| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
We recently had a WP:GAR that looked at referencing, but I would like to have outside editors comment on the organization and prose. For example, how can we make the "Participating countries" section clearer? It used to have more subsections, but they just had tables in them, so now the section is divided by a combined map/table. And do we need/how do we better integrate the table of military strength there? Organizationally, we sort of have three history sections with "History", "Military operations", and "Military structures" overlapping somewhat, like repeating changes as part of the end of the Cold War and eastern expansion. And any comments on the prose throughout are much appreciated!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comments regarding the "Participating countries" section. First impressions regarding the clarity were as follows:
- I was admittedly slightly surprised by the content - I was expecting more information regarding the participating countries themselves, qualities of the country significant from the perspective of NATO and their individual relationship with NATO (i.e. although NATO acts as one body, I am assuming that individual members hold different ideologies and attitudes towards events in a way that would affect NATO's response - perhaps even friction between members, if such exist). Instead it feels like it reads as a "Future expansion of NATO" section with what I was expecting bolted on the end. I am not saying that the information was irrelevant or unnecessary, simply not what I was expecting. Simply put, I do feel the table needs to be integrated better, possibly by considering the content points I have raised.
- With the table bolted on at the end of the section, it feels a little out of order/not chronological. The section appears to work its way from future members, associate members and then to current members. I think it would be less confusing (and possibly more logical) if it were in the opposite order.
- Regarding the future members, I feel it would be less confusing if the time scale/likelihood of individual countries acceding were briefly covered - Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and FYROM appear to be lumped together as future members but I get the impression that they are not all going to join simultaneously.
- I do not feel that the "Global Partners" are covered particularly well. I cannot help but feel that different issues are being discussed between different "Global Partners" and this could be clarified, in particular one of the sources (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/51288.htm) mentions that "some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way", these countries/operations in particular could be expanded upon.
- Another issue is that of Colombia. The aforementioned source does not include Colombia as one of NATO's "partners across the globe" and the source concerning Colombia does not mention the issues of "counter-piracy and technology exchange" associated with the "Global Partners". Consequently, I have been left a little confused as to the level of cooperation between Colombia and NATO, i.e. is it of the level considered to be a "Global Partner", is it just a few steps after "early talks" or is it a completely different relationship?
- I hope that this is what you were looking for, since it is my first attempt at a peer review I apologise in advance if it was not, JTST4RS (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments Just some suggestions on the prose, in case you want to take this to A-class or FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
- "For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states": NATO was not much more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the member states
- "de Gaulle protested": Capitalize the first word in a sentence, always.
- "became drawn": a little informal. "was drawn", usually.
- "with former Cold War rivals, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining": with states previously in the rival Warsaw Pact, several of which joined - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- "The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.": It's better, when possible, to keep words close to the words they modify; "an attack" refers all the way back to "attacks" here. One option: "Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September attacks of 2001." - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks guys! I've made changes to the lead and membership sections as you've suggested. Much appreciated!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)