Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Colmar Pocket

Colmar Pocket
Has the looks of a possible GA, but knowledge isn't only about looks. Some specialist's feedback should be useful. Thanks, RCS 11:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
A few points to consider: Overall, though, this looks quite good. Kirill 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead should be lengthened considerably; as it is, it doesn't really summarize the article.
 * As the citations are never repeated, it should be possible to combine neighboring ones so as to avoid having two footnote numbers in the same place in the text.
 * The images would look better staggered along both margins. The image sizes shouldn't bounce around quite so much either.
 * The structure of the sub-headings is almost incomprehensible. The use of the parenthesized Roman numerals isn't going to be obvious or meaningful to the average reader, and full unit names aren't the best section titles in any case.  I'd suggest a chronological or geographic breakdown for these sections instead.
 * The order of battle would be neater placed as a (floated?) table rather than as a bullet-list section.