Talk:World War II/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks-- Coldplay   Expert  21:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm placing the nomination on hold to allow contributors time to address the below concerns. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page should you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerns that I feel have been adequately addressed have been struck. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost there, just a few more fixed (grammar and duplicate ref and I think that Everything will have been fixed.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

 * Some of the section headings are problematic. Headings shouldn't start with "The" and should avoid repeating "war" so many times (although appropriate in some places, "Impact of the war", for instance, could be "Impact"). Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided
 * Still some issues with "The", and some of the section titles are still rather cliched
 * Feel free to fix any other cliches that you see
 * I would suggest changing the header "The tide turns" to something like what Coldplay Expert did here, or at least something along those lines. Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  13:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Spelling should be consistently either British or American
 * I cant really do this with any degree of success as I only know American English if anyone else can help with its problem please do.
 * What's the consensus on this? Is consensus to change the British English to American or to change the American English to British? Let me know and I will gladly change it for you. @Kate   (talk)  01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * omg well thank you on your willingness to do this..I would say British English as the war starts LONG before the Americans official entry the conflict. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion as well. If no one objects by Monday, I'll make the appropriate changes. @Kate   (talk)  02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support the change to British English, even though im american this article should be british per the reaons stated above.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the appropriate spelling changes are ✅, though I would appreciate it being looked over once again as it has been quite some time since I've used exclusively British spelling and it is possible that I may have missed one or two. Let me know.:) Gwen Novak  talk to my master 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've more or less finished it (see article history), though there may be one or two Americanisms I've missed, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For those that don't know, the accepted way of deciding the variety of English that should be used (in an article that does not have a clear national association) is to follow the choice of the first major editor - see WP:RETAIN. In this case though, the oldest edit has both "criticised" and "harbor" in it so it is unclear.  Anyway, I guess it's ok if consensus has been reached on this page with no objections.  Also, I am fairly sure that perimetre is not a correct spelling in any variety of English.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅...looks good to me ...lets let the reviewer add the When she is happy with it all Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost perfect, but could someone quickly change "counterattack"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed one instance of "counterattack" and one instance of "counteroffensive" to "counter-attack" and "counter-offensive" for the sake of consistent BE spellings. @Kate   (talk)  03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

✅
 * Per this tool, there are 4 dab links to be fixed
 * I fixed a couple a while ago, and someone else's fixed the third since then, but I'm not sure where Japanese Occupation should go, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I solved the problem by unlinking it, although arguably it could be a reasonable exception to the "links to dab pages are bad" rule as most of the entries there comprise the set of Japanese occupied countries.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO I think that 3 is enough. I will hoever see what I can do but right now it is at the bottom of my priority list.
 * I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text
 * Article linked in the text or as "main articles" for certain sections should not also be linked in See also
 * ✅ removed all 8-9 extra links in the see also section


 * "they did not become a World War until they merged in 1941; at which point the war continued until 1945" - punctuation is incorrect as written
 * Semi-colon should be a comma, still a bit awkwardly worded
 * ✅ I changed this a while ago to say "Neither war became a global conflict until they merged in 1941, at which point the war continued until 1945." Is that okay?
 * Better, but still not great...what if you took out the negative? Something along the lines of "The two became a global conflict when they merged..."
 * I've re-changed it to say "The two wars merged in 1941, becoming a single global conflict, at which point the war continued until 1945." How about that? Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  13:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "on October 1935" -> "in October 1935"


 * "The end of the War also has several dates" - grammar and clarity issues Dont know where it is. Will fix once I find it.
 * Start of second paragraph under Chronology
 * ✅ Possibly done. I changed it to say "The exact date of the War's end is not universally agreed upon.", but I don't know whether this will be satisfactory or not, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ Yep there are no dup links anymore expept in pictures and other places that they are required
 * Avoid wikilinking the same term more than twice in the article text (no more than once in the main text, i.e. excluding the lead and infobox)
 * ✅: Got rid of all the duplicate links.-- Twilight  Helryx  02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest putting "Chronology" before "Background"
 * ✅ switched places


 * Mukden Incident is first mentioned in Background, and thus the parenthetical explanation should appear there
 * In Background, Japan "used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria"; in Invasion of Ethiopia, you mention "Mukden Incident in 1931 (the Japanese annexation of three Chinese provinces)". Since background comes first, the stuff in parantheses should appear there instead
 * ✅ Fixed wording.


