Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Boden Fortress

Boden Fortress
I've been working on and off on this one for about 1½ years now (in my sandbox). I recently moved it to mainspace and have continued to improve it somewhat, planning to go to FAC when it is good enough. Thanks in advance! – Elisson • T • C • 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) General comments are appreciated. Is something missing? Is something unclear? Is something too detailed?
 * 2) I'd also like a copyedit from someone that has English as their native language, obviously my English is good enough to write so that people understand what I mean, but I also know that my English is somewhat rugged, in short, it's not brilliant prose.
 * 3) Another part of that is that I haven't been able to find appropriate translations for all terms originally in Swedish (there are, AFAIK, no books or longer articles on the fortress available in English). So please tell me if a term or translation doesn't sound 100 % and we'll try to find a better one.
 * 4) Don't be afraid to tag sentences with the fact tag, I'll do my best to add a note.
 * 5) I prefer all images on the right, but I know this is not the general opinion. Good or bad? Too many images?

Kirill Lokshin
Overall, a very good article. It could, as you mention, use a bit of stylistic copyediting; if nobody turns up, you could always leave a request with WP:LOE. Aside from that, some minor points: Keep up the great work! Kirill 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My own preference is to have images staggered along both margins, but this is more a matter of personal preference than anything else; so long as there are no formatting problems, either layout is fine. The gallery at the bottom should really be moved to Commons, though.
 * The "See also" section can be eliminated; all of these terms are (or should be) linked in the text itself.
 * The "kan" and "haub" designations in the tables are one thing that stands out as needing translation. I would assume that these refer to "cannon" and "howitzer", but someone more familiar with early 20th-century artillery may be able to clarify this further.
 * The longer quotes may look neater in  formatting than in cquote.
 * The lead might be expanded a bit to include the use (or lack therof) and eventual fate of the fortress.

JKBrooks85
Awesome stuff! I like the way you've structured the article and it seems to be written in a clear and concise way that made understanding easy, even for someone new to the subject, like myself. There's a few things that I think need to be addressed before you submit it to an FA review, because I know they'll come up there: Keep it up! JKBrooks85 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A good copyediting is needed to check for misspellings and odd turns of phrase. If you don't mind, I'll go through the article and do this.
 * Adding Imperial measurements after the metric ones. This is going to be a big job because you've got so many measurements, but it's something that would probably be brought up in an FA review. IIRC, the style is something like 38cm (16 in.) for measurements.
 * Expanding the pictures and maps. You've got some great maps in there, but they're so small that they're almost impossible to read. Don't be afraid to blow them up to 300-400 pixels if they'd look better that way. In addition, feel free to alternate sides on the pictures. They don't all have to be shoved to the right margin.