Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Army of the Danube order of battle

Army of the Danube order of battle
Would like some additional feedback (beyond B-class) about orders of battle and such, to proceed with this list. Do all the juicy red links need to be blue? Do I need numbers and figures of which battalions, number of men, etc? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MBK004

 * First, this needs order of battle to be renamed to conform with the existing order of battles that are Featured lists. Examples: Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo, Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile, Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island, Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806. This issue alone would be an oppose from me at either ACR or FLC. These FLs are also an excellent resource on which you should model this after. The editor responsible for most of these is, so I suggest you ask him for a review. -MBK004 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to rename it, although I had already renamed it based on the early April conversation in the project talk about the order of battle. so I'm still confused.  You're saying that Order of Battle of the Army of the Danube sounds/reads better than Army of the Danube order of battle.  ??  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I use the "Order of battle at the Battle of XXXX" format and prefer it to the one used here, it has been established at WikiProject_Military_history that this format of "Army of the Danube order of battle" is also acceptable, provided it is used consistently within the same article context (the o and b of order of battle should always be in lower case however). At the moment no firm guidelines exist on this subject and it would not be an actionable oppose in a higher review process.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight, Jacky. I thought I was doing what I was instructed to do during that project talk that went on a few weeks back. What do you think of the format?  Should I imitate the expert and use charts?  What else, how else, could I do to arrange the list better? Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmph, I guess I would rather see consistency throughout by using just one naming convention for these, but I digress... -MBK004 05:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I'm willing to rename, but I thought I was following the conventions. Is the list suitable, or should there be more text? What do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)