 * Date formatting should be consistent - the standard seems to be Month Day, Year, so all dates should be formatted that way
 * There's one under Invasion of China
 * ✅ Fixed it.


 * Avoid one- to two-sentence short paragraphs
 * ✅: merged all such paragraphs with corresponding paragraphs.-- Twilight  Helryx  17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All measurements should have conversions (use the convert template)
 * Im not sure how to do this so if anyone else wishes to, go right ahead.
 * Check here for information on how to do this with the template

I don't see any measurements in the article; can someone point them out for me?-- Twilight  Helryx  03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a couple "kilometres" in "The war become global", and some currencies under "Impact"...might be more that I'm missing atm. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see them now. Getting to work on them. Thanks!-- Twilight  Helryx  14:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've converted all measurements for distance and barrels of oil. However, Reichmarks (under World War II still needs to be converted. Does anyone here know how to convert that to USD and/or £? -- Twilight  Helryx  21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

✅: I think I've gotten them all.-- Twilight  Helryx  21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC) ✅ maybe done Twilight fixed many of them.
 * Should be consistent in using either "percent" or "%" in article text
 * Check for proper use of commas and hyphens
 * Better, but could use another quick run-through


 * Commas should not be used between months and years, but only between days and years Another big task.
 * ✅ I went through every mention of a month (eg. January, February, etc.) in the article and fixed where appropriate (eg. "in June, 1944" was changed to "in June 1944"). I hope I did it right, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it properly called "the Holocaust" or "The Holocaust"? Should be consistent
 * ✅ Worded it to say "The Holocaust"

✅ What is wrong with thats sentence? I dont see any grammar problems. I may be wrong though...
 * "hosted by the University of North Texas Libraries'" - grammar
 * " Libraries' " - either you're missing a word or the apostrophe is misplaced
 * Deleted the whole link as it was dead. See below (ref's)


 * "during the 2nd world war" - capitalization I will have to find this sentence once I read the entire article. Where is it?
 * It's part of a description in External links
 * ✅. Changed it to say "during the Second World War", Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

✅possible done I dont see any issues but I may have overlooked them.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnotes should come immediately after punctuation, not before
 * Sorry to butt in, but could I suggest using AWB? If you set a regexp to find, etc. it should be pretty quick.  Let me know if you need help.  delldot   &nabla;.  23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, in the comming days Ill try to fix them.-- Coldplay   Expert  11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't/can't use AWB, even the Ctrl+F function would work probably work okay, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I looked pretty thoroughly, and I think I've fixed them all, Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

 * Might consider reformatting the notes section to have columns instead of the long list
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation needed tag should be addressed
 * Citations needed for:
 * making it the deadliest conflict in human history.
 * ✅... Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria
 * used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria

Please look could be Copyright violations
 * The text from that site is identical to a large portion of the text in this article. Therefore, either we copied them or they copied us. Since the copyright date on their site is after this article first appeared, I'm inclined to believe the latter, but you might want to ask someone over at WP:CP to take a look just to be sure.
 * ✅ replaced above reference Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the greatest source, but okay...Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I aggree it is a copy of a news article in German..i will look for a better one
 * Chinese volunteer forces continued the resistance
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up his rearmament program and introducing conscription
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethiopia never capitulated or surrendered
 * Statement removed What i have found is that the government fled and was replaced by a puppet government...so yes they never technically surrendered as they were not there to do so...but statement above implies the government fought on ..but it was independent tribes that resisted.... Buzzzsherman 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies, and made further advance into Crimea and industrially developed Eastern Ukraine (the First Battle of Kharkov) possible
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * triggered a successful coup d'état
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered specifically to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11.
 * ✅ + copy edit On the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered to the Soviets on May 8. A German Army Group resisted in Prague until May 11. the army did surrenderer to the  Soviets on May 8 {this is that the solderers on the Eastern Front actual physically  were handed over to the  Soviets} Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * adopted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, as a common standard of achievement for all member nations
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * divisions, usually for ethnic or religious reasons, occurred following European withdrawal
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Figures on the amount of total casualties vary to a wide extent because the majority of deaths were not documented.
 * ✅ Removed statement just does not fit in ...after you read all the numbers then we say PS there all wrong ...dont think so
 * Yes, but you might want to say something about why estimates vary so wildly
 * According to Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million died during the Sankō Sakusen implemented in Heipei and Shantung by General Yasuji Okamura
 * According to Mitsuyoshi Himeta, at least 2.7 million died during the Sankō Sakusen implemented in Heipei and Shantung by General Yasuji Okamura


