# Talk:Operation Irma

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Irma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is very interesting, generally well-written, broad and focussed in coverage, and stable. I feel the article may give more space to the media criticisms of Operation Irma than to media support for / neutral reporting about the operation. Are we sure the article reflects the balance of reporting and analysis? Care also needs to be taken with the way summary sentences are used. The main example is this: "If the mission was a PR effort, British press commentators deemed it an unsuccessful one..." In fact, however, only one commentator is quoted, with no reporting of the view from any of Britain's several biggest media outlets. This hardly constitutes deeming it unsuccessful. Did the operation see a boost in the Major government's popularity in other respects (eg. as measured in opinion polls)? Another example is this: "Textbooks on public relations have cited the episode as...", but actually only one textbook is cited.
My only other comment is that it needs just one or two sentences of additional context at the outset. The article should assume that a lay reader knows little or nothing of the Balkan conflict. The piece launches straight in with "On 30 July, 1993, a mortar shell fired by Bosnian Serb troops hit a Sarajevo marketplace" We need preliminary sentences saying that a Bosnian War began in 1992, during which the city of Sarajevo was placed under siege by forces of the Republika Srpska and the Yugoslav People's Army. Then we can move into the existing text.
All images appear to be in order. I will keep an eye on how things are going and comments in response to my queries above. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking at this, Hamiltonstone. Points taken. I'll take a look at the balance of opinion and try to make improvements over the next couple of days. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted to fix the issues you identified, Hamiltonstone - could you take another look when you get a chance? Thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. In the ideal world there would be more research on impact in Britain (eg. on the government's fortunes), but it is pretty good as it stands, and it no longer over-reaches. Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I agree, I would like to turn up more stuff about the ramifications, but I've had a hard time finding any scholarship that decisively links this particular episode to e.g. Major's popularity, the last days of Tory rule, British attitudes toward ex-Yu, etc. I thought a sin of omission would be better here than putting in something tenuous. But it's certainly an area I'm keeping an interested eye on. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't really know how to post in Wiki format, but I would like to express my opinion that I think it is awfully disrespectful that a Page about Irma Hadzimuratovic just automatically redirects to this page about Operation Irma. 
Can an Wikipedian break the redirect so there is a seperate page for Irma Hadzimuratovic?
Serps (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Irma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302163248/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VI-01.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/VI-01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)