Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive1

World War II

I request for the article World War II to be reviewed by peers. The last peer review occurred over half a year ago, and it was astonishly meager (only 3 entries and no suggestions).

A lot of changes has been made to the article since then, and most of the issues posted on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II have been addressed:

The article has overall been heavily reorganized
Sections have been rewritten
Sections have been added
More media - every section has at least one picture
The extensive "See also"-section has been more comprehensively organized
Furthermore, the so called rewrite seems to have been scrapped (World_War_II/temp)

What I would like to know is what more needs to be done to make this article a "Featured Article". Please post your opinions here: (Wikipedia:Peer_review#World_War_II)

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis 23:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly has had a massive amount of effort put into it, and is very good, but there are still several issues:

I've been working on the Marshall Plan recently and the "Europe in ruins" section definitely needs a rewrite. For instance saying that "George Marshall" created the Marshall Plan isn't really true. It also ignores that the USSR did demand, and received WWI style reparations. Also where is the "Asia in ruins section?"
As a very long article the page also needs to make better use of Summary style. Every section should begin with a summary explaining the section title. Most sections, such as Genocide, Casualties, United Nations, The Cold War begins, do this already but the chronology sections generally fail in this regard. For instance, "The war becomes global" begins with a discussion of Yugoslavia and takes some time before it gets to how the war expanded in this period.
The bottom of the article is a bit of a mess. There are too many external links and lists. The category system already provides access to a huge number of sub articles, and there is no reason to include the long list of somewhat randomly selected articles that this article ends with. The references section also needs work. It should be the last one, after see also and external links. The references also need more diversity. Why is pretty much every author listed British? - SimonP 03:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of fairly crucial points overlooked or not alluded to that would benifit the article. They include:

1 -Kokoda Track Campaign. It is listed, but the importance of the Australian victory for the allied effort in the Pacific is not made clear. It needs an analysis within the Kokoda article itself to make these points clear.
2 - Resistance during World War II desperatly needs to be beefed up. Two short paragraphs are not enough to outline the efforts people in all occupied territorys went to in order to resist, especially in France, Belgium, Denmark and Poland.
3 - Ditto for Causes, Atrocities, Genocide, Concentration and labor camps. I am not asking for larger articles on these subjects, just slightly more detailed paragraphs that add more depth to what is already present. Cheers! Fergananim 17:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unfair to try and use World War II's subarticles as a reason to keep it from becoming a featured article. This hasn't ever been used before. And frankly Australia's contribution, while it should be noted, really amounts to little in the overall scheme of things. The allied war was fought by Britain, the U.S., and the Soviet Union. All other participants were relatively minor. Together they played an important role, but individually they were "expendable". Anyway, the article is good, but the title pic is kind of odd, a better one needs to be created. Here's a little list:

I'm not crazy about the bold theater sorting scheme within sections, it seems kind of amateurish.
The section titles are a little sensationalist, but not really POV
References definitely should be at the bottom, and without many more, its not going to make it to featured article status. It needs inline citations and perspectives from a variety of authors, not just British.
The article mentions Soviet war reparations now. However, it seems to me Germany must have paid them to, if so, how much, and if not, why and make sure and point that out
Hitler is referred to as the "Fuhrer" a few times. First of all, it's "Führer" and call him Hitler, its just bookish to call him Führer and POV.
The article has a fair amount of POV about Generals' actions, calling them "brilliant" or "poor". You can explain why the plans failed or why they were successful, but you can't call it good or bad.
The biggest problem: it's written too much like an introduction to a book analyzing the war and less like an encyclopedia or textbook on the subject. It's not terrible, but its definitely not "brilliant prose" either.

