Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

Seems well written, doesn't seem very POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Some maps would be nice. RickK 06:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder where all the references and external links are, theres none that I can see. Squash 07:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object to the current title. I see that there has been extensive discussion on the talk page, but the result is still a page which is misnamed: a substantial part of the material deals with the activities of UK forces and Afghan rebels, while the description of the event as an "invasion" seems inaccurate. Mark¹ 08:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have a proposal. How about the addition of "...and ongoing/ensuing conflict" to title?--ZayZayEM 06:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no proposal, and given the amount of discussion which has already gone on about the title, I think it would be entirely futile to offer one. I'm afraid it's down to the authors of the article to come up with something accurate and which they can all agree on. That hasn't happened so far. Mark¹ 07:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object strongly. In addition to the above comments: 1) Several pictures are uncredited. 2) The article seems to end about a year ago, but the conflict didn't. 3) Apart from the "Military operations" section, the article seems poorly structured. "Nature of the coalition" is messy and incomplete. "Casualties of the invasion" mostly contains short "news flashes" that are mostly irrelevant to the conflict as a whole. It is not necessary to mention every single casualty, accidental strike, etc. The World War II articles will not mention every exploding tank either. If you really think it is necessary to mention all this, do so in a separate article. After that, the sections are all short, incomplete, randomly placed. In general, their contents should be integrated in a "history" subsection, which outlines all major events. If emphasis is required on specific subtopics (eg diplomacy), the sections should be expanded a lot. The "Slogans and terms" section is completely useless (save perhaps for the fact that many US stations used such ridiculous slogans), and doesn't really belong here. Jeronimo 07:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)