 * This sentence is identical to the ref - possible copyvio. Also needs page number, and this isn't a book.
 * Copy edit and fix ref Mitsuyoshi Himeta reported 2.7 million casualties occurred  during the Sankō Sakusen. General Yasuji Okamura implemented the policy    in Heipei and Shantung. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The U.S. and Canadian governments interned 150,000 Japanese-Americans, as well as nearly 11,000 German and Italian residents of the U.S.
 * ✅ Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The assault rifle, a late war development which incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun, became the standard postwar infantry weapon for nearly all armed forces.


 * Also not a book, needs page number, the work is not called "Amnesty International". Also does not support "incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun".
 * fix ref to link to Amnesty International and second ref for first statement Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another important aspect of military intelligence was the use of deception operations, which the Allies successfully used on several occasions to great effect, such as operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard. which diverted German attention and forces away from the Allied invasions of Sicily and Normandy respectively
 * ✅ Copy edit removed text above in bold
 * notable examples being the British ULTRA and the Allied breaking of Japanese naval codes
 * Other important technological and engineering feats achieved during, or as a result of, the war include the worlds first programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC), guided missiles and modern rockets, the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons.
 * Other important technological and engineering feats achieved during, or as a result of, the war include the worlds first programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC), guided missiles and modern rockets, the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons.


 * Supports only programmable computers. Also. there should be an apostrophe in "worlds"
 * have used this ref for whole paragraph + typo fix done on above ref Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ fixed most ref's
 * Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE
 * There are still some inconsistencies in formatting


 * "Tucker's own view is that 191 is most convenient" - is that a typo?
 * ✅ Removed fake ref..was added almost a year ago...book is right but all like author and page etc,,is fake....Second ref still ther Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information

✅ Two separate pages in the book. No longer duplicated I belive. ✅ Note 257 is not faqs.org but a japanesse site.
 * At least one of your references (Hsiung) is duplicated in notes
 * What makes note 257 (faqs.org) a reliable source?
 * That's because you've added refs since this comment was made. The ref I'm referring to is now 259, but that might change again if you change the references
 * Lost it again
 * It's called "Deported Nationalities", and is currently 261
 * Well Im not going to remove the source but I do agree it is not the best source. Ill leave it for now as a secondary source (now I just need a primary source)

✅ Note 266 talks about the Eastern Front.
 * Note 266 leads to a site about a documentary on an IRA bombing
 * See above comment; the problematic ref is currently 268
 * Lost it again
 * It's called "The warlords: Joseph Stalin" and is currently 270
 *  Note: To find the ref # that is mentioned here ..I just look at a copy that was there before review that i know reviewer saw Revision as of 08:24, 5 November 2009 ,by Nikkimaria. Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed the citation but not is may need to have a "citation needed" tag.
 * You're right, it needs to be cited

Im not sure how to do that.
 * Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting
 * On the first appearance of a particular reference, you cite it fully, but insert a name: . On the next appearance of the same ref, you can simply use to lead to the same source.


 * Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available

✅ removed dead link on german reports. and north texas poster collection.
 * University of North Texas poster collection is a dead link; Daily German action reports is a dead link
 * Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled

Broad
No issues noted

Neutrality

 * Does a fairly good job with encyclopedic tone, but there are a few momentary lapses - be sure to maintain neutral and academic language
 * Look at WP:WTA
 * Per WP:WEASEL, don't use the phrase "some sources" or synonyms
 * Words like "notable" and "important" should be used carefully and should be qualified and supported judiciously
 * ✅ Looks good to me, Feel free to prove me wrong though.
 * One example: "scored a much-needed public morale boost" is colloquially worded and IMO unencyclopedic as written. There are several instances of this type of problem throughout the article, although the majority is well-written.

