Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Easter Offensive

Easter Offensive
Been working on this stub for a while. Turned out pretty long, and would like some constructive criticism. RM Gillespie 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WT
Looks quite good, but the 'ibid's should be replaced with full citations. Any wikitext can always be changed, leading to wrong citations if a new quote gets inserted carelessly. I suggest to reduce your overall amount of citation and just put references for each chapter. Wandalstouring 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank for the suggestions. Have straightened out the "ibid" problem, but do not feel a change in the footnote structure is warranted at this time. RM Gillespie 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Overall, very good; just a few nitpicky points to look at: Keep up the great work! Kirill 02:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "correct title of which is the Nguyen Hue Offensive" - presumably you mean that was the PAVN name for the operation? It may be a good idea to explain the naming issue more explicitly, even if only in a footnote.
 * I don't think it's necessary to italicize PAVN divisional designations; the underlying convention is likely to be totally meaningless to the average reader, who won't understand why some units are italicizes while others aren't.
 * The "See also" section can be removed, I think; all of those links are prominently given in the article already, so there's no need to repeat them.
 * The external link should ideally be annotated to explain what exactly it's a link to; raw links aren't usually the most helpful for the reader.


 * Kiril, once again a loudly vocal "muchos gracias" for your suggestions. Have added a footnote to explain the name discrepancy and removed the "see also" links. Should the italicizations be removed? I would think that it would remove confusion, since there are so many units identified by numerical designations. It would not really matter if either side were so identified. RM Gillespie 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably go ahead and remove the italics; while using them to distinguish sides is a clever approach when dealing with an audience that understands it, I suspect most readers won't realize that the different font is intentional. Kirill 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. RM Gillespie 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)