Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Iraq War in Anbar Province

Iraq War in Anbar Province

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 20, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 11:33, 4 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Iraq War in Anbar Province was a counter-insurgency campaign in the Iraq War, waged in the Al Anbar Governorate in western Iraq from 2003 to 2011. It was fought primarily between the United States Marine Corps and the Federal government of Iraq against members of the Iraqi insurgency led by Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Almost 9,000 Iraqis and 1,335 Americans were killed during the war in Anbar, mostly between April 2004 and September 2007. Savage fighting occurred in the province in 2004, including the First and Second Battle of Fallujah. Though the fighting initially featured heavy urban warfare, in later years insurgents focused on ambushing the American and Iraqi security forces with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Both sides committed multiple human rights violations, such as the Fallujah killings and Haditha killings. In August 2006, several tribes located near Ramadi and led by Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha formed the Anbar Awakening and revolted against AQI. US and Iraqi tribal forces regained control of Anbar Province in 2007 and turned it over to the Iraqi Government in 2008. The last American forces left the province on 7 December 2011. (Full article...)

2 points: 2 points as this is the 10-year anniversary of the Iraq War. 4 more points if you consider this a stand-in for the Vital Iraq War article. This was just promoted in August, so *hopefully* there aren't too many issues with it content-wise. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support strongly; you've done great work on a very important article.--Chimino (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality article, admirable in scope, breadth, and detail. — Cirt (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the above, + unusual and important, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, important article, encyclopedic topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, important anniversary etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has it been ten years already? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sadly, yes, Hawkeye. This is a really good bit of military history - well done to the author(s). Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please would someone fix the 4 deadlinks shown here? Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For some annoying reason I can't see them. Can you or a bot please flag them for me? Thanks! Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've marked one; a second, here, is dead as well I think. The others have either resolved or were false alarms. Bencherlite^Talk 08:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got them both. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]