Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Barras

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Barras

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Well, it's been a while since I've brought anything through ACR, and over a year since my last FAC, but here I am with another article detailing famous exploits by the SAS. As with the Iranian Embassy siege, I've tried to explore the broader political and military situation surrounding the operation. Barras did not get anything like the media coverage that the Iranian embassy siege got, perhaps a result of strict operational security and it taking place in a distant land rather than Central London, but, if anything, it took place in even less of a vacuum. It was seen as something of a vindication (in a pre-9/11, pre-Iraq era) of Tony Blair's use of military intervention, even where Britain's interests were not directly threatened, and it arguably hastened the end of a brutal, decade-long civil war.

I'm aiming to take this on to FAC in the fullness of time, so all comments would be greatly appreciated. Note that my Internet access is limited at the moment, so it may take me a day or two to respond. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, very well written and illustrated article; gives a thorough overview on the subject that is still accessible enough for the casual reader. I think this meets the standards and would probably do well at FAC too. Very well done, keep it up, HJ! —Cliftonian (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reading. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Just an additional comment from re-reading, which doesn't affect my support: describing Sierra Leone as "similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland", while accurate, may appear somewhat Anglocentric to international readers. If we're going to comment on its size, a more neutral form of presentation may be to simply say how big it is (according to our article 71,740 km² (27,699 sq mi)). —Cliftonian (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought about that, but I don't think square mileage is likely to mean much to most readers, while most people have a rough idea of how big Scotland and/or South Carolina are. I'll add the square mileage anyway, but keep the comparison. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't think you really need the square mileage if you're going to keep the comparison there, but whatever you think is best. It was only a thought. Well done again on a really good job. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is really good. Some notes to let you know I read it:
  • "Royal Anglian Regiment" should be linked.
  • It says "Brigadier (later General Sir) David Richards" but he's a general in the picture
  • HMS Argyll goes to a disambiguation page. Recommend you link directly to HMS Argyll (F231)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

