Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War

 * Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?

Another article on a much-overlooked subject with a perhaps surprising impact. After years of keeping its distance and offering only diplomatic support (and effectively forcing President Kabbah to sign the Lomé Accord), the United Kingdom sent a force of over 4,000 personnel in 2000 to end the brutal civil war that had largely destroyed Sierra Leone. I was surprised to see that this important event had such poor coverage on Wikipedia (this article didn't exist until I created it a few weeks ago and Operation Palliser was little more than a stub), so with some reference material from Operation Barras and some more kindly supplied by WMUK, Nick D, Andrew Gray at the British Library, and eBay, I set about rectifying things. I'm hoping to take this to FAC, so all comments are appreciated. As it's brand new, very few people have read it, so even just a once-over would be helpful. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great work HJ. I think it's great you've taken it on and I'd be happy to help if you come up against any problems. For now, though, I'll consign myself to my usual image review:

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The MoD headquarters: what do you think it adds to this article?
 * Not much other than to break up the wall of text, but it's not in one of the sparsely illustrated parts, so I've removed it.
 * I seem to have some difficulty accessing the source of File:Hands ondiamonds 350.jpg. Does it work for you/other reviewers? Might need updating (the other link redirects to a new address).
 * No; I can't load it either
 * I notice there aren't any actual images of British military intervention. I'll have a look myself.
 * Alas, Crown Copyright. WMUK have some contacts at the IWM (who have some images), which is an avenue I'll try to pursue in the new year, but I won't be holding my breath. :(
 * Thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: a highly polished article in my opinion, Harry. I made a couple of minor tweaks and I have the following nitpicks:
 * "were exerted on Liberia, whose President Charles Taylor supported the RUF in exchange" (probably need a couple of commas around "Charles Taylor" and I think "President" should be lower case here (not sure though);
 * I can see your point, so I've tweaked it slightly.
 * "Two Royal Navy vessels—aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and frigate HMS Argyll were ordered to sail to the area, as was the ARG". I wonder if there shouldn't be an emdash after Argyll in this sentence? Additionally, should there be a "the" in front of "aircraft carrier" and "frigate"?
 * Yes on the emdash; I think the sentence works better without definite articles for "frigate" and "aircraft carrier" (though a naval expert may tell me I'm wrong)
 * "the paras". I wonder if this shouldn't be "the Paras" as a defacto proper noun. Not sure, just thinking out loud...
 * I thought about this with Operation Barras, and I'm still not sure; I used lower case there so I followed suit here. I'd be open to changing it if others think it should be treated as a proper noun, but I'm reluctant to do it unilaterally in case an FAC reviewer thought differently.
 * the duplicate link checker tool reports the following examples of potential overlink: Lungi International Airport; Tony Blair; Royal Air Force; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Foday Sankoh; West Side Boys; Liberia; Strategic Defence Review;
 * I've done some unlinking; I tend to link most things once in the lead and once in the body, and the few I've left that don't adhere to that rule I think are justified because of the distance between the links.
 * in the References also, David Richards is probably overlinked;
 * I wondered about that myself, but I usually link publishers/publications/locations every time in the references section, so I thought "why would I not do the same for an author?"
 * "The STTTs also formed a small special forces unit". The link to "Special forces" here probably should be moved to an earlier mention of "special forces" . AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put a link in on the first mention after the lead (I didn't think it was especially relevant in the lead given the proximity of the link to Operation Barras), but left the link you mention because I think it's worthwhile given that the FRU is a red link. Thanks for the review, and for the compliment. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * One of images lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * Done. Had forgotten that one.
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
 * Dorman, p. 98. (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * I can't find more than one occurrence of this
 * Dorman, p. 9. (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Fixed.
 * Dorman 98 (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * Also fixed.
 * Images review completed above.
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations (no action required).
 * May 2000 in mentioned three times in two sentences in the lead? This is a bit repetitive IMO.
 * Reworded slightly.
 * "Sierra Leone is a country in West Africa, close to the equator...", I know we are meant to write so that our articles could be understood by a 12-year old but I wonder if we could assume that our readers know Sierra Leone is a country? Perhaps reword? (minor nitpick - suggestion only).
