Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/5th Red Banner Army
- 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.
This article was not promoted. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following a peer review (thanks, user:Carom) I think this article is ready for A-class consideration. Please tell me whether it's ready for A-class status, and if not, what I need to do to fix it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (changed from support). The references need to be formatted correctly. Not a requirement for A class from me: I would suggest that if available the total number of troops in the army when it was formed and subsequent iterations be detailed and the approximate enlisted to officer ratio. Also, you might should peruse through, although you've probably done this already, images in the Commons and elsewhere to see if you can find some pictures of 5th Army troops in action. If not, you might include some maps from the battles the 5th Army participated in so that the article will have more illustrations. All, in all, good work. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I gave it a fairly thorough copyedit and added a fair amount of interwiki links. Some remaining issues:
- In the infobox, is it standard to use commas between the engagements? It seems unnecessary since there are line breaks anyway.
- For 'Size' in the infobox, can you come up with some sort of summary? I understand it was variable over time, but there are at least two dates in the article where explicit composition is listed.
- I don't think Lelyushenko and Govarov should be mentioned in the lead, but if they are, use their full names and link them, please.
- "the Operation of Rzhev-Vyazma" should not be capitalized unless it's a named operation.
- The inline external link for Klin-Solnechogorsk offensive operation could use improvement. Surely a stub could be made?
- Section headers should be in sentence case - I don't think 'Battle of the Frontiers' and 'On the Offensive' qualify for caps.
- The long parenthetical lists of rifle divisions should be standardized in format; perhaps introduce RD as an abbreviation and stick with it throughout.
- Footnote formatting needs some work - they seem to indiscriminately switch from short format to long format. Either should be fine since the references are listed separately; just be consistent.
- They're all written out in full at first reference, then switch to short form. I should have fixed the exceptions now.
- The References section needs work too: book names need italics; ISBNs would be helpful; and the 'further reading' link belongs in an External links section.
- Be careful when using 'however'. It's one of those stylistic habits that people fall into, but it often doesn't really add to the prose, and sometimes the word leans a sentence toward presenting a POV.
- Thanks for an interesting read! I think it's ready for A once the style issues are addressed. Maralia (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Nominator's Note: Please can this be withdrawn from consideration for A-class; the issues raised will take a fair amount of time to work through. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 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.