Wikipedia:Peer review/Colmar Pocket/archive1

Colmar Pocket
Possible GA, or not ?

Thanks,

RCS 05:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * llywrch
 * I'm puzzled why the map of the battle -- once in the infobox, again in the text body -- appears twice. Doing that looks awkward.


 * As I originally edited the article, the map did not appear twice. Where the article began to describe unit movements, I had placed a link readers could click on to see the map in larger format.  Apparently, another editor opted to insert the map again in place of the link. I agree the appearance of the same graphic twice is awkward. W. B. Wilson 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to also list this article at WikiProject Military history/Review for some more informed opinions.
 * Good idea, thank you ! RCS 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead section seems insufficient for the length of this article. Please see WP:LEAD. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I would reiterate that the lead certainly should expand significantly as per WP:LEAD. I'd also suggest naming "Colmar Pocket" a little earlier in the intro so it's more visible. That lead also isn't exactly well-written: ...bitter, extremely cold winter fighting over terrain that offered practically no cover for attacking forces just doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. But, maybe it's just me.

I also think you are in need of more sources for verifiability - you really seem to rely on only two or three with a couple for good measure. An article on this length should really at least double that number of sources (in my opinion). Along those lines too, you really will need more in-line citations. For example, under the "Background" heading, the parts on "Formation," "German view," and "Allied limitation" have a total of three in-line citations for about 600 words. Take a look at some good articles or even featured articles to see other article standards. Other than that, consider moving some images to the left (just for aesthetic reasons). Overall, this article is impressive and on its way. Best of luck with it from here! --Midnightdreary 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)