably editor has these volumes available, because much of the material isn't online.
  • @Indy beetle: This sentence, Gardiner reported that the nun on duty had said that some of the patients were wearing khaki clothing similar to the gendarmes' uniforms. He conceded that one patient was shot in the leg while another received a grazing wound. could be reworked so that there are fewer "that"s in the sentence....? auntieruth (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntieruth55: I've removed two "that"s from the passage in a manner I believe to be grammatically correct. As for the sources, whether it matters much, the only one I possess in print is Kennes and Larmer. The rest I was all able to find online (with a little patience, it's possible to extract juicy details with only snippet view). Took much searching and some accidental discoveries! -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just check with Auntieruth55 what spot checks you did? Normally on a source spot check, it is helpful if the reviewer notes which sources were checked and how they compared to the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: sure, here you go....
  1. Boulden after page 28 was not in my preview, but the other pages were detailed and should have produced the type of information cited
  2. Briscoe checked 105 and 117. no closeparaphrasing. editor summarized well what Briscoe wrote
  3. Chakravorty no snippets. supposedly lists Indians who rec'd medals for valor.
  4. Dorn,edited volume. wiki-editor is citing a chapter by William K. carr, planning and organizing and commanding the air operation in the Congo 1960. Accurately summarizes text.
  5. Fulton. Newspaper article summarizing initial complaints by a priest who said the UN troops were acting out.
  6. Gibbs Book on political intervention. Could not confirm text. Reputable press. Scholarly work.
  7. Othen and Katanga, didn't find exact citation, but read several of the pages which referred to same topic in article
  8. Kennes University press. Principal Author has several publications. Studies political elite formation in Katanga.
  9. Kille University Press. Author is professor at Wooster College. International Relations, specialist in UN, Political leadership.
  10. Meisler Authoratative chapter on the airplane crash, garrison uprising, etc.
  11. Mockaitis. De Paul University. Military History Studied U Thant
  12. Murphy Straight forward documents list. plus associated documents
  13. Oballance 41-63 were not shown in the preview
  14. Packham couldn't read page 194-195. Page 28 checks out
Hope this helps! auntieruth (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think that's everything, and between this review and the A class review, we have considerable commentary. I'm not sure if Tony1 had any other concerns, but he often does not revisit, and he did not oppose, so I'm assuming he is relatively happy with the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (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_Grandslam/archive1&oldid=1088822371"