 * Well, according to one of the books, the British public were more likely to think it was a model of car. ;) Seriously, though, I take your point, but I think that's the easiest way to phrase it without torturing the prose.
 * No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "though the British influence began...", perhaps more simiply just: "though British influence began..."
 * Done.
 * "He was replaced in 1962 by his brother, Albert." It seems a little informal to refer to a prime minister by his first name only (suggestion only).
 * I think it's the best way to refer to him in the confusing situation where he succeeded his brother.
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 1978, Sierra Leone formally became a one-party state and the APC became the only legal political party...", the abbrev APC needs to be formally introduced at first use.
 * A relic of an earlier draft; done.
 * this is a bit repetitive: "a side effect of which was to effectively sideline UNAMSIL", "side" and "sideline" and "effect" and "effectively". Perhaps reword?
 * Reworded slightly.
 * Missing word here: "while others patrolled the streets of Freetown in attempt", suggest: "while others patrolled the streets of Freetown in an attempt.."
 * Done.
 * Is there a comma missing here: "and the SLA the only force capable of confronting the RUF..."? Specifically should it be: "and the SLA, the only force capable of confronting the RUF..."
 * No; the Unholy Alliance and the SLA (together) were the only force.
 * I wonder if casualties (for both sides) could be included in the Operation Barras section? Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the review. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I've added my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "The next day [7 May], British soldiers began securing the airport and other areas that would be essential to an evacuation, which began on 8 May. The majority of those who wished to leave were evacuated within the first two days of the operation": It's a judgment call, but you tend to give more detail on precisely when things happened than I'm used to seeing at A-class. Maybe: "Over the next three days, British soldiers began securing the airport and other essential areas, and evacuated the majority of those who wished to leave" - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-worked this a little, but things happened quickly, so I think some of the detail is justified
 * Not a problem, I just wanted to bring up that that level of date-detail might not be what Wikipedians are used to (not saying it's bad, that's not my call, really) ... but I see you're already on board. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Operation Palliser was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during war": during the war, right? - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Made moot by a previous re-write of the opening.
 * "they [did stuff], but did not come into direct contact with the RUF until 17 May, when they attacked a British position ..." "They" means two different groups here, and the "but" makes it sound like it was a long time until the encounter ... it looks like it was a few days. Maybe: "they [did stuff], and on 17 May came into direct contact with the RUF, who attacked a British position ..."
 * It was a few days (nine, I think), but they deployed to a war zone with a rebel force very rapidly advancing, so it's interesting that the two didn't meet straight away. I'd previously re-written it a bit, though.
 * Understood. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "During the training mission, a patrol returning from a visit to Jordanian peacekeepers was taken captive by a militia group known as the West Side Boys on 25 August.": Generally, keep time qualifiers together, particularly if you like to us a lot of them: "On 25 August, during the training mission, a patrol ..."
 * I've removed the dates altogether; I don't think they're necessary in the lead
 * "agreed ceasefire conditions": agreed to ceasefire conditions
 * "agreed ceasefire conditions" reads fine to me (agreed conditions for a ceasefire) as opposed to "agreed to ceasefire conditions" (agreed to somebody else's conditions).
 * The short answer is: I could be talked out of it, but I think I'm not on board, because this is Wikipedia, and anything that looks like a typo will draw edits ... and to anyone unfamiliar with BritEng, that looks like a typo. The longer answer is that language patterns change more rapidly in Britain that elsewhere in the native-English-speaking world (in a sense, everyone's in the English-speaking world these days), and Brits are fonder of special idioms, too. I don't want to commit a faux-pas and trample on British sensibilities, but when we're talking about Wikipedia, I don't think it's out of place to ask everyone to give at least a little thought to other varieties of English. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I know we Brits do funny things, but I can't see this as a Brits vs. Yanks thing. "Agreed to" in this context means something completely different to what's intended. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I've rephrased this as part of a broader rewrite. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The British armed forces continued their involvement in Sierra Leone long after the initial intervention—the United Kingdom provided the largest contribution of personnel to the international training team, advised on a restructuring of the country's armed forces in 2002, and British troops were sent to the area to ensure stability in March 2003 while several indictments and arrests were made by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.": Too long, and "UK provided ..., advised ..., and British troops" is nonparallel. I'm thinking an "and" before "advised" and a full stop after "2002" (and lose the "and") will do it.
