Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Deny Flight

Operation Deny Flight

This is still a relatively young article, and as a matter of fact it's still nominated to be on DYK, but I intend to take it all the way to FA status if possible. Thus, I'm soliciting input on what direction you think the article needs to take to get there. At the moment, I think the article is well-referenced to a large portion of the relevant literature, and provides a good look at the topic. I am somewhat concerned that it may not present enough background for people unfamiliar with the Bosnian War, and I'd like your feedback on that, as well as any other concerns or comments you may have. Many thanks. Cool3 (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

This is off to a very good start, and may already be A-class My comments are:

The size and organisational structure of the NATO air forces used and how this changed over time should be described. Which air bases did these aircraft operate from?
Were any of the contributing air forces and their aircraft particularly effective or ineffective?
Did rules of engagement differ between participating countries?
The photo in the infobox is rather dull
A map showing the extent of the no-fly zone would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Those are all things I should probably incorporate. As for the photo, yes I'd like a more exciting one, but I don't know what to use, any suggestions? Cool3 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about DF-ST-94-00193, DF-ST-94-00194, F-3282-SPT-93-000811-XX-0075 or F-3282-SPT-93-000811-XX-0048 from http://www.defenseimagery.mil/? (I like the last one best as it shows an F-15 and E-3) Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's a much better picture, and I've uploaded it to Commons and put it in the article. Cool3 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a section on the participating forces and command structure, I hope it resolves some of the questions you raised. Cool3 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

To echo NickD, this is an excellent article, and I've only a few comments.

The lead could be expanded slightly, it's looking a tad anemic at the moment.
That infobox picture is much better that the previous one.
During Sky Monitor, it would be helpful to know who actually breached Bosnian airspace - the nationalities, that is, if possible.
'The United States had also begun unilaterally dropping humanitarian supplies into Bosnia under Operation Provide Promise in February, and some American officials were eager to expand US air operations' - Any particular reason why?
'After its adoption, Operation Deny Flight was relatively successful in preventing the operation of fixed-wing aircraft in Bosnia; however, at the start of the conflict there were only an estimated 32 fixed-wing military aircraft in Bosnia' - Could be made clearer why it was only 'relatively' successful, and also that the fixed-wing aircraft were all NATO (well, I'm assuming they were, anyway)
'All sides in the Bosnian conflict made extensive use of helicopters for a variety of purposes, and some flights were authorized by the Zagreb Flight Coordination Center, making matters even more difficult for NATO pilots' - What is the Zagreb Flight Coordination Centre?
Just wondering should 'In particular, Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the promise of a "lift and strike" policy' - have 'President of the United States Bill Clinton'? Especially since youhave President in the next sentence - I'd suggest swapping them
'The Serb aircraft dropped napalm and cluster bombs. Although most of the ordnance failed to explode, the attacks were a clear violation of the no-fly zone, and a challenge to NATO' - Why did they fail to explode most of the time?

That's all for now, I'll come back and have a look at a later time. Good work though! Skinny87 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the lead, that's always my number one problem with articles.
Well, I'm unable to find the number of violations by nationality, but it was a combination of everyone, I've added that.
They thought expanded air operations would end the conflict more quickly, added that.
The planes were all under Serb control, yea that was unclear.
I've moved the info to show how Deny Flight was relatively successful: flights dropped from 20 per month to 3
The Zagreb Flight Coordination Center is referenced in the section above, it was the UN body established to authorize flights. I've changed the phrase to "the UN's Zagreb Flight Coordination Center" which I hope makes it more clear.
Well the I just say "Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992" because he wasn't President yet when he was campaigning, but I've changed it to campaigned for President of the United States to make that more clear to people who perhaps don't know what he was running for.
The ordnance failed to explode because it was old, crappy JNA stuff, I've put that in the article too in somewhat more appropriate terms.

Thanks for the feedback. Cool3 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help; here's a few more:

'According to many US officials, O'Grady may have been deliberately targeted so that the Serbs could take an American hostage.[29]

After O'Grady was shot down, tensions increased greatly in the period of six days before his rescue by NATO forces. Many US officials called for immediate retaliatory air strikes; however, the Serbs still held the majority of the hostages seized after the bombing of Pale' - Repetition of 'Many US officials'

'After the horrifying events at Srebrenica, sixteen nations met at the London Conference, beginning on July 21 1995' - The last part seems a bit odd to me, gramatically - maybe 'which began' instead? But I'm not hugely sure on that.
You mention the HARM missile several times, and wikilink to the missile, but you might need to lay out in brackets what HARM stands for.
'American aircraft also provided the majority of the airstrikes during the conflict. Of the 1,150 bombs dropped during the conflict, 88% came from American aircraft. [4]' - Stand-alone sentence. Can it be merged into the preceding paragraph?

And, that's all folks! Excellent article which will have my full support once the additional comments above. Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've done my best on all of those. As for the HARM missile, I didn't lay out its full name in parentheses as that doesn't really tell you too much, but I have now called them AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missiles, which gives you more information. Cool3 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also rewritten and lengthened the lead, what do you think? Cool3 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]