Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/North Yemen Civil War

North Yemen Civil War edit

I have expanded this article, including references and pictures. Since this is my first serious article, I would like some feedback on how I can improve it. Please keep in mind that this conflict is not exactly World War II - sources are relatively rare and hard to come by. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cam edit

Excellent and well-covered article. Just a few suggestions.

In the infobox, the casualties for the royalists side are listed as "100,000 dead". For the republicans, it's listed as "26,000 killed". I'd stick to one or the other.

Good point. The 26,000 figure refers only to the Egyptian army. I'll clarify that.

There's a lot of jargon and weasel-words throughout the article. I'd recommend a good prose copyedit. If you wish, you could put in a request at the logistics department.

Sure, why not.

It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick checkover of the footnotes & refs. As an example, refs 7 & 12 should be combined, the Schmidt book (which sounds like a good read, I'll try to get my hands on that one) needs an ISBN #, Time Magazine's publisher needs to be listed in the footnotes as well, etc.

Schmidt's book does not have an ISBN#, probably because it's old. It does have an ASIN#, but I'm not sure what that is.[1] What do you mean by "Time Magazine's publisher?

Would it be possible to expand upon the long-term political ramifications of the conflict (did it affect Arab League dealings in the future? did it affect the policies of the world superpowers towards those states? what was the response of the western world? How did the rest of the world respond (condemnation/support)?)

That would be nice, but I don't know if and where I can get sources for that.

Excellent work developing a well-covered article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies edit

An extraordinarily good and comprehensive read, for which kudos! A few general things:

Section headings do not usually take an article (ie The royalist offensive > Royalist offensive)
- Done
The citations have linked dates, these should be de-linked for consistency.
- Question: How do I do that? Consistency with what? Also, the citations were auto-generated using Zotero.

Consistency with the rest of the article which uses US format dates, unlinked.

To de-link citation dates, you replace the parameter |accessdate = 2008-08-28 with:

either | accessmonthday = August 28 | accessyear = 2008 for month/day/year
or | accessdaymonth = 28 August | accessyear = 2008 for day/month/year. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Consider capitalizing "ulema"
- I did, but most textbooks don't.

Again it's for consistency within the article. The President, the Colonel, the Ulema etc.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Bulleted list: start all entries with a capital letter?
- Done
All quotes need a source immediately following them.
- Done
I too think a copy-edit would be a good idea.
- I agree. Since English is not my native language, I could use some help with that. Following Climie's advice, I've listed it in the logistics department. No results so far.

Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next stop, A-Class? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for an article to be nominated for A-Class without passing GA first?

Anyway, thanks again for the positive review. Cheers -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure though many editors go to GA because it gives them another layer of review and counts towards a Triple Crown barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll nominate it for GA. If that goes well, I'll move this peer review to A-Class review. -- Nudve (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]