 | Battle of Sacile was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Austrian Cavalry
edit" Though the two sides were equal in numbers of foot soldiers, the Austrians possessed a two-to-one advantage in cavalry, and this turned out to be a key factor in their victory.
- and yet the article doesn't say what the Austrian cavalry DID, instead giving the impression that they were barely committed.
Major General
editHello, congratulations for expanding this article, it is excellent work. A little detail: the ranks such as Major General did not exist in the French army and need to be replaced with the proper one: Général de Division. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Sacile/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: As it stands, the article would not pass a GA review. For the most part, the problem lies in the way that the orders of battle are presented. It is disorganized and not very aesthetic. Lists should be reserved for lists; if it's an article, the order of battle should be described through prose. For examples of how this is done, see the method I employ, as exemplified by the following articles: Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive, Operation Uranus, Third Battle of Kharkov, and Battle of Khafji. As it stands, I don't feel as if the article meets criteria 1a and 1b.
I generally keep reviews open for three days. This one will remain open until 7 October, 4:15PM (GMT-8). I feel as if this may take a little bit more time, though. I will keep it open, but if I close it at that time by failing it please don't feel disheartened. If the order of battle section and the other lists that come before it (which are smaller orders of battle) are improved by 7 October, I will continue with the review (including a copyedit by my part). Otherwise, take your time and if it's failed then just re-nominate it for GA when you're done.
Best of luck. JonCatalán(Talk) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and close the review now. Please, convert the lists into prose and renominate the article for GA class when you think it's ready! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)