Stability

 * Stable, semi-protected

Images
✅ Im keeping this as not done but I belive they are duplicated in the article becasue they are..well really good images. I can go back to an old version of the infobox if you want me to. Replaced the infobox image
 * Most of the images in the infobox are duplicated in the main article - why was this done?
 * Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source
 * Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken
 * ✅ Fixed link.--Staberinde (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit



Why dont we go back to this set of images. They are not used in the main article.
 * As we have now new infobox image I think that this issue and two next ones are now solved.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ -- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)See below.
 * The infobox image lists only two source images but incorporates six. Though it is asserted that all are in the public domain, without sources this cannot be verified
 * Since most of the source images are in the article, you can simply add those photos as source images on the file description page

✅ Not sure how to fix the infobox images. :This fix can be done without changing the infobox images - you just might need to change the caption if you cannot find evidence that all of the people in that photo are Jewish.
 * One of the source images for the infobox image describes the emaciated figures simply as "prisoners", while the caption asserts that they are "Jews" - without a source, that statement is not verifiable and may not be accurate
 * I couldn't find evidence that all the people in the photograph were Jewish, so I changed "Jews" to "prisoners" on Template:WW2InfoBox as Jews were not the only group of people to go to concentration camps, and without a source to back up the assertion that they are all Jews, I believe "prisoners" is more accurate. @Kate   (talk)  03:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

✅ replaced the image ✅ removed image
 * The source link for Reichsparteitag_1935_mod.jpg is broken
 * According to the terms of the licensing tags used for Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg‎, its description page must have a source, author and location of first publication
 * "Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23rd 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Invasion of Poland. At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein." - should use "23" instead of "23rd", last sentence doesn't make sense, there are three people in the picture (if the third is unimportant, should specify which one the label applies to by saying "at right is...")
 * ✅ fixed the date problem and specified who is where.

✅ replaced image. ✅ Replaced the image ✅ replaced the image with another from the battle of stalingrad
 * Source link for Kyiv-Prorizna_1941.jpg‎ is broken
 * Permissions link for Japanese_troops_mopping_up_in_Kuala_Lumpur.jpg is broken and it is tagged as lacking author information
 * Source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken and the permission information requires a caption/photo credit
 * Is the one you added German pows stalingrad 1943.jpg? It uses a deprecated license tag
 * Replaced the image again.
 * Is the new one M3_Tank_Stalingrad.jpg? It's missing author info, which it must have under that licensing tag
 * You know as much as I do that there is no why we will be able to find the author. He was probably killed in the fighting. Oh well I guess Ill have to find a new image (again).-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I replaced the image with one that is all set (no issues as its from the german federal archives) I hope this one is ok as its from the same area and timeline (stalingrad).


 * The information page for Prokhorovka.jpg‎ says is was taken at the Battle of Prokhorovka, while the caption says Battle of Kursk. Which is correct?
 * ✅ Battle of Prokhorovka was part of the greater and more well know Battle of Kursk.


 * The higher-resolution source link for File:Approaching Omaha.jpg is broken
 * ✅ No longer broken

✅ Removed the image as the author has not yet responded to my request for a source.
 * VE-day-parade-moscow.jpg‎ is tagged as lacking source and author information
 * File:Wuhan 1938.jpg needs a source
 * File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg says it is public domain, but there's no PD tag. The Creative Commons tag is contradictory to the PD claim. Also, no source
 * File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG says it's PD in the US, but it obviously wasn't published before 1923.
 * Can you find an author for File:M3 Tank Stalingrad.JPG?
 * File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg needs a stronger fair-use rationale
 * File:Holocaust123.JPG should be replaced with another image illustrating the same point

I don't know why, I just felt a need to comments. Images aren't my strong point, so please forgive me if I sound like a moron. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK in order:
 * 1.I guess Ill have to move the Wuhan picture (again)
 * 2.Same as above
 * 3.Uh...Ill have to look that up it does seem confusing. (May have to replace that image too)
 * 4.There is no way that we can find a real life author to that image. More than likely, the author was killed in the fighting around stalingrad or elsewhere on the eastern front.
 * 5.Why does it need a stronger fair use rationale? It looks fine to me.
 * 6.Ill see what I can do, the image is graphic a bit. Although there may be concerns over downplaying the holocaust in this article. It was after all one of history's darkest chapters...