 * Rewritten.
 * "The operation in Sierra Leone is a little-discussed aspect of the Premiership of Tony Blair.", "Experience from Sierra Leone influenced later restructuring of the British infantry, particularly with regard to the retention of high-readiness forces, and validated several concepts ...": aspect, experience, influenced, regard, and concepts are words journalists love because, more often than not, they don't mean anything. Nonfalsifiability and vagueness can be useful for journalists (seriously ... I'm not being sarcastic) when they're trying not to get sued and not to irritate anyone (and when they're writing on a deadline ... finding the just the right words can take time), but vague words are bad when you're actually trying to convey information. Btw, I'm not sure what it means that the aspect is little-discussed ... who isn't discussing it?
 * I removed that bit (it's a quote from Blair, which appears near the bottom). The article gets more specific in the body; I've tried to avoid excess detail in the lead.
 * Yes ... and that's actually a perfect good use for vague words, to remove detail from the lead ... but sparingly. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "It was the first unilateral ...": long, winding sentence
 * Rewritten.
 * Also check out my edits to the lead.
 * It's a long article, and there's a bit more here than I'm going to have time to do, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did skim a little past the point where I stopped. It's okay for A-class; I would oppose the article in its current state at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I'll have a more detailed look at prose when I can. If you find time to read more of the article, your comments would be welcome. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My sense is it's not ready for FAC. I apologize, of course ... I've been able to shoulder more of the work in the past, but I'm really into my new GLAM project and I'm going to have to cut back a little on copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Overall, needs quite a bit of work on prose, I tend to agree with Dank. Needs a very close run through or a GOCE c/e.
 * suggest the article "The" should precede British intervention... in order to make it a full sentence.
 * in the lead, suggest you state who captured Sankoh.
 * Done.
 * I don't consider the "Premiership of Tony Blair" is a proper noun, so premiership should not have an initial capital.
 * Quite right.
 * suggest "However, Peter Hain, (British) Minister of State for Africa"
 * I think it would be redundant, since the sentence continues suggested that the British government had no choice, and anybody who clicks the link gets is a British Labour Party politician.
 * suggest "future UN peacekeeping operations, would have been" has an errant comma
 * Indeed.
 * suggest " In response to the deterioration, British troops—at Richards' request—were flown to Dakar, Senegal, to decrease the time it would take them to deploy to Sierra Leone, and 1 PARA (with D Company, 2 PARA—replacing A Company, who were on exercise in Jamaica—along with several attached assets including artillery) was ordered to the Air Movements Centre in South Cerney, Gloucestershire." is far too long and should be broken up.
 * It is; I need to check a fact in the source, so I'll come back to this.
 * suggest "The ARG en route, the paras were able to deploy rapidly and with minimal equipment, knowing that they would not have to wait long for reinforcements and supplies should they be needed" needs a "With" or similar in front of it.
 * Perhaps it's me, but 'with X in place, Y could go ahead' makes perfect sense,and the "with" would be redundant (and sound a little odd).
 * suggest "hotel, from where" should be " hotel, from which" and "and from Lungi they would be flown to Dakar" should form the basis of a separate sentence stating what aircraft were used for the evacuation.
 * Done the first part; I don't know if the aircraft (C-130s and possibly a couple of TriStars) are worth mentioning
 * discretely should be discreetly
 * Done
 * suggest " The deployment of British troops to Sierra Leone had lifted morale and halted the RUF advance on Freetown, an unintended consequence of which was to effectively sideline UNAMSIL and there were concerns that violence would resume once the British left." needs attention.
 * Re-worked a little.
 * suggest you wikilink mission creep.
 * I don't think the meaning of the phrase is really ambiguous, and that article's not great—it just gives a few examples that somebody thinks are most important without addressing the academic issue.
