Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Musa Qala


 * 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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Battle of Musa Qala


For a change of pace, I jumped into a recent event on this one. The page is just two weeks old but it shouldn't need to see significant changes now that news reports are largely concluded. It's a short but still respectable 12k readable prose. Sufficient background detail, without any extraneous. Scrupulously sourced. User:Richard Harvey and others have also contributed.

FWIW, we have absolutely nothing on the Afghan war in the FA list. Smallish engagements of this sort may be the best we can do, for stability reasons. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - as contributor Current - ongoing theme, very useful for references. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Object too many quotes in lead. A proper lead is a summary and will need few if any quotes.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, there's one quote in the lead. Marskell (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rereading, I decided the quote was of little value and have removed it. Marskell (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * THere are now 8 quotes in the lead. If you have to foonote the lead so much, it's not a good summary.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. Those aren't quotes. Marskell (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - very well referenced, I can see no flaws. Terribly minor, but it might help to indicate in the picture which one is Sgt Lee Johnson, just for clarity's sake. Mattyness (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you click on the image you will see the Rank Badges. See here The one facing is Johnno Johnson and the other is his Platoon Lieutenant. However I have replaced the image with another as I have more than one of him. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not well referenced at all. Most of this is from the British media and the MoD. What do you expect the MoD to say? They have under-funded, under-equiped and under-manned our forces for 10 years and you are relying on their propaganda BS to write an unbiased, factual article? No sir, not good enough. I'm British BTW 88.110.215.187 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Including comments from our Part Time Secretary of Defence Des Browne. LOL It was a victory but this is not acceptable. 88.110.215.187 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't act on this without specific examples of POV. Yes, this is mainly British newspapers and MOD—the article couldn't have been written without them. The newspapers are reliable and the Ministry, properly qualified, is also acceptable. If there is information absent, please list sources saying so. Marskell (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Cool - I never imagined that a such a recent event can be made FA-level this quickly and easily.  Shiva eVolved  20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The introduction lists Musa Qualeh as another spelling for the place, but the quotes and the references seem split between the Musa Qala in the article's name, and Musa Qaleh without any "u".  But in any case, neither of those should be redlinks, nor should Battle of Musa Qaleh, and if it is used, Battle of Musa Qualeh.  Is this article properly named?  How is the place best known in English in connection with this battle?   Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they're cheap, I created a redirect for all of the redlinks you provided, just in case.
 * All of the British newspapers use "Musa Qala", as do American and Canadian sources. So too does the Afghan government, here (PDF). Clearly, I think that's the most common name. Only the MOD uses an alternate spelling (a colonial artifact?) and it's Qaleh not Qualeh, as you say. I changed the first sentence accordingly. Marskell (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the MOD usage is a pretty significant part of the usage relevant to this article. So the question remains, is this article properly named?  Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, this American Forces Press Service article from the U.S. DoD also uses "Musa Qaleh". Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A large majority of sources use "Qala." The DoD is surprising, as Qala is what I've seen. Perhaps it uses both. A raw google is 476,000 to 7,680, FWIW. It's properly named from where I'm sitting. Marskell (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable enough to me; I didn't know any more than what I saw in the article, and thought it should at least be considered. I'm satisfied that this is okay where it is—at least now that the redlinks have been fixed.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also other spellings of the name: Mūsá Qal‘eh, Musa Qal`ah, Musa Kala, Mūsa Qala, See:- This weather forecast website map. The US Stars & Stripes magazine use Musa Qal'eh on this pdf map of Afghanistan, As do CNN, and the British Government in this House of Commons Defence Report (section 102). The Afghan Journalist Aryan Afghanzai also uses Musa Qaleh on this AfghanSite.com website. I have also seen the same spelling on Historical maps in the British National Archives. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I highlighted both Qaleh and Qal'eh in the first sentence. I'd like to link to your first, Richard, but I'm not sure the publisher of the link. Marskell (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref link now added to end of brackets. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with an event this new the research on this event is bound to change. So, an article like this can't (or, as better sources come out, shouldn't) remain the same. gren グレン 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, inactionable. (Boo hoo.) Please specify concerns. Marskell (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.(e) -- I think stability is an issue but more pressing is its adherence to reliable sources. News sources are not reliable way for encyclopedic articles about battles.  I striked out oppose because maybe that's nice but I do kind of thing this is not something that will ever be a long term featured article unless someone keeps up with adding information about books / journal articles that include this battle. gren グレン 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the reasoning behind news sources not been reliable? How are books/journal articles somehow inherently more reliable than news sources? Books often rely on news articles as their sources. Budding Journalist 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try writing an article about a battle from any war in the past from just news articles. It will be incomplete.  Books help to give context to battles.  Reading news articles leaves Wikipedia writers trying to define themselves what is important from the news articles more than with books which contextualize them better and give a less abbreviated picture. gren グレン 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose: it's not good-referenced, out of good-prose, there isn't the bibliography - fundamental for a study-depht - and there aren't some important sections (example: deads). -- Brískelly  &#91;citazione necessaria&#93;  17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it "not good-referenced" and why is it "out of good-prose"? A bibliography is unnecessary as there are no book sources; the references section lists all articles used with consistent formatting. The dead are listed in the infobox and described in the article. Marskell (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes me wonder whether Brískelly is reading these articles closely and whether s/he is familiar with WP:WIAFA. Budding Journalist 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue has come up many times and has been noted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments "Out of good-prose"! That's a new one! Heh. Anyway, here are my thoughts:
 * "Musa Qala area, after fierce fighting (Operation Snakebite)" The parenthetical is rather cryptic. Is the sentence describing Operation Snakebite?
 * "The Taliban seizure followed a U.S airstrike that incensed militants." Rather vague. Airstrike on what?
 * "was forced to leave in order to protect civilians." How come that would better protect civilians? Did the Taliban demand that he leave in exchange for a halt in violence or something?
 * "Military manoeuvres and a build-up of troops and supplies had carried on..." By whom? The Taliban? The Brits? Both?
 * "began at 4 pm", "was killed shortly after 10 am" Local time?
 * "from 82nd Airborne[9] were landed north of the town by 19 helicopters" Should it be "the" 82nd Airborne? Also, "were landed...by helicopters" is a bit awkward.
 * I only read the beginning of the article closely and skimmed through the rest. I'd suggest one more close proofread by the authors though to correct any unclear sentences like those I found in the beginning.
 * The article mixes British and American spelling.
 * Small quibble: titles of newspapers/magazines should be italicized per MOS. Ref 39 (the video link) should have more info. I'm not sure if the Daily Mirror is the most reliable source. Budding Journalist 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "was forced to leave in order to protect civilians." I find this very amusing. Obviously the good police chief ran away in order to save his life, and is now putting a humanitarian veneer on his actions! The Helmand police are in fact more of a pro-governement militia than a police force, and they have a very bad record, being sometimes described as "brigands in uniform". The IRIN wrote a report about the Taliban rule of MQ, and time permitting I'll write a summary of that to replace that very dubious quote.