-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2nd doesn't seem impossible to fix. Permission should be changed to reflect actual permission and it should be fine.--Staberinde (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I think that I fixed it.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re #4: if you could track down the listed source for the picture, it will likely either give credit for the photo to someone or it will say "photographer unknown", in which case per the copyright info linked from the description page, the publisher qualifies as the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * About number 6: I understand these concerns, but it is a fair-use image, meaning it is essential for the reader to understand the Holocaust. This exact image isn't the only one that can be used to illustrate its purpose. Also, some might take issue with the POV it gives, but that's another discussion. Perhaps look through Commons:Category:The Holocaust. Mm40 (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

 * Would it be possible to contact the original uploaders for these images. For some of the broken links, a Google search may yield an updated link. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks and BTW, is there a certain amount of time that this has to be done in?-- Coldplay   Expert  18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strict GAN rules say 1 week, but I tend to be a bit more generous, especially in cases like this where there are lots of things to be addressed. Usually, so long as issues are being addressed, I will allow a month to complete the review. However, if for whatever reason the review stops progressing, I usually decline to list after one week of inactivity. To sum up, so long as you keep working at it, you've got plenty of time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then ill be sutre to make the occasional edit. (Or a lot more) To be honest if I knew about all of those problems, I would have not nominated this ariticle.-- Coldplay   Expert  02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * dont give up Cold... i will help were i can ..i will also give a shout out to the war project guys...if we get 3-6 people working on this it should break down the work... Nikkimaria is very good at pointing out all things wrong and in most cases after what she has mentioned is done ,,it will pass with no problems... Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks extra help would be nice.-- Coldplay   Expert  11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Psst...guys, this has been open for over a month, and I haven't seen any striking recently. Are we still working on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Yes, we're still working on it; it's just that many of us got busy or don't know what to do about certain sections. Speaking of which, is the comme/hyphen thing cleared up now? I've recently corrected a couple of sentences but am not sure exactly how many are left. And for new section names: So far, nobody has any idea what a suitable replacement for "The war becomes global" should be and you might want to take a look at this discussion for "The tide turns" because it stopped all of sudden and the attention went elsewhere so we're left hanging.-- Twilight  Helryx  02:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we are but we all got caught up in the discussion at the talk page. Now back to business. I want this done before the end of the year. Can you repost anything and everything that are still issues? Its kinda hard to find whats left. Thanks.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation
Remaining issues: ✅ well we had a discussion on the talk page as to changeing the names but to ne concensus. Ill try again and in there are no good oposes ill make the changes in a few days.
 * Some of the section headings are problematic. Cliches like "the tide turns" should be avoided
 * The sections have been renamed.

well As you are still demamding more than 3 paragraphs, ill have to fix it. Once all other problems are fixed il see what I can do.
 * I realize that the minimum lead size is 3 paragraphs, but for an article of this magnitude IMO 3 is not sufficient to give an overview of the entire text
 * It's not a deal breaker, but I really do think it would be better to have four paragraphs.
 * Couldn't something about the first and only uses of A-bombs (against an enemy) be mentioned here? And isn't the holocaust worth a mention here to? I realise this may be a ridiculous and outlandish suggestion, sorry if it is, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, both are probably worth a mention in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Currencies, especially historic ones, should be converted
 * As User:Twilight Helryx pointed out, all the currencies have been converted with the exeption of the Reichmark. Seeing as we have exausted all efforts to convert it, its your cal as to what we should do next.
 * This site and others like it might help.
 * ✅ I have found out the correct conversion. 69.5 Billion Reichmarks in 1939-1941 = 27.8 billion UDS

✅ Long overdo but done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  23:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * General final copy-edit for clarity and fluency
 * ✅ Re-done. I did a second copy edit, just to confirm it (a few spelling and grammar issues had been missed, should be okay now), Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

