Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II
I have been working on this article for a couple of months now. I think it is coming along nicely. Although I am not entirely done with it, I think this would be a good time to get some feedback. Gaius Cornelius 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply : My thanks for the comments above. I have taken note of the constructive critisism and the article has now changed quite a bit. I have decided to remove much of the technical detail on pillboxes to another article. Otherwise, the article re-arranged and expanded considerably with many new citations. Given the scope of the changes, I would appreciate a re-review: what does it take to get better than B-class? I have taken the liberty of bumping this entry up the peer review list before it drops into an archive. Gaius Cornelius 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further comments and for the minor formatting edits in See Also and References sections. I will re-arrange the pictures, I had put this off simply because experience had suggested that a simple scheme for pictures is best in the early days otherwise one is forever moving them about trying to get things to look right. I am of course aware of reservations regarding web-citations, but most of the links are to real-world photos or the verbatim memoirs, speaches, leaflets etc. Gaius Cornelius 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to Grafikm: "br clear both" - they are gone (thanks). The references - I am not sure what you mean, the references should NOT be separated from the punctuation by a space, see Footnotes. You are quite right about the "Early beginnings" title and the short paragraphs. I will do something about the dates. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Thoroughly fascinating stuff. I have very little knowledge of this particular topic, so I'll limit myself primarily to general remarks: Overall, though, this is off to a very nice start. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Infobox Military Conflict really useful here? This isn't an article about the proposed operation itself, and the box doesn't seem to give any particularly important information.
 * Footnotes should be added in large numbers; the technical material that makes up the bulk of the article is quite sparsely cited.
 * It might be better to stagger the images between the two margins; the current layout produces an almost continuous column of images in some places, and results in gaps in the text itself.
 * The prose is quite choppy in many places, owing in large part to the use of too many pseudo-sections. I would remove most (if not all!) of those and combine the material into more smoothly flowing paragraphs.


 * The work done on this article since the initial review has been quite amazing. There are a few technical points which still need to be resolved:
 * An apparently empty "See also" section isn't useful; the box should just be moved into the next section instead.
 * There's something funny about the line spacing in the "References" section, if I'm not mistaken.
 * The columns of images along the right margin are producing spacing problems, and look quite crowded. I would again suggest staggering them between the two margins, at least in some places.
 * The number of external links is rather high, but I suppose these might actually be useful.
 * Other than that, a bit of copyediting should be all this article needs. Great work! Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling
This is an excellent and very interesting article. Its title is somewhat miss leading, however, as it only covers the fixed defences and weapons developed to counter the feared German invasion, and doesn't really discuss the deployment of mobile military units to counter the Germans. --Nick Dowling 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr
I think the article is coming along quite nicely. Some format-style issues remain:
 * Watch out for those "br clear both" tags, they create unneeded empty spaces. One should rather play with image alignment.
 * There are no space between a punctuation and a ref, like this.[1]
 * The "Early beginnings" title is confusing IMHO, "context" or something should be better.
 * There are some short paragraphs that should be probably merged together, especially in the lead.
 * Data formats are inconsistent, sometimes with a comma between day/month and year, sometimes without.

Otherwise, the article is quite nice, I'm looking forward to see on WP:FAC! :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  11:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)