ChadianâLibyan War 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the #Toyota War section has enough content to be split off into its own article, like what's been done to Opération Epervier and #Opération Epervier. It would certainly help with the length. Do others agree? Picaroon 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added an image, but there are two problems. One, the colors are a bit garish. Two, the rest of the article seems very unbalanced, because it has no images. Commons searches under "libya," "chad," and "aozou" didn't yield very much. I'll check articles on the politicians involved and see if the have anything. Picaroon 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it called "conflict"? Wasn't it a war?
62.152.110.130 ( talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead could do with some work, but I don't know where to start :| - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat mystified by beginning with the extension of the [[Chadian Civil War (1979-1982)|Chadian Civil War]] to northern Chad in 1968. 87.112.88.209 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if there are some more ilustration this article can become featured article.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall this looks like really solid work to me. I still need to check for a few things, but the article is comprehensive and well-written, and does a terrific job breaking down a very complicated situation for a non-expert reader. I'll begin the checklist at some point today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
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. | Impressively clear for the complexity of the subject. Ten spot checks of sources show no evidence of close paraphrasing or other copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | Images are properly tagged with copyright status, and the non-free image in the infobox was previously approved for use in the article. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Excellent work. |
Why the Jaguars lost are not in the losses table. Same for Zaire Mirage 5 â Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.165.242.55 ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ChadianâLibyan conflict. 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:
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not want an edit war to happen so I will address the results of the battle here. The Chadian-Libyan war encompasses many battles like the Battle of Fada, Battle of Aouzou, Second Battle of NâDjamena and many others. Within the territorial results it just seems to include the same as the Toyota War, however considering this is a long conflict we should acknowledge the other parts. We must acknowledge that it is true that Libya had occupied all of Chad and had occupied the Aouzou Strip. If we analyse the battle we can also see that originally the Libyan leader simply wanted the government to be toppled which did happened in the 1990 Chadian Coup. TheHistorian100 ( talk) 19:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely there should be some mention of Libya's claim over what it called the Borderlands region? This included the Aouzou Strip and much of northern Chad. For sources go to LibyaâChad Territorial Dispute case. ThatRandomGuy1 ( talk) 22:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
ChadianâLibyan War 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the #Toyota War section has enough content to be split off into its own article, like what's been done to Opération Epervier and #Opération Epervier. It would certainly help with the length. Do others agree? Picaroon 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added an image, but there are two problems. One, the colors are a bit garish. Two, the rest of the article seems very unbalanced, because it has no images. Commons searches under "libya," "chad," and "aozou" didn't yield very much. I'll check articles on the politicians involved and see if the have anything. Picaroon 22:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is it called "conflict"? Wasn't it a war?
62.152.110.130 ( talk) 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead could do with some work, but I don't know where to start :| - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat mystified by beginning with the extension of the [[Chadian Civil War (1979-1982)|Chadian Civil War]] to northern Chad in 1968. 87.112.88.209 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if there are some more ilustration this article can become featured article.-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall this looks like really solid work to me. I still need to check for a few things, but the article is comprehensive and well-written, and does a terrific job breaking down a very complicated situation for a non-expert reader. I'll begin the checklist at some point today or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
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. | Impressively clear for the complexity of the subject. Ten spot checks of sources show no evidence of close paraphrasing or other copyright issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | Images are properly tagged with copyright status, and the non-free image in the infobox was previously approved for use in the article. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Excellent work. |
Why the Jaguars lost are not in the losses table. Same for Zaire Mirage 5 â Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.165.242.55 ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ChadianâLibyan conflict. 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:
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not want an edit war to happen so I will address the results of the battle here. The Chadian-Libyan war encompasses many battles like the Battle of Fada, Battle of Aouzou, Second Battle of NâDjamena and many others. Within the territorial results it just seems to include the same as the Toyota War, however considering this is a long conflict we should acknowledge the other parts. We must acknowledge that it is true that Libya had occupied all of Chad and had occupied the Aouzou Strip. If we analyse the battle we can also see that originally the Libyan leader simply wanted the government to be toppled which did happened in the 1990 Chadian Coup. TheHistorian100 ( talk) 19:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely there should be some mention of Libya's claim over what it called the Borderlands region? This included the Aouzou Strip and much of northern Chad. For sources go to LibyaâChad Territorial Dispute case. ThatRandomGuy1 ( talk) 22:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)