Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Brevity/archive2

Operation Brevity

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure weather or not the article will stand up the scrutiny of a FA review.

The article has just been passed its A-Class review, see WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Brevity, however grammar was brought up as one of the issues which may temporally delay the article from being upgraded to FA.

I have gone through the article having a mess around sorting out mistakes I have spotted however it would be great if another pair of eyes or two could scan the article and sort out any remaining grammatical screw ups.

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like me to have a detailed look through I might be persuaded to! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a, quick and brief, look through the article and fixed some grammatical errors that immediately sprung up at me, but I think I noticed a further few lurking there. Overall it's a very good article, and there are relatively few errors for the information displayed. I have also changed a few of the title headings; 'Plans' didn't seem very specific to anything and 'German reactions' should personally have been more representative of the Axis forces, and not just those of the Germans.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * I'm not familiar with http://warlinks.com/armour/11_hussars/index.html? Is this considered a reliable source?
 * You need to resolve the citation needed tag in the lead.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, just like to thank you for your comments. Sorry for the late reply but i havent really been around for the last few weeks. Cheers for the help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)