Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive3

World War II
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core article, and hopefully can be brought to FA, however, I feel that a PR is needed before nominating.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I notice you haven't made any edits to the article. Please notify the some of the more active editors on this article and see if this is a good time for them to respond to comments in a peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * good idea. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've notified 5 or 6 editors that appear to be the most active on the article -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D
I've been heavily engaged with this article over the last few years. Before reading through the article again, I have the following comments:
 * Any attempt at bringing this article to FA standard should involve first developing the article to the Military History Wikiproject's A-class standards
 * I tried this last year, but gave up as a) it was going to be a huge amount of work given that all significant changes to the article need to be discussed on the talk page and there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm for this project from other editors and b) I was uncomfortable with nominating an article for A-class status without either checking all the sources myself, or having editors in good standing perform such checks.
 * The article has way too many photos, some of which aren't well chosen.
 * Don't get me started about the infobox (why is Mexico there at the moment for instance?)
 * Historically there's been a tendency for editors to add material on their hobby horses to this article (including material on unimportant aspects of the war and a bit of POV pushing) and I'm sure that some of this remains and needs to be removed or re-written
 * All that said, there's no reason why this can't be developed to A-class and then FA standard, and I'd be happy to help with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * probably not a bad idea to start with a-class for now. I think checklinks might help with source checking, you can see a small version of the page. then again. there are 300 of them. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The great majority of sources are to hard copy books. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ah. I may be able to dig some stuff up on jstor if need be. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also am ready to participate in this work. Maybe, for the beginning, it makes sense to take some section and develop it to the A-class standards?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * probably the best way to do it. perhaps start with the lead, and work our way down. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 05:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest leaving the lead until last given that it's meant to be a summary of the entire article. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * good point. hate to fix up the lead, only to have to go back and redo it because of fixes to the rest of the article.... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)