 * if my non-military mates are any indication, most people don't know what mission creep is, the article may be improved. Not really a reason not to wikilink it.
 * It is a reason not to link it, because links are intended to improve a reader's understanding, but I'll concede this one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * the situation of the UNMO's is not clear. We they detained (ie captives needing to be released) or merely holed up with besieged UNAMSIL garrisons? This lack of clarity is throughout.
 * I'm not sure what's unclear. There are two sets of UNMOs mentioned in the article (the group at Makeni who escaped and the group including Andy Harrison, who were freed by force). The first group would fit the description of "merely holed up with besieged UNAMSIL garrisons", and the second were held directly by the RUF until they were allowed to join nearby UNAMSIL troops who were besieged by the RUF.
 * I'll re-look and make some specific suggestions.
 * suggest "Such a force could not be assembled while maintaining commitments elsewhere, and British forces' involvement in Sierra Leone was politically unpopular in Westminster, so the use of British forces to confront the RUF directly was ruled out." is clunky and need work.
 * I didn't think it was that bad, but I've copy-edited it slightly.
 * suggest you wikilink peace enforcement.
 * The article as it is wouldn't add anything to readers' understanding
 * Still, see my point above.
 * There's no point in linking to it if it a reader wouldn't come away from it with a better understanding of the concept; this especially true when the article is copied and pasted from a US Army manual. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * overuse of the emdash throughout, particularly where sentence should be restructured or broken up.
 * the commonly used and official abbreviation for the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment is "2 R ANGLIAN", not 2 RAR, which is the commonly used abbreviation for the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment.
 * 
 * per 2 RAR, 1 R IRISH not 1 RIR.
 * 
 * per above, the unit title is 22nd Special Air Service Regiment (22 SAS).
 * 
 * Do you have sources that the abbreviations you suggest are correct and the ones in the article at present are incorrect? Certainly RAR and RIR are the abbreviations used in the sources.
 * The sources are definitely mistaken/lazy. I've linked to the British Army website under each one. (OR warning - I served with the Brits and they are the official abbreviations for those battalions/regiments).
 * I've removed RAR and RIR; none of those sources says anything about 22 SAS though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "battle group" is usually a reference to a battalion-sized force, not a company-sized one. The usual Commonwealth terminology is "company group".
 * Fixed.
 * "A Company, 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment" is unnecessary in Operation Barras, "A Company 1 PARA" would suffice.
 * Indeed.
 * suggest you reverse "At least 25 West Side Boys and one British soldier were killed in the operation" as it currently makes it sound like "at least" one British soldier was killed.
 * I had put it in numerical order, but that's a good point.
 * "Later in the same year, the British Army advised the Sierra Leonean government during a restructure of the country's armed forces into a unified command, which became the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces in early 2002" needs work.
 * Re-worked slightly.
 * no sense of whether there are any UK Forces in SL now.
 * I've read nothing to suggest the training teams are no longer there, but I honestly don't know.
 * See
 * What is the DSF?
 * Explained and linked.
 * A bit miffed at the lack of any photos of Brits in SL in the article. A map showing the major towns/locations of interest would be of benefit, such as File:Sierra Leone-Mappa.gif on Commons. Also perhaps a RAF Chook instead of a US one? per File:Chinook.hc2.za677.arp.jpg or File:Raf ch-47 chinook hc2 za707 arp.jpg
 * I've replaced a couple of images with two of your suggestions; thanks.
 * also, Tony Blair and special forces have duplicate links.
 * TB unlinked; the second SF link I think is justified given that it's in a sentence discussing the formation of an SF unit
 * Thanks for your comments; I'll look at the prose in more detail over the next few days. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the prose has improved enough for A class now. If it goes to FAC we can work through any remaining point then. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's definitely going to FAC (I'm not really interested in A-class for its own sake, but as FAC preparation), so any more comment you had would be appreciated. Feel free to put them on the article's talk page if you're worried about keeping the ACR on-point; I promise I'll give them the same consideration I would at FAC. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive and interesting article - great work
 * The lead seems rather long - I'd suggest chopping this back to three paras
 * I think the length is justified, given the length of the article and the relative size of the topic
 * It might be justified, but it's pretty off-putting to readers. I know that I blanched at it the first couple of times I went to review this article ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed it a little.