 * Should it be "the" 82nd Airborne?: It should be "the 82nd Airborne Division" as this is not self-evident for everyone.


 * Airstrike on what?: I wrote an explanation for that, but Marskell shortened it saying it was "too detailed" and "too pat". As this was a crucial event, that explained what happened afterwards, I don't think we can afford to overlook any "details".


 * To the above remarks by Buddingjournalist, I could add these: In the infobox, the Taliban casualties are a mess, the "ISAF claim" is unsourced, and the "Afghan Defense Ministry claim" seems wildly optimistic, and not supported by other sources. Also the number of Taliban fighters in the infobox is given as 2,000, but this is in fact a Taliban claim, and the insurgents have been known to inflate the number of their followers, so it should be treated with caution. ISAF estimates are much lower, placing the number of fighters around 300 to 400. Lastly, the article touches only briefly on the tribal question, which is a shame, as certain sources indicate that the defection of local tribesmen was a key factor contributing to the coalition's success. This deserves some mention. Regards. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Took care of the parenthetical.
 * Readded that the brother and 20 followers were killed in the airstrike. It "explained what happened afterwards..." is a stretch. The article makes clear that it was a proximate cause, which is why I shortened it. I wrote "too pat" because as originally worded it seemed to suggest that everything was kosher until the airstrike came along and got the Taliban angry.
 * The quote was meant to suggest that the very presence of police caused the Taliban to act up. Of course, the police chief was no doubt acting with self-interest in mind as well, but that's OR unless the source says so.
 * "Coalition military maneouvers..."
 * 4 pm is the seventh and 10 am is the eighth. The article seems clear on that.
 * 82nd Airborne: with or without the definite article seems fine to me.
 * The article likely mixes Brit and American spelling because it was written by a Canadian. I'll take another look; examples would be good.
 * Italicizing titles: if the template doesn't do it, I'm not going to. I've relied on Cite web; I believe Cite news italicizes.
 * On Raoul's points: 2,000 fighters is sourced to the Guardian. At least three of the articles make the claim. The interview link is interesting and I'll try to incorporate it; as worded, I don't know if it's saying 300 to 400 in Musa Qala entirely or 300 to 400 engaged at any one time. There are two mentions of defections, in the retreat and commanders sections. Is that not enough?
 * More later. Marskell (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop adding the passage about Colonel Abdul Salam among the Taliban leaders? Several sources mention this person, and the evidence is that he is a perfectly respectable ANA officer who fought with the Mujahideen against the Soviets in the 80's. There is nothing to suggest that he was ever a member of the Taliban, or that he is in any way related to the former Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Salaam. Speaking of which, Mullah Salaam's defection occurred in October, causing dissension within the ranks of the Taliban. This was the opportunity taken by ISAF and the government to launch their offensive against MQ.


