Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Belgium

Battle of Belgium

I've listed this article for peer review because me and User:Dapi89 promoted it to GA status a while ago and I feel that this is very well written and is also totaly cited. We made sure that almost every sentence has a citation (Call it citation overload). IMHO, this aritcle meets the criteria for an FA and I would like the opinon of you all (the reviewers) before we nominte it.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Quite a good article in my opinion. Good work so far. I have a few nitpicky points, which I'd probably bring up at ACR, but may as well bring up here as you are looking to take to FAC:

• according to the WP:Featured article tools there are 3 disambig links that need fixing (BEF, Divisions, Sedan);
• the images require Alt text per WP:ALT;
• the See also section is quite large, with terms that have already been linked in the prose. Generally I think if the terms have already been linked in prose, then there is no need to include them in a See also section;
• Note # 1 begins with a lower case letter, for consistency it should probably be capitalised;
• Can publisher information be added to the web sources that have been cited?
• in the lead the date format is incorrect (e.g. 10th and 12th of May), per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers)#Dates;
• in the lead, the clause "in the world" (pertaining to tank battles) seems redundant, as one would assume that tank battles have only occured on this world (yes, I am assuming we are alone). Perhaps a better term would be "largest tank battle in history up to that point", or a variation thereof;
• I'm not sure about capitalisation of "Allied Armies". This would imply that it is a proper noun, when I'm not sure that it actually is. I've not heard of a formation officially called the Allied Army;
• in the Belgium's strained alliances section, Maginot line, I think should be "Maginot Line" not "Maginot line" as it is a proper noun with "Line" being part of its official name;
• there is some implied inconsistency in terms, in the lead you use World War II, but in the Belgium's strained alliances subsection you use First World War. I'd say for consistency if the second one is World War II, the first one should be World War I (or if you want to call it Second World War, then consistency would probably require use of First World War);
• not all values have converts, for example in the 22-28 May section, (one mile penetration along a 13-front), another in the Belgian surrender section (total remaining area covered just 1,700 km), another in the German operational plans section ("300 metres alone"); can converts be added here perhaps?
• in the Casualties section (Belgian casualties subsection), "Wounded in action: 15,850 WIA", the "WIA" in this case is not needed as you already have "Wounded in action";
• some of the date ranges in the titles of works cited in the Bibliography don't have endashes, while others do;
• Please check capitalisation of terms such as "Panzer Division" and "Motorised infantry" (e.g. in German operational plans section), also "Brigade" (as in "one Brigade of Cyclist Frontier Guards) and "Corps" ("two Corps of two divisions") in the Belgian and Allied forces section. I believe that these should possibly be lower case as they are improper nouns in this case;
• Watch out for overlinking terms. British Expeditionary Force is one example of a term that is linked a couple of times;
• Check the format used for time in the article. In the 10-11 May subsection you have "00:10" then "01:30 am". All times should either have the "am/pm" designator or should be put into 24 hour format. Either is okay under the MOS, but consistency is the key.

Anyway, that is it. Good luck with taking the article further. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth

Agree with above. Quite a good article, actually an exceptionally good article considering the subject matter. I read it more from the perspective of context than of the specific details of military actions. From that perspective, especially in the beginning, you have some problems to overcome. First, there is (and this is probably a source problem) the tendency for bias. Forexample, you refer to German aggression. Second, there is the problem of the pre-war and its importance in the conduct of the war as a whole. You've made a good start at that, but I suspect it would make some sense to invest space in summarizing the situation for the Belgians in the interwar period. For example, they had invested time and energy in the reconstruction of their country after massive damages in WWI. They had difficult political and economic alliances that were complicated by a number of problems: their dependence on France (unreliable and aggressive), geographic location (hilly to the south, location on the Maginot line, to the north, the Netherlands, which are flat and relatively no more than a speed bump). They have internal political issues to deal with, also. Paying for and fielding an army, developing an army that can actually defend the country, and so on.

I've reviewed several FAnoms at this point, and I suspect this article isn't quite ready. This is not to say you haven't done a good job, but you'll need to ratchet the prose up quite a bit before it will pass FA. There is also the completeness of content, and the clarity of the explanations. The content is all there, or mostly there, but its presentation and clarity is not where it needs to be. An expert audience would automatically fill in any gaps (although the expert might be annoyed that something is unclear or misleading), but you're not writing for the expert audience. I'd recommend working out some of the glitches Rupert and I have brought up, and then consider submitting it for A class review in the Project before you take it further. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thank you. I'll try to address the mistakes that you all have stated and then I'll go for an A-class review and then FA later on. I'll have to ask Dapi about the Bias as he is the largest contribuor to it. I am a semi=expert at the subject and I have a few sources but I mostly leave that to Dapi89. Anyway, thnaks for all of the feedback guys.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)