Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Iraq War troop surge of 2007

Iraq War troop surge of 2007
I am filing a peer review for this article to invite comments on how the article may better be improved. I do not have any vested interest in the article, but will take any suggestions placed here to improve the article and try to implament them. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom
It seems to me that the biggest problem at the moment is an overly intricate and detailed structure. I know that, like many recent events that receive extensive news coverage, we have a lot of information and a lot of sources available, but I feel that the level of detail here is overkill. A lot of work has gone into the article as it currently stands, I'm sure, but I feel that the main road to improvement is to cut back. Additionally, the intermixing of prose and timelines is difficult to follow. Everything really needs to be converted to prose and then trimmed down to a reasonable level of detail.

Less importantly, some images would be nice, and the "see also" section should ultimately be removed.

Let me know if you want further suggestions on trimming down the article - it's a big job, and I'm sure it's also likely to be controversial. Carom (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be grateful for any further suggestions on trimming down the article, and I will look into adding images and subtracting the see also section. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some things that jump out: short sections, sometimes only two sentences. "Problems with readiness," "Bush's reaction" and "Plan B" are all quite short, and there are a few others as well. This proliferation of short sections indicates to me that the article is being broken down to too fine a level of detail. It might be most productive to lay out a new structure (in userspace, perhaps) that attempts to be more of an encyclopedic summary than a fine-grained reporting of events. To me, something like "Demand for change," "Development of the policy," "Presentation of the policy," "Reaction," "Implementation," and "Aftermath" might be better. Also, the timelines are really disruptive - they could perhaps be split out into "Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007, and then linked to. Carom (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawrencema
First time I've commented in a peer review, so be nice to the newbie :)


 * My biggest problem is that it concentrates too much on the political aspects of the surge i.e. American political discussions (particularly the pre speech expectations section. That should definitely be moved/renamed). A greater focus should be on which units were deployed as part of the surge, how this fitted in with the Baghdad Security Plan (Fardh al Qanoon), preparatory operations in Diyala in advance of Arrowhead Ripper (I guess in the southern Baghdad belts as well). Any change in military strategy on the ground should be included (e.g. moving off FOBs into JSSs), how the Awakening Councils fitted in to the security situation, etc.


 * I agree with Carom - the timeline is very intrusive and should probably be cut out and linked to.


 * Plan B needs to updated or removed.


 * Maybe an image of the brigade disposition before/after the surge would be illustrative of the troop increase


 * Photos of Petraeus, Crocker. They are probably the face of the surge.

Just a few items off the top of my head. Lawrencema (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)