 * That looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence which begins with 'They assisted with the evacuation of besieged peacekeepers' is rather long and complex
 * I've split it up a bit.
 * Ditto the sentence which starts with 'It was the first unilateral British operation since his election in 1997'
 * Ditto.
 * "a deployment of a small force to support UN peacekeeping operations in East Timor in 1999" - the British did more than just 'support' this operation; the Gurkha infantry company and detachment from the SBS were important elements of the Australian-led force during the initial phase of the operation
 * So I've learned from subsequent research (an interesting topic for an article, methinks, but I have my hands full atm); I'll see about improving this
 * "after which Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the British ambassador " - which British ambassador? (the British ambassador to the UN I presume?)
 * Indeed.
 * The sentence which begins with 'Two Royal Navy vessels' is a bit over-complex and confusing; I'd suggest splitting this into a sentence on the forces which were dispatched at this time, and another sentence on the forces which were placed on alert for a potential deployment.
 * Done.
 * "Jones requested in the afternoon of 8 May that Richards begin the operation and it began almost immediately." - 'begin' followed shortly by 'began' sounds a bit odd
 * Tweaked.
 * Do we know where the Nimrod R1 flew from? (Dakar, I presume)
 * Ascension, I think; I didn't think it was worth mentioning really
 * Fair enough (though I think it's interesting) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the books, and the Nimrod and a tanker were flown to Ascension for the purpose. Interesting, certainly, but I'm less certain that it's directly relevant...
 * Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration is linked twice
 * I know; the links are a long way apart and the term is important but not necessarily well-known
 * Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * " British forces' involvement in Sierra Leone was politically unpopular in Westminster" - this is a bit unclear; was the deployment unpopular within parliament, or within the government departments? (if it's the later 'politically' isn't technically appropriate, though it's probably not terribly far from the truth!)
 * The Tories used it to beat the (Labour) government round the head with in the House of Commons, basically.
 * But does that make it 'unpopular'? Presumably most, if not almost all, of the Labour MPs supported it, and they had a comfortable majority at the time. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The LibDems joined in as well, and Labour has never been very good at getting its MPs to all agree on something, so I think "unpopular" is probably accurate.
 * "British forces were sent to the area in March 2003 to ensure stability" - how large was the force deployed at this time?
 * I don't know; I think it was a couple of naval vessels and a Royal Marine detachment; I'll check the books.
 * It was a Royal Navy frigate and a company of Gurkhas; I've added this to the article
 * I have a vague memory that the National Army Museum in London had a small display on this deployment when I visited it in 2011. If it's a) still there (or was ever there!) and b) the museum's photo policy allows it, photos of this display may provide a source of images to enliven this article (I've checked my photos, and if this exhibit existed I didn't photograph it)
 * Their website mentions it briefly; I'll see if I can get there next time I'm in London, but I've no idea when that will be and I'd have to borrow a camera from somebody
 * Also as a suggestion, you could create further maps from Open Street Map screenshots - its coverage of Sierra Leone seems OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to do that; do you think the article would benefit from more maps? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A map of the general area around Freetown would be useful. To create a map, scroll to the area in open street map, take a screen shot, paste the resulting image in an graphics editor (MS paint or equivalent works fine for this purpose) and crop it if necessary and then upload the resulting map under a creative commons license (which are compatible with Open Street map's licensing conditions ) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me see what I can do. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments - this is in really good shape on a subject I am likewise surprised we had nothing substantial about. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Mission expansion section did you mean Westminster or should it be linked to Palace of Westminster.
 * I don't know; it's a metonym, but I'm sure an article about a building works much better than an article about the place
 * The Parachute Regiment's Pathfinder Platoon - I know what you mean but in reality its an all arms/brigade formation perhaps just The Pathfinder Platoon.
 * All the books refer to it as belonging to the Parachute Regiment, but OK
 * 22 Regiment, Special Air Service normally written 22 Special Air Service Regiment or just D Squadron Special Air Service.
 * Done


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.