Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Chemical weapons in the Rif War

I believe that this article still needs to be expanded but i wanted to get some comments and opinions about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, some expansion would be helpful. Aside from that:

In most cases, there's no need to have multiple footnotes in a single sentence; you can just combine them all into a single note at the end to reduce the clutter.
The "See also" section should be eliminated.
I'd suggest combining "Alleged toxic effects" and "Alleged toxic effects" into a single "Legacy" section.
If the works in "Bibliography" were actually used in preparing the article, the section should be labeled "References" (but, as you're providing full bibliographic information with each footnote, you could probably eliminate that section entirely); if not, it should be "Further reading".

Thanks Kirill. Do you mean "Alleged toxic effects" and "Bill of aknowledgment"? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I do; that'll teach me to copy-and-paste! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehe. I'll deal w/ the footnotes. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]