Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Anglo-Zanzibar War

Anglo-Zanzibar War
I have (with the kind help of other contributors) recently expanded this article and had it featured on WP:DYK. Ideally I would like to eventually nominate it as a GA but am aware that it will probably require some improvement before then and welcome any suggestions. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should just mention the other main contributer is User:Nishkid64 - Dumelow (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Angelina Nonyameko 41.116.8.185 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Woody

 * Overall, I have to say it is looking good. All the information is there, a good set of images, well referenced. There are problems with prose though, it needs a very thorough copyedit. I rearranged the section headers at the bottom, in line with WP:LAYOUT.
 * Some comments:
 * The title should be at Anglo–Zanzibar War (note the endash).
 * Thanks, I'm always getting caught out by WP:Dash, I'll move it there.


 * Image:Zanzibar palace guard low.JPG What makes this fair-use? I am not seeing the Guard discussed at detail in the prose which is neccessary for it to comply with the Fair-use policy. It is being used for decorative, rather then informative purposes.
 * That sounds fair enough, I'll delete that.


 * You might consider un-linking the dates per the constantly evolving style guidelines. There are so few links, especially full links, that I don't think there is any benefit here from having them linked.
 * Yeah the recent change in policy has caught me out there. I'll sort them.


 * A lot of the "HMS ..." links are to dab pages, make sure you link to the correct article.
 * Good point, I'll take a look.


 * I think the paragraph that starts with "Sultan Hamud was loyal to the British..." is very choppy. It looks like bullet points put straight into a paragraph; particularly: "The wreck of the Glasgow sank in such a way that her masts remained out of the water and she could be seen in the harbour for several years after the war."
 * Sorry about that, I am not a good prose writer (an engineering student, in fact!) and it can just end up as a jumble of facts. I'll take a look over the whole article and try to get it to "flow" better.


 * Other than that, I can't find any glaring MOS errors, it is a good length, so I would go for GA. Woody (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at it and for your helpful comments. I have just got back from an eight day holiday so I'll get onto the problems you've highlighted as soon as possible.  In addition I hope to get access to another good source which will add useful info within a week or so.  After that, and a good copyedit, I'll take it over to GA.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * poster Angelina Nonyameko Zinti 41.116.8.185 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)