All fixed; thanks, Hawkeye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
• "1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment", "2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment": The compromise we've been adopting is "1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment", etc.
  • Done.
• "18 West Side Boys", "22 Sierra Leonean civilians", " 23rd civilian", "13 men" but "twenty-one Sierra Leonean civilians" and "twenty-five West Side Boys": consistency
  • Fixed. I was trying to abide by WP:NUMERAL with "five", but you're right that it should be consistent.
    • It looks like you changed "18" to "eighteen" and left the rest; in my experience, there will be objections at FAC, but personally, I don't think consistency on numerals is a big deal.
• "However, unlike the SAS, new recruits to the army can apply to join the Parachute Regiment directly from the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick in Yorkshire (in the case of soldiers) or the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (for officers).": Do they have to graduate before applying? Before being accepted? I'm assuming the latter, but I want to make sure before tweaking.
  • In that respect, the Parachute Regiment is the same as any other regiment. They apply while at Catterick or Sandhurst, and they're accepted while they're still in training, and I think it goes without saying that they have to graduate before officially joining the regiment. It's only 22 SAS that only accepts applications from serving officers (and everyone in the British Army joins a regiment once they graduate from Catterick/Sandhurst).
• "Jordanian peacekeepers attached to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)": I don't have a problem with that, but we've generally been defining acronyms only once per article. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My rule of thumb for non-obvious acronyms is 'once in the lead, once in the body'. I can't promise I stuck to that here because I wrote the lead and the background section after I'd written the rest of it, but UNAMSIL sticks to it.
• How does Fowler know that "the cannabis caused them to forget previous discussions and the cocaine made them paranoid", and what does "unstable" mean, apart from behaving erratically or unpredictably? Long-distance psychiatric evaluation is difficult ... and it seems to me it's not really necessary, I think we get that their judgment was impaired just from the fact that they were capturing and threatening soldiers. I don't know how much was known about the men individually or about their culture ... without that knowledge, it would be hard to know whether they were acting crazier than they actually were, which violent people do sometimes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't have the book in front of me right now, but I assume from eyewitness accounts (there are several of those in the book). "Unstable" in this context means prone to very sudden mood swings and unexpected violence. It's clear that they got "crazier" throughout the day—when they were relatively sober in the morning, they were easier to deal with than when they were drunk and/or stoned and/or high in the afternoon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits, Dan. I reverted one ("close ties"), because the relationship between the para and the SAS is much closer than any other regiment—this wasn't their first joint operation, they've exercised together, the paras' selection course is very similar to the SAS's, etc. Consequently, the paras consider themselves to be superior to the rest of the infantry, to the extent that the expression "the infantry and the fuckin' paras" was coined—it works best if you say it in a Yorkshire accent! ;) I'm not sure about this one—it leaves me wondering "within a fortnight" of what? I'm not sure about this one either—it implies they occupied the villages because they refused to integrate into the SLA (they'd been there for a while by that point). It also suggests they ran away, but the Sierra Leonean government and the UN were so weak at that point that they didn't need to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• "it is rumoured": More often than not, this doesn't fly at FAC. At a minimum, give us some idea why you believe the rumour is credible ... or if you don't believe it, omit it.
  • It's almost certainly true (I think it's mentioned in all three of the books on the operation and the journal article I cite), but nearly impossible to verify because the MoD refuses to comment on special forces.
• "as it was apparent that his government lacked the requisite expertise": Apparent to whom?
  • To everybody; the government was in tatters and was still only just being rebuilt by September—they had nothing in the way of specialist skills like hostage negotiation.
• I don't have as much time this month for copyediting, so I'll probably leave it there ... I'll come back if I can before this gets promoted (as is likely). - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your help, Dan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [1] (no action required).
  • External links check out [2] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text [3] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Added.
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals an error with reference consolidation:
    • Fowler, 2004, p. 115. - Multiple references contain the same content
      • Fixed
    • Fowler, 2010, p. 52. - Multiple references contain the same content
      • Can't find this one.
    • fifty two - Multiple references are using the same name
      • Fixed
  • Images are all public domain or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [4] (only comes up with a wiki mirror) (no action required).
  • is this technically accuarate: "The Special Air Service (SAS) is a corps of the British Army", specifically describing the SAS as a corps. In my experience a corps either describes a military formation of two or more divisions or an administrative grouping of arms or services, e.g. the Royal Australian Infantry Corps. I admit I'm not familar with the British system so perhaps this is indeed an accurate description, just thought I'd ask the question.
    • As far as I can work out, the British also use the term corps to refer to a group of regiments
  • Not sure about the wording here: "country was engrossed in a civil war...", seems a bit strange to describe war as engrossing. Perhaps "locked" instead? (minor nitpick)
    • I considered "locked", but I thought it sounded too informal
  • tense here "in which they would be tasked with...", might work better as "in which they were tasked with..."
    • Done
  • "which had been in Sierra Leone since the beginning of Operation Palliser", what was Operation Palliser?
    • Now explained in background section
  • Lieutenant Musa Bangura—the patrol's SLA liaison", the abbrev "SLA" needs to be formerly introduced.
    • Done
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Simon Fordham, who had been leading ", should just be "Fordham", removing rank and first name following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done
  • What time did the operation begin? Unless I missed it you don't include this but include timings for later phases of the operation being completed. If it is available it would add to the context.
    • I've added something.
  • This confuses me: "secured the approaches with Claymore and mortar positions", as an indirect fire weapon how does a mortar postion secure anything? Do you possibily mean that the mortars were emplaced in preparation for defensive fire tasks in the event of a counter attack?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Simon Fordham, commanding officer of 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment", you have already introduced the abbrev 1 RIR so it should be used here.
    • I've re-written the sentence.
  • "The Jordanians had received 30 by the end of the same day...", could this be more simply worded as "The Jordanians had received 30 by the end of the day..."? (suggestion only)
    • Done
  • "one of which was awarded to Captain Danny Matthews...", should just be "Matthews" per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done
  • "who took command of the operation in Magbeni after his commanding officer was injured", this is repetitive as you have already mentioned it earlier (recommend removing). Equally is "commanding officer" correct? In the Australian Army at least the senior officer in a company is known as the "officer commanding" not the "commanding officer" (who commands a unit, i.e. a battalion). I'm assuming the British Army uses similar terminology.
    • I think it's worth keeping that in because it explains why he was awarded an MC; you're right about CO vs OC, and I've fixed that.
  • "Brigadier John Holmes, Director Special Forces, was awarded the Distinguished Service Order", should just be Holmes per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done
  • "Bradley Tinnion, was killed in the operation" and "Bradley Tinnion, the SAS trooper who died in the operation", both should just be "Tinnion" as above.
    • I disagree, but done
      • Your choice, just my interpretation of WP:SURNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "but some suggested that Major Alan Marshall" should just be "Marshall".
    • Done
  • "Both Marshall and Lieutenant Musa Bangura", just "Bangura".
    • Done
  • "the patrol's Sierra Leone Army liaison", should be "the patrol's SLA liaison" as you have already introduced this abbrev.
    • Done
  • Missing word here I think: "including one that they warned with the phrase", should this be "including one that they were warned with the phrase "Sally and Sarah send their regards and so does Dawn..."
    • Done
  • References lack place of publishing. Can this be added? Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Added, but I don't see what use they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not insisting on it so its your call - seems fairly standard information to provide though. Anotherclown (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It is fairly standard, which is why I've added them (that and it's not worth arguing about, here or at FAC), but I'm not sure what it adds. Anyway, thanks for very much for having a look and for the support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.