Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Douglas Wimberley

Douglas Wimberley
This is my first major article creation and therefore would like to know whether it is up to the standard expected of the Military history WikiProject. Not exactly necessary, but it complements the 51st HD page.

Harlsbottom 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Very nice article! A few suggestions for further improvements, in no particular order: Overall, though, this is a great start! Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough material that a more-or-less meaningful Infobox Military Person can be added.
 * Any extant pictures of him? Given his position, I would think some official photos might be available under Crown Copyright.
 * As you mentioned on the talk page, there are some gaps in the narrative that should be filled in; but this will obviously require finding some more sources.
 * Inline citations would be nice to have, particularly if you start adding material from more obscure sources. It's also a good idea to start adding them early on, as they've become required for GA and FA status.

AndyZ
Some more comments:


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.


 * Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like and  may be useful here.


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.


 * As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.


 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Harlsbottom
Thank you, gentlemen, for the comments.


 * Dates will be brought to standard when I have a chance.
 * Footnotes, and the length of the article, will be improved when I've finished trawling through Montgomery's opinion of Wimberley. When I've accumulated information from my sources I'll put in foot-notes and citations and the article should have more depth then.
 * Will study WP:LEAD and make changes accordingly.

Cheers, Harlsbottom 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit of content, cleaned it up as much as I can and added all the citations I can from secondary sources without going to Scotland and reading the autobiography (!). Is it worth another review in its present state?

Cheers, Harlsbottom 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks much better now! The only major suggestion I have—aside from adding more material (and images?) if you do manage to find anything useful—would be to fill out the lead section; there's enough material in the article now that two or three full paragraphs would not be inappropriate.  Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)