Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Berlin

Battle of Berlin
Now the articles are stable, I think that they would benefit from a review by some extra pairs of eyes. The Battle of Berlin is closer to a campaign than a simple battle. To the Soviets it was the Berlin Offensive Operation but in English the "Offensive Operation" is known as the "Battle of Berlin" rather than the "Berlin Offensive". The article is now a detailed campaign overview with only one major section of the battle (encirclement) that has not spawned a more detailed page. A review of the Battle article will probably involve reviewing the more detailed pages as well. They are: --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Oder-Neisse
 * Battle of the Seelow Heights
 * Battle in Berlin
 * Battle of Halbe

Cla68
This review is for the main article. I'll try to review the sub-battle articles later:
 * As much as possible, inline citations should be in the infobox to support the information contained there.
 * The intro should be expanded to two or three paragraphs because of the overall length of the article.
 * The background section begins in August, 1944 and therefore appears to assume that every reader will know how and why the USSR and Nazi Germany ended up in the conflict with each other in the first place. A short synopsis of the entire war between the two countries, perhaps a paragraph in length, would resolve that.
 * I think the prose is choppy, but I'm known for being partial to run-on sentences, so, take my opinion on this with a grain of salt.
 * Needs another copyedit to correct minor grammar mistakes ("detiorated from their heights in 1944").
 * Several abbreviations (RAF, USAAF) are used without being completely spelled out the first time they appear.
 * Wikify all dates.
 * Every paragraph should have at least one inline citation at the end.
 * Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
 * The images seem to be bunched-up towards the middle-to-end part of the article. Are there any that can be moved up or placed in earlier parts of the article?  The profusion of images in the latter part are creating some white space.  Some of them could also probably be moved to the left side.
 * I think most FA reviewers prefer the footnotes section to be above the references and further reading sections.

There's a lot of really good, detailed information in this article and it's enjoyable to read. Cla68 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Flubeca
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, - Flubeca Talk 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20 miles, use 20 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20&amp;nbsp;miles.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 15 km.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * correctly
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), realise (B) (American: realize), counter-attack (B) (American: counterattack), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]