Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bulge/archive1

Battle of the Bulge
Self nomination. &rarr;Raul654 07:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support Object - good article, but could do with a light copyedit (e.g. "airborn", "Reference" heading, dashes vs mdashes/ndashes). I will do myself if I have time.  Also, no discussion of the Battle in popular culture (1965 film, Band of Brothers), nor the previous major engagement (Operation Market Garden, presuambly) or what came next on the western front (although there is mention of subsequent Russian advances). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've attempted to address each of these objections. What do you think now? &rarr;Raul654 06:12, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Great - much better. I've also done some copyediting myself, so I'd be grateful if someone else would read and pick up any remaining problems, but support from me. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn - I was going to support but I have to agree with ALoan. --mav 05:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:22, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
 * Oppose, references section needs lots of info (ISBN, year, city, publisher). Also, the battlebox lacks info on previous and following battle. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:55, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've provided the ISBN information for the references - that should be sufficient. Also, previous/next battle was removed from the taxobox standard (it was extremely ugly). &rarr;Raul654 07:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Halibutt has good points but I don't think they are pressing enough for me to oppose this nomination. --mav 06:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The allied strength in the table to the right seems wrong. As it reads right now the Americans had 80.000 men and 400 tanks, of which 70.000 men and 700(!) tanks were destroyed. Thue | talk 08:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's wrong - it's specifically dated for December 16 (start of the battle). As the article says, within a week, 250,000 more men arrived (along with tanks, guns, etc). &rarr;Raul654 08:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO it would be nicer if the total number of participants were mentioned in the table, rather than the number of participants at the start of the battle. Thue | talk 12:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Thue. The number of participants at the start of the battle is not very useful in a overview table of the battle.  The total numbers should be in the table and the number at the start left to the text description. - Taxman 13:30, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * If there *were* reliable statistics for the total number of people, I would have included those instead. Unfortnately, those numbers vary widely depending on which source you use (mobile warfare in action), and what date they calculate it for There's no true value - for example, I've seen the american strength given as 140,000 in one source, and 500,000 in another. &rarr;Raul654 18:02, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. Then note the discrepancy and the sources.  Noting 80,000 is misleading for the reasons noted above, and even moreso if there is a greater discrepancy as to the actual figure.  Put something like "140,000-500,000 from varying reports" in the table. Ok I take that back, just make it a bit clearer, by saying the figures are start of battle strength numbers. - Taxman 15:04, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. &rarr;Raul654 16:43, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)