Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1


 * 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 by Ian Rose 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/?diff=605901582].

Operation Flavius

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In 1988, at the height of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland, an IRA team attempted to detonate a car bomb in Gibraltar. They were pursued by British special special forces, who shot dead three IRA members who later turned out be unarmed and not in possession of a bomb. The resulting chain reaction left another half a dozen people dead in Belfast, while a dispute over the legality of the SAS' actions raged for another seven years until a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which left neither side entirely satisfied. This article documents that chain of events, with all its twists and turns. It's certainly been interesting, given that the subject matter is still controversial today, but I think the article is a neutral summary of the events and the controversy. I'm indebted to Wikimedia UK, who paid for most of the source material; to the MilHist A-class reviewers; and to and  for their help and for challenging me on the talk page to make this the best article it could be. Any and all feedback is welcome. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

 * Comments from Cirt moved to talk page, by Cirt. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They are? Where? Can't see them at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just click "Talk" at the top of this page. It's hard to miss them. Apologies if that was meant as humour. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if you are in the sub-page. Not a very helpful place to put them frankly. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! Now I see. Well, for those who come after, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. --Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm now more than satisfied with the responses by . I'm most thankful for the polite and professional demeanor in which has conducted himself during his replies to me, it's most appreciated!!! Good luck with the rest of the FAC, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Noting the concern raised by Cirt above about ordering of general and specific references: this was raised at a previous FAC (don't remember offhand which), where I was satisfied that the current ordering is acceptable even if not the most common approach
 * "trial by television" quote should be cited immediately in the lead
 * Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed. I see that this issue too was raised above - make a decision about whether it needs to be cited and either add a cite or remove the tag
 * FN116: no all-caps
 * FN1: source appears to include publication date
 * FN2: date doesn't match that given by source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, we agree it's not the most common approach. But I respect your judgment that it's acceptable, if not ideal. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikki, your attention to detail is greatly appreciated. I think I've addressed all your concerns, and Cirt's fact tag (whether or not it needs a reference, one more reference won't hurt anything). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Support from John

 * Support I took a wee hack at the prose; active voice over passive, while, however, NPOV language (which is difficult in an area like this), SAS's; minor stuff mostly. I'd say this is ready for promotion. --John (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A few good catches there, thanks John. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed this article at the MILHIST ACR and am pleased with its quality. Great work on a controversial topic by HJ. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Parsec. I appreciate your input. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nikki was kind enough to do an image review at the ACR, Ian. Will that suffice? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If no new images since that review, I'm fine with it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod
All fairly minor:
 * "tracked by Spanish police at the behest of the British government." Nothing wrong with this, but "behest" might puzzle some - isn't "at the request of the British government" the same thing.
 * Don't know if it makes much difference, but I suppose "behest" could be read as the Spanish not doing it of their own volition, so changed.
 * "On 6 March, Savage was seen to park a car in the car park used as the assembly area for the parade; McCann and Farrell were seen to cross the border shortly afterwards.". Does one need to repeat "car"? "seen to" is a bit passive. Giving the date rather pushes people to check how it relates to the date of the killings in the first sentence. "On the day of the shootings, Savage was seen parking in the car park used as the assembly area for the parade; McCann and Farrell were seen crossing the border shortly afterwards." - alternatives on these points; pic n' mix.
 * Fair enough; done.
 * "The decision is cited as a landmark case in the use of force by the police." - no doubt but of course it wasn't the police shooting here. "by government agencies" or something?
 * I don't suppose you've got another suggestion? The SAS were (ostensibly) acting in support of the Gibraltar Police in a law enforcement capacity, and it is cited in cases concerning *police* use of force.
 * When do/did they hold changing of the guard - ie what time? Relevant but not given.
 * Good question; I don't know off the top of my head. Let me get back to you.
 * link roundabout I suppose
 * Do you think it's necessary? I'm not averse, but I'd have thought it's fairly clear from he context that it's something cars go round.
 * I'm not really fussed, but to Americans I think "roundabout" can mean a traffic circle (no room for one of these on Gibraltar, I'd imagine), so a link might help. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * " Farrell's right arm "moved aggressively across the front of his body"," - his body or her body?
 * Good catch, this. I've been back to the source and corrected it.
 * "he believed McCann then reached for her handbag, and that he believed she may also have been reaching for a remote detonator." ?? not "he may also have been reaching"?
 * And this.
 * Sir Geoffrey Howe - linked twice
 * Unlinked, since they were in fairly close proximity.
 * I find the sequences of notes & references odd, but acceptable. But I don't like the piling-up in "taxi ranks" of up to 5 unique references at the same place, that could perfectly well be combined, & would look much better if they were.
 * I've only done this in a few places, and for one of two reasons: either it's a particular bone of contention, and it's necessary to show that several sources are in agreement (the talk page and history might shed some light on that if you're curious); or in one case I've used the phrase "some sources speculated..." and cited each of the sources that so speculated at the end of the sentence to make it clear that it's not my own speculation and that I'm not embellishing.
 * I don't in the least object to having multiple cites; I just think think they are better combined together: "Smith p. 28; Brown, p. 30...." Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally at FA standard, nice work. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, John; much obliged. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Some responses above, but all very minor or personal taste, so I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.