 * Sure, the Guardian says 2,000, but they don't say where they got the figure from, and it's suspiciously close to the Taliban claim, so that's probably where they got it from. Also, another Guardian article says there were only 200!


 * I agree with Narayanese that the Afghan claim should be removed from the infobox. It's very vague anyway. How much is hundreds: 200, 300, 900? Gen. Champoux, the ISAF spokesman gave a figure of about 100 killed and wounded, which seems credible,that could be used instead.


 * Also, after the battle there have been several interesting political developments: .  --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mullah Salaam who was with the Taliban also fought the Soviets, which is precisely why I added it. Could be a coincidence. I was going to do a paragraph on the fellow.
 * If you don't want to use the Guardian and others, I don't know what to do. The only alternative seems to leave it blank. Marskell (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, I think it probably was a coincidence, given that "Abdul" and "Salam" are not particularly rare names. If you read the article to the end, you'll see general Ghori says "Maybe one day Taliban will also be with us". As I see it, this means that right now there are'nt any former Taliban in the ANA. Also, for a former Taliban leader, defecting to the government is one thing, but being integrated into the army with the rank of colonel seems a bit far-fetched.


 * I have nothing against using the Guardian as a source, so long as it is made clear that 2,000 is a figure that was given by the Taliban themselves. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The caualties box is biased (the Aghan claim seems no less dubious than the Taliban ones to me), and "Other deprivations were typical of the Taliban" should be reworded to neutral wording. It would also help to state what exact role the Taliban had in the drug trade. The 22+ Taliban killed needs a source. Narayanese (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see improvements. I guess this is about as good as the article can get, considering how poor the available sources are. Narayanese (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (I've contributed a bit to it)

Update: OK then.


 * There are no quotes in the lead, so I don't think the first oppose from Sumoeagle is operative.
 * Gren struck the stability concerns oppose. I'll say this: if Barack Obama can maintain FA status in the middle of a presidential campaign, I don't see why a smallish engagement in Afghanistan can't do so a couple of weeks after its conclusion. No books are ever going to be written about this battle. I can see nothing wrong with using Guardian, Times, and Scotsman—indeed there's some excellent reportage available here, such as Stephen Grey in The Times. Thus I don't see the second oppose as actionable either.
 * Briskelly does not seem to have provided a cogent oppose.
 * I believe most of BuddingJournalist and Raoulduke47's concerns have been met. We might debate how best to approach the 2,000 fighters figure but I don't see it as a dealbreaker, as I've added to the article that some estimates are much lower. Raoul, note I had the comment about Col. Salam—it still seems perfectly possible they're the same, but it's OR on my part.
 * On the POV front, I've added a couple of dissenting notes to MOD claims, particularly that the Afghans were capable of commanding the battle.
 * A few -ize changed to -ise, and one center to centre. Any other mixed Brit/American spelling I'd encourage people to just change themselves.

