Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arrow (missile)/archive1


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


 * Withdrawn at request of nominator -MBK004 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile)

 * Nominator(s): Flayer (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think I gathered and pushed into the article maybe every piece of valuable verifiable information referable to the subject. Hopefully, it is enough. If not, maybe it would be at least a Good Article. Flayer (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * One image needs to have alt text added. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Four dismabig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.
 * The article desperately needs a good copyedit, the prose and word flow are awkward in places, unneeded quotes and commas are all over place, and we have bold text in the article body which IMO is unneeded.
 * We seem to have an excessive amount of quotes in the article; while these are good for insight purposes one or two at most should be more than adequate for the article. I recommend trimming the quotes from there templates and either outright removing them or integrating there major points into the article body.
 * The production section has no citations for the list of components manufactured by other major contractors. I would like to see citations for this information.
 * There is no mention of what compelled Israel to build the system. You do mention a signing of an understanding between the United States and Israel to develop the system, but unto my experience most of these projects do not get started without some sort of hard learned lesson. For example, HMMWVs in the US did not start sporting enclosed casings for the gunner until after the 2003 Iraq War, when the military determined after multiple IED attacks that the gunner was too vulnerable without the enclosure. I'm willing to bet that a similar experience either with enemy missiles or enemy aircraft helped compel Israel to develop the arrow system. See if you can find anything along these lines.
 * The article's got potential, but its not A-class material yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Flayer (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish the review to be closed at this point. Flayer (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a good article, but it's not A-class yet. My suggestions for how to get it there are:
 * I agree with all Tom's suggestions, and particularly that it needs a copyedit
 * The article paints a largely favorable view of the system - have there been any arguments that it's not effective or not the best use of Israel's defence budget like there have been for the US system?
 * I'd suggest that all the quotes be removed, particularly as they're from people associated with the missile or military officers in allied countries, and hence aren't providing an independent view. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the criticism section idea. Flayer (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Object Far too much of this article depends on the press releases/websites of the agencies building this missile, and as it very important and sensitive, these cannot present a centrist view. Secondly there is one reference to Wikipedia. The quotes, while attributed are quite unremarkable (of the pre-prepared type) and are just from speeches/press conferences after an unveiling etc, and are not important/iconic enough to be highlighted like that.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A-class is unreachable, so I'll wait for the GA review. Flayer (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.