✅
 * Say something about why estimates vary so wildly for death toll
 * Referencing format should be consistent per WP:CITE
 * well I thought that that was fixed but I guess I was wrong. can you give me an example as to what else needs fixing?
 * Some are missing ISBNs, some are missing dates, some vary in italicization, some have extra punctuation marks, some are missing punctuation marks, some books have date in parathese after author while others put it after publisher...Compare (for example) current refs 28 and 29 - same source (different pages), completely different formatting.
 * Say I was to go through every ref and use a WP:Citation template on it (the ones that don't have them). Would this help? I think I could manage this. It'd take some time, but I could do it... Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you also added in some of the missing information (especially dates), then that would work well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've finished. I've went through every citation at least once, mostly twice. I've more or less done your job for you Nikkimaria :) Almost everything (I think) that needs it has a publisher, ISBN (if it has been assigned one), year/date, accessdate, or whatever else it should have. They also all have citation templates (i.e. citejournal citeweb citebook), so the formatting should be okay, eg. correct italicization, word order. The exceptions are; ref 103 (NY Times article), 106 (possibly attributed to the wrong author), 163 (dead link, not sure what to do with it), 220 (same as 163), 283, and 285. Some of those should be okay but could do with another check, and some I just couldn't figure out. Hope this helps.   Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fixed 103. I think that 106 might be this book, but if it is, both author and page number are wrong (and if it's not, I have no idea what is). I fixed the links on 163 and 220 using the [archive.org Internet Archive]. Not sure what to do about the last two...Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're definitely right about 106. I added the details with page 425, which seems pretty relevant. 283 is apparently a journal, maybe it's okay the way it is. It has everything but page numbers, which isn't really essential or is it? Now it's just down to 285...if nobody can figure it out, maybe another reference could be found, and/or the info tweaked slightly to accomodate it? Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ - Finished the last one (ref 285)! It took the better part of today, but it's done! Here's the diff. Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All book references need a date and publisher; all web references need an access date and publisher/author (where available). Some are currently missing this information
 * well I almost finished it but I had to stop somewear aroung ref 250. Ill finish the rest soon.
 * I'm working on it (see above), Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything except ref 285, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, at least it should be. May have missed one or two...but probably not, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ gone. ✅ for some reason I keep on messing this up. Ill see if Twilight Helryx is up to the challenge.
 * Ref 267 (Deported Nationalities) needs to be replaced
 * Notes that appear more than once should be named and appear using the proper multiple-ref formatting
 * No more duplicates that I can see. A set of fresh eyes may be helpfull though.
 * Can someone point out which refs are dupes for me? Because, I'm having a hard time picking them out.
 * I think I may have fixed all of those, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

can you give an example? Im sort of confused about this one.
 * Tertiary sources should be avoided when reliable secondary sources are available
 * Secondary Tertiary sources include encyclopedias, dictionaries, and most textbooks. For example, current ref 56 (an encyclopedia) is a tertiary source.
 * Wha!? I think you may have made a mistake in that sentence, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means.
 * Per WP:EL, some of the external links need to be culled
 * Again, what does this mean?
 * I think it is a reference to the proliferation of external links at the end of this article. There are way too many of them, of insufficient importance to be there. I will cull some of them to give editors an idea of the issue. Some of the issues to be borne in mind: we should avoid links to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Also avoid links to content aggregators etc (such as directories - hence a couple of my deletions). I have also removed links that are to individual country or theatre-specific areas. If these should be anywhere, they should be in sub-articles of this top level article. For example, the link to Canada and WWII should only be in the Canada in World War II article, not here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have completed a clean-up, though i have my doubts about at least one of hte remaining links (propaganda leaflets). However, in that particular case i could not identify an alternative sub-article to which it should be moved. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ Well I think this is done. I myself dont see anything that is POV but thats just MO.
 * Does a fairly good job with encyclopedic tone, but there are a few momentary lapses - be sure to maintain neutral and academic language
 * The concern here is both neutral and academic language, which I do feel is still a problem. Perhaps you can ask someone else to go through?
 * Would you say it's okay now? I've read over the entire article, and fixed a lot of things. But maybe it's still an issue... Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ I think that I fixed the last WP:WEASEL. Well I guess this needs fixing. ✅ Replaced.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC) ✅ I fixed the broken link on wikipedia commons (where the file is located) but for some reason it still shows up as dead on the English Wikipedia even though It was fixed... Same as above.
 * Look at WP:WTA
 * Per WP:WEASEL, don't use the phrase "some sources" or synonyms
 * Words like "notable" and "important" should be used carefully and should be qualified and supported judiciously
 * Wuhan_1938_IJA.jpg needs publisher/creator and source
 * Source link on El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg appears to be broken
 * The first source link for Soviet_soldiers_moving_at_Stalingrad2.jpg‎ is broken. Also, the permissions for that image require a photo credit

