Have an idea for the next editorial? We welcome all submissions—for more details, please visit the
newsroom
!
Let's face it: military history is as much a science as an art (especially articles about
Acronyms and initialisms
, especially when political sensibilities are involved, which can make comprehension difficult even for the well-informed. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to translate collective knowledge and references into a format that is accessible by the average reader, and this can be a tricky thing for a writer to do.
If you've ever taken an article through the grinder at MILHIST's
(though those are important), but into the very prose itself. Don't confuse this with mere grammatical checks; it involves the necessity for strong writing quality. You have to be able to take the raw information from the references and present it in a clear logical manner.
Making your article readable isn't necessarily synonymous with
explaining a tangential topic
.
In respect of the policies of
counter-insurgency" related; while the term "special" is in vogue with many Asian militaries which religiously label equipment with the
"type" designation. Of course, one can't really help the words used in proper names, but one needn't abuse them because they sounded sexy to the generals who coined them. The names of weapon development programs are usually contrived with buzzwords to make them more appealing to the officials who authorize funds, but a Wikipedian can simply use the term "project" to refer to it after the introduction. Equipment that has an alphanumeric designation and a name can be easily referred to by one or the other (instead of both), as long as it is done consistently, such as
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet being called the "F/A-18" or "Hornet".
I must make a special mention of acronyms. Personally, it's a major pet peeve of mine that militaries love to use acronyms for just about anything, technical or not, mundane or high-profile. It makes sense when it is a
Marine Air-Ground Task Force
, but never use the acronym "MAGTF" again, the acronym is unnecessary and can be removed. Also irritating to me, but unavoidable, are terms that seem to be an acronym, but are in fact the actual name.
Always try to look at your writing as if you were a reader that isn't particularly familiar with the topic. Sometimes, if an article's subject is so narrowly technical that it becomes unreasonable to write for a layman, qualify this with some kind note in the lead section, and offer some wikilinks so that the reader might be able to learn what is required. However, this should be the exception to the rule, and all articles should aim to be comprehensible by the majority of the English-speaking world. It always helps to get a set of fresh eyes. Happy editing!
