Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Normandy/archive1

Battle of Normandy
This article has expanded a lot the latest days, and has become a really good article. It has a good intro, much background, a thorough body and lots of diagrams and images. &#9999; Sverdrup 12:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Chancemill 10:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think the article could do with more maps. Cabalamat 21:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -Pedro 22:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - Too many sections = overwhelming TOC (see What is a featured article). I suggest an easy fix: Combine all sub-sections under ===Landings=== into one H3 section except for ====German reaction==== which should be promoted to an H3 and eventually expanded a bit. Also, nix the ==Historical significance== section and move that sentence to the end of the lead section (single paragraph sections are bad enough - single sentence ones are horrid). --mav 00:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I just spent about 20 minutes resectioning. I think you'll agree it's now reasonable. &rarr;Raul654 18:38, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Much better. But I see that the page size warning has hit 32KB now but since at least 7KB of the article is markup or in lists, I think that is OK. --mav
 * Support, with some reservations. I agree with the esteemed mav that ===Landings=== has too many sub-sections, but disagree on the solution. I'd keep the five D-Day beaches as sub-sections, edit the three parachute landings sections into two (north/south, Brit/US -- roughly) and move the ====Mulberry harbours==== content to ===Special preparations=== earlier in the article. That still leaves seven sub-sections, but I do seriously believe all five beaches and all the major parachute landing sites deserve their own sections; the names of those beaches especially are national icons. Having done recent non-minor editing on ==Historical significance== I agree it should be moved, there's not enough there. However, it is a two sentence para. ;) Finally, as one of the recent contributors to the article, I'm really glad to see it nominated and will try to keep working to make it better. See Talk:Battle of Normandy for further discussion! - Madmagic 08:44, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because something is a national icon does not mean that it must be in the TOC. There is no need to have the string of stub sub-sections and expanding each into a proper section would overburden this article with too much detail. Simply summarize the entire landing and put the detail in a set of separate articles on each landing (such as the beach articles that already exist). --mav 02:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1. American and British English are inconsistently used: "memorialize" and "characterised." Note that if American spelling is decided upon, periods should be used in abbreviations such as "U.S.," as is customary in American English. 2. Wikipedia policy is that double quotation marks be used, instead of single ones, in all cases. The single quotation marks in the article need, therefore, to be replaced. 3. Section 1, "The battle," is blank. 4. Em dashes are rendered as "--". One would prefer if "&mdash;" is used. 5. Some articles are linked to multiple times. "Eisenhower" links thrice, for example. I think that a link at the first mention should suffice. -- Emsworth 21:14, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The manual of style explicetely says that US is preferred over U.S. Also, the empty section "The Battle" was my doing when I resectioned it. I have now fixed that. &rarr;Raul654 22:34, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The manual of style explicitly says that U.S. is preferred over US. Use Canadian English. The 'z' is not wrong - it's just mass ignorance on the part of the British. --Jiang 04:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It is true that the Manual of Style prefers "U.S." Furthermore, I do not dispute that "ize" is correct, but the article uses both "ise" (characterise) and "ize" (memorialize). -- Emsworth 10:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've standardised the article to British "-ise" spelling (except Operation Totalize), based on the earliest version of the article I could find. &mdash; Matt 15:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed 5 instances of single quotes (') to double (") &#9999; Sverdrup 11:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Full support - great article. --mav 05:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - but just so people are aware, we are considering moving this to Invasion of Normandy or somewhere similar to leave Battle of Normandy as an article about operations in Normandy including and after the landings. That was what the article was intended to be originally, but the bits on the first 24 hrs got so big they deseve their own article. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)