I think the review has helped the article. Anything else? Marskell (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are now 8 quotes in the lead, so the oppose is valid. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Well done. A few questions/comments:
 * "Musa Qala was the only significant town held by the Taliban" Time period? Is this referring to the time after the Taliban fell up until now or just at that time?
 * I still think it would be helpful to include "4 pm local time" and "after 10 am local time" (if indeed these times were local). It's not that it's unclear on which days these events happened, but rather what timezones these times are referring to. Budding Journalist 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the query on timezones strange! With this website being read in all timezones I personally assumed any stated time on an article of this nature automatically meant the local time zone on that date in that locality. For example the start of the combat at 4pm. This included troops from several different time zones, so it would be very difficult to report that, as all the given times used in their home countries. Military forces on the ground always use the local time zone, its the only practical way to work to prevent errors!  You wouldn't book an airline ticket showing a stated take off time in the time zone of the country the ticket was bought in, but rather in the time zone of the country that the aircraft was actually taking off from. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, I think it's gotta be local time. The source doesn't actually say so, so I won't add it, but surely if the newspapers were using GMT they would note as much. On first point, I added "at the time of the battle"; can't say for certain the Taliban has never controlled a town like it since their overthrow. Thanks for all of your help, BJ. Marskell (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose. My main problem is that I found a few basic spelling and grammar mistakes while skimming the article - more copyediting needed? The ordering of the refs is a bit odd as well; the first ref is numbered 9. Also, while the article does a good job of describing the recent past, this sentence caught my eye: "Counter-attacks on the town are considered likely and it may be retaken without sustained defence". I don't think any sentence in this article should be written in the present tense; how about "As of December 2007, counter-attacks on the town were still considered likely" (dunno what 'sustained defence' means, either). Very close though, keep it up! The Land (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The first ref is Guard9 because it's the Guardian from the ninth. Thus, there's also a Times9 and a Scotsman17. Can't see that this is an oppose basis; it's hidden mark-up I used for organization.
 * Changed the one sentence to past tense with "In the days after the battle..." beginning. Don't know what's wrong with "sustained defence", though.
 * The typos you caught were me from yesterday, thx. I can read back through it, though I did write most of it. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Update the second. Thanks Jay; I was also thinking this could be a useful example of what can happen with a recent event. I deliberately didn't read it for five or so days to make my eyes fresh, and looking again I don't see prose issues. We good here? Marskell (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the concern over the Taliban claim about 2,000 fighters has been addressed. Sumoeagle's claims aside, there are currently no quotes in the lead. Marskell (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I went through and made a number of pretty small edits. If I buggered anything up just undo it.  I think it's back in good-prose at this point.  It's nice to see such a good encyclopedic account of a recent event.  I hope editors who edit recent events see this and think of using its ideas to provide accounts of other recent events.  Spot checked a couple of citations and all were good. --JayHenry (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support; just two minor points that I'd like to see fixed: Other than that, looks up to par. Kirill 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The campaign is linked several times in the text; can we get rid of the rump "See also" section?
 * 2) The dates are very inconsistently linked, leading to on-again/off-again autoformatting; could you please link all of the month/day combinations?


 * Done, on both. Personally I hate blue linking dates but MOSNUM continues to suggest it's necessary. Tony himself had actually removed a couple, so I don't know what the current status is. Marskell (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Comment - This is almost there, I think, with all the facts/refs in place but it has a few slight prose/style awkwardnesses. I suggest a swift copy edit by an uninvolved editor to push it that final bit. Here are a few random examples:
 * Salaam was reported to be in negotiation with the coalition as early as October 2007, causing a rift within the Taliban. Redundancy. Perhaps ---> As early as October 2007, Salaam was reportedly negotiating with the coalition. How and why did this cause a rift, by the way?
 * Fighting continued to be intense on 8 December. Passive voice/redundancy. Perhaps ---> Intense fighting continued on 8 December.
 * Wikilink days/months, still some not done. (Wikilinking years is unnecessary.)
 * Internal consistency of acronyms/abbreviations.U.S. --> US
 * as witnessed by Afghan president Awkward phrasing. Perhaps as confirmed by ...?
 * The battle to retake the town created conflict in adjoining areas Phrasing. Perhaps ---> sparked conflict?
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, days + months is done. Years are necessary in full dates, according to MOSNUM. Marskell (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I see now that, coincidentally, you were wikilinking them as I was reading the article. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I took care of your prose examples, with the exception of the first. Because the sentence begins "A leader of the Alizai tribe,..." it would be awkward to phrase it that way. Tony1 shows up in the edit history with some changes, suggesting he read it over. That gives me greater confidence 1a is met. Marskell (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. I've given it the quick once-over too for MOS stuff and fixed some remaining trivial stuff. Oh, and changed !vote to support. Good article, well done. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good, can't see any problems. I would also like to commend you for the quality of the article given the short timeframe involved. Well done. Woody (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.