Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Netherlands/archive2

Battle of the Netherlands

Sandertje 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC) We've made a number of little changes and feel that the article is 'perfect' now.(or at least as close as possible)Sandertje 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Previous Peer review request available at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Netherlands/archive1 and the failed FAC attempt at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Netherlands. --Allen3 ^talk 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article is in desperate need of references, and until they are provided this article does not even qualify as a good article. The information contained in the article had to come from somewhere, please cite the sources you used to compile the article. If you have no such sources, then a trip to your local library to check out a couple history books dealing with World War II should help. --Allen3 ^talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just a cursory look at the article shows that there are a lot of dead links...Masterdebater 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "dead links"? I see no external links that go to error messages. Redlinks that indicate we don't have an article on a topic yet are generally acceptable in quality articles, or at least I thought they were. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sandertje, this looks very comprehensive and it's well illustrated. I think with some further refinements in language and the addition of inline sources and references (see Saffron for an excellent example of a sourced article), this extensive, informative and well-written article could definitely be featured. However, I think there are some spots where a more "encyclopedic" and/or neutral tone is warranted. jengod 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For example, in the prelude section, "The governments just didn't see it as 'such a big deal'." is a fairly vague statement, unless of course, someone stood on a podium and used those words.
  • Also, "But they hoped the restrained policy of the Entente and Central Powers during World War I might be repeated and tried to keep a low profile and to stay out of a war at all cost. A point of view that, with the figure of human life lost during the earlier conflict, may well be understood." It's not necessary for Wikipedia to rationalize or defend the choices of the govt., although it would be reasonable to point out that the government had humanitarian intentions.
  • In the "the Dutch forces" section the article states "one could say that it was David and Goliath." This should point removed in an effort to minimize editorializing or rephrased as an adjectival point of fact "However, these had not been exploited: while the German army at the time still had many shortcomings in equipment and training, the Dutch army still faced a David and Goliath situation." The remainder of the section then goes on quite strongly, dealing with specific facts and scenarios; it's in the broad generalizations that the article falls down. They may well be true, but they should be backed up with primary and secondary sources that make the same assertion and explain why with supporting evidence.
  • Also, it can be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the topic if you explain uncommon terms, for example "Fall Gelb " is introduced without a definition. From context it seems like it means "the plan for the german invasion of holland" or "the plan for what to do with the low countries while we work on taking over the world for a thousand-year reich" ;) but I'm not sure.
  • Another broad unsourced statement is "The German population generally disliked the idea of attacking their Dutch neighbours." Again, it's probably true, but it needs to be credited to a reputable historian or proven by reference to primary sources.
  • If possible, please wikilink dates. "On May the 14th the Dutch" would become "On May 14, the Dutch" and so on...
  • The article ends with "The Dutch occupation officially began on May the 17th 1940. It would take five years in which over 250,000 Dutchmen died, before the Dutch got their freedom back." The last sentence sort rings of "the beginning of the end" and leaves me curious to know how the 250,000 Dutchmen died and how the Dutch finally rid themselves of their German occupiers." Are there other articles on wikipedia that "continue the story"? If so, a link to them, perhaps in the form of a series box, would be excellent.