Non-free images
I appreciate that I'm not the reviewer here, but I wanted to leave a note about the non-free image use. The Holocaust image could surely be replaced by a free image of the Holocaust- it's not illustrating anything in particular, and the photo itself is not discussed. In fact, the file has been nominated for deletion. The other non-free image in the article is a little more iconic- however, that is not important, as what the photo shows/the photo itself is not mentioned. It is used only as a general illustration of the fall of Berlin- we would presumably have free images of this, and, even if we don't, it wouldn't matter too much if there was no illustration- the image is fairly decorative. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust image has been removed, and I had removed the other image, but someone has decided to edit war to keep it in, truly jepordising this review. This should not be promoted until that image is removed completely. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the image being referred to by J Milburn is the one of the flag raising over the reichstag, but if so, this is more complex than s/he is making out (see Talk:Battle_of_Berlin. While i support its removal from this article (and it is currently removed), i understand there are different views in this debate. Hopefully, however, the matter has already been resovled. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact there are "different views in the debate" does not mean that it is any less clear-cut than I imply. The image needed to be removed, and now has been. As you say, it is resolved. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i can't let that go. You believed it was clear-cut; so did some others; others again did not. But as we agree - it appears to have been resolved for World War II at any rate. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact others claimed it wasn't clear cut doesn't mean it wasn't. The fact some people believe Queen Elizabeth is a lizard doesn't make us any less right when we describe her as human. This issue, as anyone who knows the first thing about our NFCC, was clear-cut- neither of those images should have been there. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read NFCC and have had to work with it in the past, so i hope i know at least "the first thing" about it. I don't know what the second image is to which you were referring, but as i have indicated at the Battle of Berlin discussion, in that particular context i thought the flag raising image was consistent with NFCC. As far as i can see, opinions are split more or less 50-50 at that RFC, so obviously there are arguments on both sides. But i don't think anyone is suggesting it is NFCC compliant for WWII, so we'll leave it there. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping it up
I understand there's a lot to do on this since it's such a major topic, but can we start to wrap up the review on both sides? It's been under review since November so it's had a lot of time to be worked on. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Quick summary: WTA, tertiary sources, possibly the lead. Haven't checked pictures recently, have those been dealt with? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think pictures are OK. But re tertiary sources: I just read the Greenwood encyclopedia entry (note 57), and it isn't really even an accurate reference for the facts of the cited sentence (duration of blitzkrieg attack in the low countries). Not sure whether 'common knowledge' might apply, though, esp. at GA. So that one at least i would just delete if a secondary replacement source isn't to hand. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Time for it to come to an end people. 3 and a half months is too long. All of the citations have been fixed and all the image issues have been addressed. I can't really think of anything left for us to do. Nikkimaria, time for you to pass (or fail, well probably fail) it. It's been a fun time and if it passes then We've made a huge step in promoteing a major article on this site. If it fails, then we can always come back to GAN once the remaining issues have been addressed. I'de like to thank User:Spongefrog, User:Buzzzsherman, User:Twilight Helryx and anyone else that I've issed for halping out soooo much. I hope that your combined efforts are not in vain.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we hit the big finish, would you mind addressing the ref problem raised by hamiltonstone above? Shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (And Wuhan 1938 IJA.jpg still has no source, and source for File:El Alamein 1942 - British infantry.jpg is still a broken link...) Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the link on commons is fixed. (I fixed it a month ago) I still can't seem to understnad why it showes up as broken here and as for the source and other image, I'll get to them now.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and replaced the images with to new ones that have a source and are both in the PD. I've also replaced that one source (#57) that you mentioned.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will this ever end?--Oneiros (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

March 6, 2010 Good article nominee 	Listed.....Moxy (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)