The article is good, but could use with some aesthetic cleanup. It will honestly take a lot of work to ready this for FA status. It will simply have to be perfect beyond the point of reason to make it; it's simply that controversial. Until then, good luck!--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It pains me to hear the rest of us cited as expendable, especially when the boys of the Kokoda Trail - to cite just one example - played a more important role in saving the Pacific from Japanese domination than any other single battle at that point in the war, up to and including Midway. I'm not an Australian, but your comment is appalling and demonstrates a terribly ignorant view of the war and the role played by lesser, more expendable nations. Would the Battle of Britain have being won without No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron? Would the battle of Monte Cassino have succeded without the Free French, Poles and Indians? And what if neutral Ireland had not sent its crucial weather report for the 5th June 1944 (D-Day)? I can sum it all up in one phrase: we saved YOUR ass in World War Two. Fergananim 17:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, way to forget Poland. NatusRoma 18:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This article is very comprehensive, and is certainly on its way to FA status. I have a few criticisms:

The "Causes" section could stand to be more detailed. Regardless of the amount of information present in the subarticle, more depth is needed in the main article.
There should be more discussion of the atomic bombings of Japan and their significance.
The {{World War II}} box is not pretty. There is way too much empty space, and the links to other wikis look out of place inside the box.
I agree that splitting each year into various theaters is not the best way to arrange the content, in part due to the fact that it inaccurately constrains and divides discussion of some campaigns. It might be better to discuss the various campaigns in roughly chronological order, moving about the world as you go. This would avoid the current appellation of a thematic description to each year, which forces a messy narrative on top of the events. I'd say that the war can tell its own story. Moreover, dividing the description of the war by campaign makes it possible to use mainarticle templates more clearly.
Inline citations or more thorough references of some sort are necessary. I, an educated American male, am already familiar with a good deal of the article's content, and I think that many English Wikipedia users tend to know a good deal about World War II, but this topic is too broad and, in some respects, too controversial too get away without more thorough citation.

I'll be watching for a reply, and I'll be happy to specify my concerns or to help rectify them as best as I can. NatusRoma 18:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for quality feedback. I definitely agree on the part about missing references. We throw around many numbers and state many facts, but hardly any of them are backed up by citing authorative references. This is the biggest problem, IMO.

I actually quite like the {{World War II}} box. Maybe it's because what we had before (a long, long, long list) was so ugly in comparison. But you may have a point on it having too much space. It could probably be made more compact by moving some of the sections in it around.

About how to section the cronology. Yes, I think describing the whole war within one 1939-45 section and jumping back and forth around the world within each year is maybe not the best way to go about it. We should instead have a pacific section, with the cronology there inside it, and maybe two or three seperate sections on the war in Europe (Eastern front, Western front and the Mediterranean theatre) telling the story from beginning to the end in each one of those. This is more like the no longer maintained rewrite structured it. It just needs someone bold and good enough to start restructuring it, while not spending too much time leaving the article in a mess. It's a frequently edited article, and I bet it's one of the most linked to from other articles in the whole wikipedia, so we can't go completely nuts. At least not without finishing the restructuring in a relative short time. And that means making substansible edits without listening to feedback and complaints as you go along, which is normally frowned upon. But it probably has to be done.

About expending various sections: The article is already 72k's + many templates. If we put in more stuff, we need to remove something else. And what sections, batles and stories to spend how many bytes on is not easy to agree on. As you say, many wikipedia users know alot about the war. And usually they know an extra lot about some specific part of the war. Usually on a part that played a big role in their own contry's history and is very famous there. And then they tend to feel that the article is too short on that topic and is lacking important info. And they may be right. But we have to keep the article to a reasonable size. And it's hard. Shanes 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the focus is slanted a bit too much towards theaters were the western allies participated & the Eastern front get little coverage compared to the immense resources involved

1941: The Battle of Crete get about the same space as Oprations Barbarossa & Typhoon and the Soviet counterattack
1942: The German spring offensive & the Battle of Stalingrad get one paragraph while the Mediterranean (essentialy a side show) get two long ones.
1944: No mention of the capture of Rome (first Axis capital to fall) or Balkan. Coverage the eastern front is drowned in details about the western.

I'd say the sections are about the right side, but you should reconsider what to include & leave out. Fornadan (t) 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cut "United States industrial capacity" section. I am living in the Arsenal of Democracy but this is out of place here. Rmhermen 04:10, April 13, 2006 (UTC)

I just fixed up this article, shortened some sub-sections, enhanced others, added pictures, etc. Let me know what you guys think. Is this good enough that it can become a featured article, if not, what should I change to improve it. Mercenary2k 12:16, April 13, 2006 (UTC)