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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Hi. This is a helpful and concise article, but the following sentences could use work:
"It follows, in depth, the invasion itself and the early months of the occupation though summer 2003...
"Comprehensive and even-handed, the book is widely hailed as the pre-eminent source of information on what actually happened and why, and how the powerful Iraqi insurgency was germinated...
"They describe in great detail the meetings, correspondence, and positions of the various actors, including not only the US and Iraq, but other countries across the world as they considered the implications of joining the "Coalition of the Willing"."
I don't understand how this article isn't neutral. I get the impression that it just states a summation of what's in the book and that it has been regarded as a reliable source of information.Y.Pestis11:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. This seems like a very straightforward summary of this book. The only different impression I got from reading it was the book seemed to come down harder and more directly on Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks than does this summary. But whoever flagged this as needing a neutrality check failed to give us a hint as to why. I'll remove the tag. Mindful of Trovare's suggestion the article could use a reference from a prominent source, I'll add a link to Lawrence D. Freedman's review in Foreign Affairs journal which seems to be typical of the reviews I've seen for the book. -- technopilgrim05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Trovare. Who considers the book comprehensive and even-handed? Who are those that are hailing it as pre-eminent? And how many of these people does it take for a critical mass of being "widely" hailed? How much detail? I'm sure at least one reviewer has said some of these things: let's cite those. See WP:WEASEL for further details on what I mean. PS: I'm in the process of getting the book this week, and therefore am not trying to praise or criticize the book but merely to improve the article. Kelvinc (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page at Talk:Cobra II/Temp which looks like it's about something else with this name. I'm not sure what should be done with it, so I'm just pointing out its existence here – Gurch05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
