Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Le Paradis massacre

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Le Paradis massacre edit

I think this is as much as I can do. It's well-cited with numerous published books, complimented by web references, and is a GA and has had two peer-reviews and other editors going through it. Regards, Mattyness (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

My article is under A class review at the moment so I should not say too much, but it looks good overall. One thing you might consider is amalgamating the references - when you've got [21] [22] [23] next to each other it looks untidy. You could put them all into the same ref /ref box just with a linking 'and' inside the ref. One other thing - you could clarify whether dum dum bullets were routinely issued to the British Expeditionary Force, or whether it was easy to convert 'ordinary' British bullets to dum-dum configuration. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Appears to cover the subject well and meets the MOS criteria. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

This article has come a very long way indeed since its PR and those working on it should feel justifiably proud of themselves. For FAC, these need addressing:

hyphens in numeric ranges – page numbers (eg pp 6-7), year ranges (eg 1933-1945) – need replacing with endashes (ALT+0150);

use pp. instead of p. where multiple pages are cited (ie pp. 6–7 instead of p. 6–7)

for tidiness, as you have so many cites in some places, consider using short form for cites (see Hamlet) and, as Buckshot06 suggests above, joining multiple cites together, example "Jackson, pp 288–289; Schweisfurth; & Wilson, pp 8—9" instead of ^[2][4][16].

Well done! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; seems comprehensive. I agree wholeheartedly with Roger's comments regarding pre-FAC edits. Woody (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.