Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/The Utility of Force


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

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Utility of Force

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

This isn't really my comfort zone, but it passed a GA review quite easily thanks to Hawkeye so I thought it might be worth getting a bit more feedback. I wonder how it would fare at FAC? I didn't have such lofty heights in mind when I wrote it—I was just amazed we didn't have an article and thought I'd put something together—but any comments would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Harry, sorry for the limited feedback but this one is probably beyond me. One quick suggestion, though, is to include more images to break up the text. This may not be possible, but is there an image of the author you could use, or anything else that is relevant? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * From a counter-insurgency theory perspective, the article's perfectly competent, and I'd support at ACR. My thoughts would be:
 * Images. I'd recommend an image from the Balkans (e.g. UNPROFOR) for the Background section; perhaps Clausewitz or Napoleon to illustrate industrial warfare; and an Iraq photograph for the war among the people section.
 * Critical reception. For FA, I'd consider advise restructuring it around the themes rather than the reviewers; for the average reader it matters less probably who said what ("X said Y about the book") and more what the themes were ("responses to the book have stressed A, B, C"). You could then include more material/reviews, while avoiding any repetition. Would be good to see what the British Army Review has said on it, and what comparable US and Chinese service publications may have commented. I'd also be looking at the "The Accidental Guerrilla" to see what Kilcullen's reflections on it was, in terms of how the volume has driven counter-insurgency thinking. There may be some further framework pieces in Marston and Malkasian "Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare" and similar volumes, or in the Small Wars Journal. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Concur with Hchc about the structure. In general, the Reception section is a bit dense
 * Lead is quite long relative to the length of the article
 * "devised a strategy for the multi-national UN force deployed to intervene effectively in the war, it having been deployed" - this sentence is rather awkwardly phrased, as is the last sentence in this section
 * Any more details on production? Has this been translated or republished? Who designed the cover?
 * Srebenica or Srebrenica?
 * Suggest providing a brief inline gloss for rhizomatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "war(s) amongst the people": use some synonyms for this, to vary the prose. Also, either use quote marks every time, or use them more sparingly.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Disclaimer: I met Smith briefly, and served under him (very indirectly) in Bosnia.
 * link major general at first mention
 * Niall Ferguson is overlinked
 * "again lacking defined objectives" this does not follow. What earlier air strikes involving Smith lacked defined objectives?
 * "commanders now operate inside the theatre" requires some explication
 * there is a tension between the use of "second half" and "final third" when describing the narrative, which needs to be resolved.
 * otherwise, I am very impressed with the article, I believe it captures Smith's work (which I have read) quite well, as well as the valid criticisms and observations of it made by others. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
 * External links check out (no action req'd).
 * Image use seems appropriate and has a fair use rationale (no action req'd).
 * Caption looks fine (no action req'd)
 * No duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
 * The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * "...subdue but not necessarily end the conflict." Not sure about use of "subdue" here - seems like something one does to an opponent not to "conflict", perhaps consider rewording?
 * This is a little repetitive: "Reviewers also felt that Smith under-emphasised the extent to which "war amongst the people" has always existed. Nonetheless, reviewers praised..." specifically the second instance of "reviewers". Perhaps reword one?
 * This is also a little repetitive: "Smith then proceeds to discuss each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..." (discusses). Perhaps consider something like: "Smith then proceeds to cover each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..."
 * Prose seems a bit choppy here: "...he opines that the soldiers undertaking the counter-insurgency operations did not have the proper skills...", perhaps consider something like: "...he opines that soldiers undertaking counter-insurgency operations in that conflict did not have the proper skills..." or something like that.
 * "Roberts believed that Smith over-stated the transformation into the new paradigm of war by playing down the extent to which there have always been wars amongst the people...", should wars amongst the people here be in quotation marks for consistency with your other usage of this term?
 * ISSNs could probably be added to the references (available through WorldCat.org). Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * G'day, where are we this one? I see several reviewers have made comments... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day Harry, I'm thinking this has been open since 29 October and should probably be closed with no consensus to promote. Any objections? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd love to do more on this, but I've not had time recently and I'm not likely to in the next few days. Feel free to close it and I'll re-nominate it if/when it's ready. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 