Wikipedia:Peer review/Falklands War/archive1

Falklands War
I'd like to make this my first real improvement project, I know it needs some trimming and splitting off, and the links to battles need summarising in the main article, but what can I do to get this to FA? I've got the automated peer review, and need to act on those suggestions too. Thanks, RHB 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My take:
 * This is a nice article. Mainly, I'm gonna be a pain about making the text "brilliant"
 * "...of two large and many small islands..." How about "of an archipelago"?
 * "(See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)" Use the "see also" template.
 * Never, ever say "Falklands." It's more encyclopedic and formal to say "Falkland Islands." I've never heard the former used formally. (It's fine in the title, that's the only context I would suggest using it in.)
 * "...followed by the occupation of the Falklands..." Link 'occupation of the Falklands' to "1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands".
 * Make 2 articles from your main sections:
 * 1. "Events preceeding the Argentine Invasion of the Falkland Islands"
 * 2. "British Military Reaction to the Invasion of the Falkland Islands"
 * This (above) should shorten the article when you summarize more.
 * Under the "Invasion" sub-section, update the content to the main source article.
 * Watch out calling a section "Anaylsis," it comes off as very POV.
 * I agree with the previous commentary below in the point that the article is told from the British viewpoint and sympathizes slightly with them.
 * You don't need sub-sections for "Battle of Mount Harriet" and likewise. Just make a list at the bottom of the "Fall of Port Shanley" entitled "Notable battles."
 * I'll do this for you.
 * Please get more sources in the "Allegations of nuclear deployment," it's a controversial, potentially dangerous diplomatic matter.
 * "The Falklands was important for a number of reasons." Kill it per WP:PEACOCK.
 * Can you get at least 1 source for "Pope John Paul II visits"? I think you can.
 * That's all I got. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG
Hope this helps, good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand refs to full bibliographic entries, and websites should have last access dates. Please fix your sources throughout. Example of a web source that needs expansion:
 * How Frank was Franks? (What is this site, and include last access date).
 * Book references need publisher, pub date, and page nos on individual footnotes. Example:
 * Michael Clapp, Amphibious Assault Falklands. ISBN 0-7528-1109-6
 * News sources need author (when available) and publication date, see cite news template. Example:
 * 1982: Marines land in South Georgia. BBC. Retrieved on 20 June, 2005.
 * Please unlink partial dates and years - wikilink only full dates (mon, day, year)
 * The article is hugely undercited. For example (there are many others):
 * Argentine intelligence officers had been working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Argentine government believed it might be rewarded for this activity by non-interference on the part of the United States if it invaded the Falklands.
 * especially The Sun, which ran such headlines as "GOTCHA" (following the sinking of General Belgrano). The Daily Mirror, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the war, attacking their tabloid rival The Sun and claiming that it would "damage your mind."
 * There are mixed reference styles: some inline cites and some use cite.php.  Convert all refs to cite.php
 * Remove jumps to external websites, by wikifying the content, or turning them into references - examples:
 * Argentina claims that the team left for France soon after the April 2 invasion, but according to Dr. James S. Corum the French team apparently continued to assist the Argentines throughout the war, in spite of the NATO embargo and official French government policy.
 * Argentina received military assistance only from Peru--despite receiving cursory support from the Organisation of American States in a resolution supporting Argentina's sovereignty and deploring European Community sanctions
 * Venezuelan support of the Malvinas conflict (which should be listed as another name in the lead) is barely mentioned in passing. This is one (of several) indications of a slight slant to the article.
 * I could not find mention anywhere of the deceit visited upon the Argentine people by the junta with respect to the war. This raises a larger concern about the article:  it really tells the story mostly from the British angle, and isn't entirely comprehensive.  I suggest you'll need to locate an Argentine to comb through the text, and provide you with more sources, to help make the article more comprehensive, and NPOV.
 * The article is too long. See WP:LENGTH.  Overall size is 85KB, but prose size is a massive 69KB.  That needs to be under 50, and preferably closer to 40-45, by making better use of Summary style.  You can find how to calculate prose size on WP:LENGTH, or the article size police may come after you.


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)