Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2

Military history of Canada

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to see if others think the readability, presentation, coverage, neutrality, sourcing are in order as per our policies and general guidelines on this type of subject. The ultimate goal is GA status then FA over time. Thanks, Moxy (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

I've read through the article and have a couple of minor suggestions which you might consider. Feel free to ignore if you disagree:

watch out for date format consistency: sometimes you have ddmmyyyy (e.g. "19 March 2011"), but then elsewhere mmddyyyy (e.g. "November 27, 2010"). Either way is fine, but it should be consistent;

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the Iraq War section, the article has an image of "one of four Canadian ships deployed to the Persian Gulf in relation to the Iraq War", however, the prose doesn't mention the deployment of ships. Would it be possible to add a short sentence on this, explaining their role?

Fixed - The Canadian Forces involvement was delegated to ship escort duties and expanded participation in Task Force 151 to free up American assets.REF .. Moxy (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Libyan civil war section didn't really give me a good understanding of Canada's contribution to the NATO action. I understand that you don't want to write too much on this so that it doesn't overshadow earlier, larger conflicts, but I wonder if a small sentence or clause could be added. For instance, maybe: "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."

Fixed - your sentence is great and has been inserted - the old ref covers the new info added REF.Moxy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In July 2006, for instance, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers". Is there a ranking that could be provided as a comparison? I assume it was higher previously, do we know what it was at the peak of Canada's involvement for instance? If so, maybe just add a short sentence on that.

Fixed - Were in November of 1990 Canada had 1002 troops out of a total UN deployment of 10,304.REF.Moxy (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

The TOC is quite long, especially given that some of the subsections are short - perhaps merge a few?

Not sure how to do this in a good way... so I added {{TOC limit}}.Moxy (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different ways. The easiest approach would be to limit the TOC so that lower-level headings aren't included (ex. you'd have 4.1 but 4.1.1 wouldn't appear); I wouldn't advocate that solution, simply because it's so inelegant. I'm not sure subsections of American Revolution are needed at all; you could also potentially put Maritime theatre first and then merge St Lawrence and Loyalists. I would suggest merging the creation of the army and navy. "Forces in Europe" could be merged into the main Cold War Years part; Vietnam could either also be moved there or potentially merged with Korea. Yugoslav and Somali could be merged... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have merged a few sections and made the TOC see less sections. What do you think now? Not the exact solution above but???Moxy (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is quite long in general - some of the more detailed material might be better in the more specific daughter articles. Military history of Australia, a comparable GA, is about 40kB shorter

Fixed - Military history of Canada = Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10768 words) and References (text only): 1655 B vs Military history of Australia = Prose size (text only): 91 kB (14682 words) and References (text only): 1154 B.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some American spellings have snuck in and should be "corrected" to Canadian

Done by Nikkimaria . Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for dead external links and here for dablinks

Fixed x2 .. Moxy (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: Source links for File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg and File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg are dead. File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg claims to be PD because author died over 70 years ago, but no author is listed. Since France does not have freedom of panorama, might need to double-check licensing for the Vimy memorial. File:421sabres.jpg needs page number

~~File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg~~... replaced - File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg.. fixed - ~~File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg~~ ...replaced - Vimy memorial not sure what I can do. File:421sabres.jpg I guess I will remove as I dont have the book to get the page number.Moxy (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some overlinking: St. John's twice in as many paragraphs, Fenian raids linked in body text when already hatnoted, etc

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in which spelling of Algonquin/Algonkian is used. In general, copy-editing needed

Fixed Algonquin is the term now used all over.Moxy (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid non-neutral phrasings like "age-old tension"

Fixed found 3 examples.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some overlap between the Aboriginals section and the 17th century section

Fixed - I believe my reorder - moving a paragraph to the lower section will help.Moxy (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Later, militias were developed on the larger seigneuries" - you haven't yet explained what a seigneurie is

Do you think simply linking Seigneurial system of New France would be enough for our readers to read more if they like?Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trafford is a vanity press, so for books published by them you'll need to be prepared to explain the expertise of the author(s) if/when this goes to FAC. Same with self-published sources

Fixed - replaced by books/authors from Ashgate Publishing and University of Cambridge.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN 59: what's the end page of that range?

