Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Iraqi Regional Command under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 22:18, 19 March 2012.

List of members of the Iraqi Regional Command under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr

 * Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not... It seem to be a good list (I believe so at least...) --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Oppose Intro List --DavidCane (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The chronology and context are a bit unclear and the introduction assumes too much prior knowledge:
 * Links to Ba'athism and Arab socialism would be useful.
 * Can't see how that helps - this is not about the Ba'ath Party's ideology...
 * As I say, it's about context. The introduction states that the party was structured on a Marxist-Lenist model. Given its later domination by Hussein, I suspect many people may not realise that the Ba'ath party was socialist.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the Iraqi regional command exist before al-Bakr's period in charge and, if it did, who was in charge before 1966?
 * I don't know, sources are unsure, either al-Sadi or Hazim Jawad.
 * Is that all sources or just the ones used? It seems a fairly fundamental thing not to know.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, this is not the Soviet Communist Party, hence the disinterest.
 * I think it would be useful to discuss al-Bakr's political position outside of the party. For example, following the Ramadan Revolution in February 1963, he was the Prime Minister of Iraq. Therefore what was the regional command's role at this time?
 * Why? Al-Bakr controlled the Regional Command from 1964/66 until 1979 (sources are not specific), its explained how the Regional Command ruled Iraq from 1968 until 1979, isn't that enough?
 * It's about context again. I don't think it is explained that the regional command ruled from 1968 to 1979. Where does it say this?--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're saying that he may have controlled the regional command from 1964 not 1966. That's a fairly fundamental issue. --DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I say that he dominated the Military Bureau, and through that the party, by 1964, but became secretary in 1966. --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording in the sentence about the 1963 is not clear that the coup was from inside the party, who Ali Salih al-Sadi was or what role he played in the coup or why this is relevant to a list which starts in 1966. It also does not mention that the national president, Abdul Salam Arif, was involved in removing the Ba'athists from power.
 * It should be made clear that the 17th July revolution was in 1968. The previous sentences are about 1963.
 * "In January 1977 Hussein successfully expanded the Regional Command's membership." Presume this means 1974.
 * "Seven months later, these new appointees were given seats in the Revolutionary Command Council" so this was in August 1974.
 * 16 July of which year? I assumed 1977, given the context (although that appears to be an error), but reading Al-Bakr's biography and the table below, I see that it was 1979.
 * "Of the 21 members in the Regional Command 14 of them were pro-Hussein, while 10 supported al-Bakr" 14 + 10 = 24. There are also 23 in the list, so I assume the 21 means the members other than al-Bakr or Hussein.
 * I think it is important to say which of the members supported al-Bakr and which supported Hussein.
 * Why is it assumed that al-Bakr was persuaded or forced to resign? His biography says "health reasons", so that at least should be mentioned. It does not mention what al-Bakr's other posts were, i.e. that he was the President of Iraq.
 * Do we not have full dates for the joining and leaving of the regional command?
 * Nope.
 * Why are there two lists? Did they really leave office in 1974 and take up to posts again, or was the regional command simply expanded?
 * Elected at Regional Congress.
 * That does not answer the question--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No it does, a group is elected, than the Regional Command is dissolved, and they are re-elected by the Regional Congress
 * Were those that left the regional command before 1974, replaced? If not the committee seems to have dwindled to just five people by then.
 * Doesn't seem like it... Members were elected through the Regional Congress (at least at the beginning)
 * Which sources are used for the table?
 * Its in the reference section. --TIAYN (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed that, but you should have a reference link on the table.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I nominated the List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s (which is an FL), they said the opposite. --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll rewrite the lead, seeings to vague and all :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposing now as no edits have been made to the article since 29 February and many of the issues raised above remain unaddressed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – The first comment is the reason for my opposition.
 * Criterion 5a, calling for "a minimal proportion" of red links, is violated at the moment. More than half of the members are red-linked, and the lead has numerous red links as well. I'm not the biggest fan of this criterion, but if it's in on WP:WIAFL I feel that I must call attention to a failure of it.
 * The "The following is a list of" style of opening is quite outdated and could use a renovation.
 * The first sentence of the second paragraph is bordering on a run-on, and is "Ba'athist" intended to be plural?
 * Typo in "were he was assassinated in 1971".
 * "has, according to Con Coughlin, 'has always been regarded as something of a mystery.'" Remove the "has" from the quote to improve the grammar.
 * Remove space before ref 9.
 * On the left side's Left office column, the 1968 and 1969 entries aren't sorting in the right order. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.