Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Axis order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it underwent significant work in user space before being assessed as meeting BL criteria, and has now been improved further. It details the German, Italian and Hungarian forces involved in the April 1941 invasion of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * "bomber/naval bomber": See WP:SLASH.
 * "{Hungarian:": (Hungarian:
 * "locally-made": locally made, per WP:HYPHEN
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dan, all done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: looks excellent. I only have a few minor presentation comments:
 * "Bulgarian-Greek border": this should probably take an endash per WP:DASH;
 * seems inconsistent: "The VIII Air Corps" v "Eighth Air Corps";
 * as above: "X Air Corps" v "10th Air Corps";
 * "File:Reggiane2000 San Diego Air Space Museum 2.jpg": probably needs a US licence (possibly US-PD-1996 or similar);
 * in the References, you currently use a mixture of cite book and citation. The advice I've seen at FAC is not to mix these as they have slight variations. For instance, notice that those that use cite book have a full stop after the year, while those that use citation have a comma
 * in the References, is there an issn that could be provided for The Journal of Slavic Military Studies? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks AR, all done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links all check out (no action req'd).
 * A couple of images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Images all appear to be PD/free and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
 * Read through it and can find no issues, looks good. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * alt text added, thanks Ac! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Add the Invasion of Yugoslavia Infobox or something similar.
 * Not sure that is necessary, I have the campaign box there, and I think that is appropriate.
 * Are there any order of battle articles at A/FA? I couldn't find one but its pretty rare for A MilHist article to not have an infobox these days. Kirk (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but there are six MILHIST FL ORBAT articles listed here, and none of them have an infobox, only a couple have a campaignbox. There are currently no MILHIST AL-Class ORBATs. I just don't see it as necessary or even very helpful. The parent Invasion of Yugoslavia article has an infobox, of course.
 * I see them now; hopefully one of the admins will chime in since a lot of those are older (and more list-like); one recently promoted list I reviewed List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) has an infobox. Kirk (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cite or link to the Why We Fight series.
 * Done, in the caption.


 * Add citations to the tables and leave out the lead-in phrases w/citations
 * I think I understand what you are saying. My view is that where we can avoid placing citations inside tables, we should, especially if they are repetitions of the same citation. IMO it creates table clutter and is less elegant than the lead-in phrase approach I have used.
 * Unless you cite which facts in the table come from which source it implies all the facts are in both sources, which isn't true for the first couple tables. The various FA ship lists use the format of having each fact cited, which I think is best, e.g. List of battleships of Germany. Kirk (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'll take a look and follow your suggestion where necessary. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * The images format kind of strangely - maybe use a gallery for the commander portraits & mix up images a bit on either side of the page. Kirk (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed the strange formatting (I edit on two different sized screens, an iPad and iPhone). They are aligned with the relevant sections, eg commanders opposite their armies/corps, aircraft opposite their sections. I think they are better off in context than in a gallery. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Try changing your screen resolution to some different sizes; there's more pictures than prose so I see a big stack of images which don't align with their subjects, which is why I recommended a gallery. You could also just delete a bunch since you only need a few key images for A. Kirk (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm going to move the images into galleries, per your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.