Pls explain more.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN 137: don't use Ibid

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above points, I'm seeing a lot of prose, MOS and formatting-related inconsistencies that would definitely be raised at FAC (and prose probably at GAN). If you like, I can do some work with those issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the norm your spot on. Yes pls jump in were you like - trim at will. As above I will work on what I can. Copy edit for Canadian vs American is a hard one for me. Refs no problems I can take care of.Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D I know almost nothing about pre-World War I Canadian military history, so my comments will be focused on the post-1914 era.

"Acadia was plunged into what some historians have described as a civil war in Acadia" - repetitive

Fixed.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the colonial era is largely a summary of the (amazingly frequent) conflicts. Material on the inter-war garrisons/militia and fortifications (or lack thereof) would be useful

Have add maps - this help?Moxy (talk)

"the Conservative Party was adamantly in favour of raising divisions for service in South Africa" - did it really want to raise several division-sized units? This would have been a huge contribution.

Fixed Ref says 8,000 troops so changed to a "of raising 8,000 troops" Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the Spanish Civil War seems overly detailed

Fixed I think trimmed out 2 sentences.Moxy (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the First Canadian Army was a multi-national formation

I cant find a ref for this.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's huge role in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan should be noted
The material on Canada's role in the Cold War is a bit short.

Fixed}.Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the forces stationed in Europe, there were fairly significant forces in Canada which would have been deployed to Europe in the event of a crisis, and the Canadian Navy was structured to hunt submarines in the North Atlantic. I'm pretty sure that some Canadian air defence units had US-owned nuclear tipped missiles for a period as well, which you may want to include. More generally, you could summarise the changes in the military's force structure during the Cold War and after it ended.

Thats alot to add - see what I can do. Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of last year's war in Libya doesn't really explain what the Canadian forces deployed to the region did (which I understand was quite significant). PM Harper's claim about the Libyan people having freed themselves should be removed - this is patent nonsense given that the rebels were heavily dependent on foreign air support for most of the war and probably would have been defeated without it

Above striked out

Removed - there is with a link.. "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."Moxy (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Canadian Crown and the Forces' section is much too long. I'd suggest summarising this down to two sections

Fixed I have removed an entire section the one on the naming of buildings, boats etc...Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no coverage of Canada's arms industry

Fixed - somewhat fixed add section on expenditures and mention throughout the article of when there are arms increases and decrees (i.e With the election of the Conservatives in 1911, in part because the Liberals had lost support in Quebec, the navy was starved for funds, but it was greatly expanded during the First World War .Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What have Canada's experiences with integrating women into the 'mainstream' of the military been?

Not sure about this one .. Will have to read up on it. Have any suggestions for books,Moxy (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should note that the Canadian Forces have been placing a greater emphasis on operating in the country's north in recent years, and plan to continue this in the future Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed See below (Additions and trimming).Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per above comments I will look at every point. That said seem to be lots here to add to this over view article pls jump in if you can because size is a concern (I have made more room Prose size (text only): 63 kB (10361 words) .Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. It's long, but I agree there needs to be a bit more info on CF operations on Canadian soil in general, as right now the 20th and 21st centuries cover actions abroad almost exclusively. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One option would be to split the article into pre and post-1867 articles. The entire military history of Canada is a difficult topic to cover in a single article. The alternative would be to ruthlesslessly edit down the material on the many colonial-era conflicts, which seems to be much more detailed than that on the conflicts of the 20s century (particularly given the much smaller forces involved and limited scope of most of the wars). Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A split would not be a bad Idea. I would prefer to have one parent article that leads to all the others. That said I (i hope others to) will work on reaming points (I have to read up on them). Then see were we stand sizes wise and GA level wise. PS thank you all for taking the time to write your comments for this review, thus helping the article progress in a positive manner .Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and trimming

Have trimmed the pre 20th century entries for size a bit.Moxy (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about domestic operations missing from article.Moxy (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added "October Crisis" (1970)
Added "Oka Crisis" (1990)
Added "Operation Recuperation" (ice storm of 1998)
Added "Operation Peregrine" (2003 fires) that also mentions ""Operation Assistance"

Concerns about missing Cold war: like communism .Moxy (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Igor Gouzenko"
Added "PROFUNC"

Size after trim and additions

The article is smaller then the WWII and Military history of Australia GA articles, so I think we are ok for size.Moxy (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File size: 692 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
Wiki text: 174 kB
Prose size (text only): 65 kB (10664 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1711 B