Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been worked on extensively and there is, as far as I am now aware, very little in the way of new information to be added. I am now looking to get the article to FAC standard and would appreciate any pointers and help in doing so.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• While it is OK to have refs in the lead, in theory they are only needed for direct quotes or perhaps extraordinary claims (since the material and refs should be in the body of the article itself).
  • The refs were placed there after the lead got a bunch of fact tags slapped all over it - i could remove them; as you have said everything in the lead is covered by the main text of the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I would hope that everyone would know this, would it help to mention German in Operation Sonnenblume reinforced the Italians with the [German?] Afrika Korps, commanded by General Erwin Rommel, and comprising the 5th Light and 15th Panzer divisions.
• Refs should be in numnerical order, so change and without risking the force committed to the operation.[8][4] as one example. I would be consistent on where notes appear - some are at the end of numerical notes, some before.
  • sorted--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The scale on the map in Image:Operation Brevity.jpg does not have units on it - since you made the map, could this be added (miles?)?
  • Nope because i have no idea the exact positions of any of the German or Allied forces. I will make the change soon regarding the scale.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a Scale at the top of the map (labeled Scale) with "0 1 2 3 4" beneath. It seems to refer to distance on the map. If the distance is not known, then remove the scale. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I misinterepted what you meant, yes i can add the unit in and will do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok i have just uploaded a new version of the map with the issue sorted--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems a bit awkward The squadron lost five tanks when it was engaged by 20–30 German tanks supported by anti-tank guns, concealed in hull down positions behind a ridge, but pressed on and forced the Germans to withdraw.
  • I have rewrote this portion, hopefully reads better now--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear what destination is meant here - orginal or subsequent? The regiment arrived at its destination, where it had set out two days previously, at around 0230 hours on 17 May.[9][47]?
  • I have replaced destination with the name of the town.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent on spaces after footnotes and before the ref - some have a space, some do not.
  • Could you point an example out please, i have looked through the article and cannot spot any although am sure they are since you have highlighted this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    • These are all in the Footnotes section: for example there is no space after the period and before (Jentz, p. 101) in ^ a b Only ten British tanks were lost due to enemy action; the remaining losses were caused by breakdowns and lack of fuel.(Jentz, p. 101) but in Footnote three there is. I think it reads better with a space. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see now, i have sorted this out.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps.

Thanks allot!: )--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]