This article is a former collaboration of the week and has been improved tremendously from its original state. My fellow contributors and I would like suggestions on any further work needed before nominating it to become a featured article. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Kafziel 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- The lead needs to be increased in size. References and further reading need to be split, and inline citations need to be provided, generally in the form of Wikipedia:Footnotes. I would also suggest changing some of the lists to prose, since it is a heavy argument that appears very commonly on WP:FAC. AndyZ 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a little bit to the intro, changed the title of the references section to remove "and further reading", and changed the format of the "outcomes of invasion" section from list to prose, to match the other related sections. I've never used footnotes on Wikipedia before so I'm not sure yet how to do that, but I will look into it and fix that as soon as possible. Thanks for your input! Kafziel 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources, there seems to be some controversy over the use of footnotes. For the most part, it seems that the only acceptable use is if the footnote leads to further text; since these references are Harvard style, with no text except the basic source information, it seems that footnotes are not desirable. I could be misreading the policy, though. If anyone can clarify this, please feel free to jump in. Thanks! Kafziel 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since the introduction asserts that "Invasions are usually associated with a major armed struggle or war", the text should give a couple of examples where that is not the case. Would this, for example, mean an incident such as the 1956 Hungarian Revolt? The "Major historical invasions" section could be converted into a table. For example:
Date Invasion 722 BCE Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Israel Hammurabi, during the course of conquering much of what is now known as the Middle East, defeated the Kingdom of Israel and sent its inhabitants into exile. (Van De Mieroop, 2005) This presaged future Greek and Roman conquest and, later, the Crusades. To this day, the region remains contested.
- Otherwise, apart from the lack of inline citations, it should look pretty good. Thanks. — 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- That table looks good. I just tried to get the whole section formatted that way, but I don't really know HTML and I couldn't get it to work nicely. Hopefully someone else can do that. Looks much better than bullet points. I'm going to keep playing with it to see if I can figure out what you did there.
- As for the examples of non-war invasions... well, I can't think of any. I'm going to wait a while to see if the editor who used that verbiage wants to clarify it before I remove it altogether.
- Thanks for your suggestions. Kafziel 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I took that as an ascent and went ahead with a reformat into a table form. You can always revert if that is unacceptible. :) — RJH 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That looks great! Thanks for the help! It would have taken me at least a day or two to figure out how to format that properly. No word yet about the "non-war-related" invasions, so I'm going to go ahead and take that out for now, too. Thanks again! Kafziel 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I took that as an ascent and went ahead with a reformat into a table form. You can always revert if that is unacceptible. :) — RJH 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just want to let everyone that I put notes into the page. I tried to follow the same way they were done on WW2 but if you know that it's wrong be bold and fix it for me. Oh and if it is wrong let me know on my talk so I can do it right next time. I'm also going to put this on the invasion talk page.RENTA
FOR LET? 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
