Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review/Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus

Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Dear Sirs, I request a formal peer review for the article, Military Operations of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. I have spent a couple of weeks extensively upgrading and cleaning up the article with new sources, citations and information. Many thanks.

(Dogfight1001 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Nomination completed by me.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou
Need work in terms of prose, MoS, and structure. You can use a military-related FA article as a model of you. Cite properly the article, format properly the citations, and avoid original research.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no lead! Please, read carefully and implement WP:LEAD.
 * "Combatants" should somehow be incorporated into the infobox.
 * Why should "Events leading up to the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus" be divided into two stubby sub-sections. One comprehensive section would be enough.
 * You have neither pictures (only two not very helpful maps of Cyprus) nor maps.
 * "The rule by the military in Greece started in the morning of April 21, 1967 with a coup d'état led by a group of colonels of the military of Greece, with the government-in-exile". ??!!! What do you mean? Which government-in-exile. Another article with poor English.
 * Citations go always after the punmark with no gap between the punmark (full stop, comma or semi-colon) and the citation.
 * "The period of 1964 to 1974 was a turbulent era for the island, with the apparent breakdown of relations between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides right across the spectrum of social and political ties." Bad prose again.
 * "In 1963, the Turkish Cypriots had abandoned, both voluntarily and by external pressure, their constitutional presence in the Cyprus Government." What external pressures? And provide sources.
 * "In the early hours of the 20th of July 1974" Why bolding? And about MoS rules concerning the way we write dates, read here.
 * "The coup represented both a provocation against and an opportunity..." What does "provocation against" mean?
 * In your references, when citing printed sources, always provide pages. You don't as I see, but you should!
 * When referencing, make use of these templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite news, Template:cite book, Template:cite journal, and Template:cite encyclopedia.
 * In four of the article's sections I see tags with concerns about the tenses. These things should be fixed. And indeed you switch tenses and make other similar mistakes.
 * "There was little or no armed contest at the beachhead on 21 July 1974, and during this time, the second wave of Turkish forces departed from Mersin port." Avoid stubby paragraphs. Merge or expand.
 * Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
 * "This however, was a signals deception performed by the Greek Cypriot Naval Command, which transmitted false radio signals indicating that three Turkish destroyers (looking for the Lesvos) off Paphos, were in fact Greek ships." Another example of bad prose.
 * "23 July 1974" A heading with no section!
 * "At 18.00hrs, Security Council Resolution 353 is adopted unanimously. A cease-fire is to take effect on July 22 at 16:00." Again bolded wrongly. Read WP:MoS in general and in detail.
 * There are also problems with wikilinking. Read Manual of Style (links) carefully.
 * Tense problems in "23 July 1974" as well, although it is not tagged.
 * In "Clashes from 24 July to 13 August", except from switching tenses, you also switch the way you write tenses from one paragraph to another!
 * "Attila 2 Offensive" is a mess. Stubby sections, stubby paragraphs and tense problems.
 * "T-34/85 Main Battle Tank" has no sources.
 * I see no ISBN in the printed source of citation 4. Fix this and all the other citations with the templates I proposed above.
 * There is no "assessment" sections, offering overall assessments and analysis of the invasion.
 * There is no "aftermath" section.
 * Hmmmm .... Notes 53-55 are very problematic. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. See WP:OR. You may see the article tagged for this problem. Please also read WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:Reliable sources.
 * Don't put in "See also" section articles already linked in the main text.