| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed B-Class review in MilHist on the grounds of poor referencing. I'm looking for feedback concerning ways to improve existing references—quality, quantity and formatting. Additionally, if there are any other criticisms to be made I'd love to hear other ways I can further improve this article outside the realm of references/citations.
Best Regards, Finktron (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment A good general rule with reference formatting is you want the article to be internally consistent - in other words, similar refs should look similar. You've currently got a mix of templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc) and hand-written citations, which makes consistency difficult. I'd suggest normalizing to one or the other (keeping WP:CITEVAR in mind). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment: G'day, thank you for your efforts with this article. Overall, I think it is quite well done, but I think for higher levels of assessment you will face some concerns about how detailed it is. Also, some of the language is probably a bit florid for an encyclopedia article. I made a couple of changes to try to demonstrate some of the issues, but I don't want to change the article too much as it will potentially cause some angst. As such, I leave it for you to consider the best way forward. These are my changes, anyway: [1] If you wish to take it towards GA or beyond, I think requesting someone from WP:GOCE to take a look, might be the way forward, Anyway, best of luck, whatever you decide. Sorry if this sounds disparaging, I don't mean it to be. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Finktron: per the peer review instructions here, PRs should be closed when an article is nominated for GA. As this article is currently a GA nominee, do you wish for me to proceed with closing this review, so it can be archived? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert: Yes, please close the peer review for archive. Thanks for your assistance and guidance up to this point. Best, Finktron (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)