Talk:Operation Mistral 2

Operation Mistral 2 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 31, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Bosnia and Herzegovina Mid‑importance

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Operation Mistral 2 is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Balkan / European / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yugoslavia

	Operation Mistral 2 is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Should this article be moved to "Operation Mistral 2" or "Operation Maestral 2"? After a cursory search of google books, disqualifying wikipedia itself, there is a predominance of search results for "Mistral 2" rather than the same without the number in English language sources ([1]). Number 2 was a part of the official codename of the operation. Furthermore there is 5 to 4 split between "Operation Mistral" and "Operation Maestral" hits ([2]). Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be moved to "Operation Mistral 2", but I'm wondering if it would be worth considering moving it to "Operation Maestral 2" instead (the official name, nearly equal in use in English language sources). Personally, I'm inclined towards the latter solution, but I'd rather see if others share this view or not. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Mistral 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~I'll do a quick c/e, but there isn't anything glaring~~ ~~Is this in Brit/Aust or US English? re-organisation or reorganization?~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	suggest the tables are expanded as default, not a biggie, but they aren't that big ;-) suggest × in the infobox for numbers of units in the lead, the coordination of Sana and Mistral 2 is not obvious. Could you draw the threads together for readers? ~~NATO is at best marginal in terms of universal identification, in full then abbrev I think, esp in the lead~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing, good work