Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando

No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando
This is a new article on an unusual Second World War formation. It was the largest commando in the British Army but never fought together as a unit, it men being used is small numbers attached to other formations. Its No.3 Troop could probably deserve its own article but most of its activities are still secret or have never been told. As ever any suggestions to improve the article would be appreciated. I do have a number of books ordered from the library which may have some further details. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
A few comments for you to do with as you want (mainly just style issues, unfortunately):
 * instead of including the list of Troops in the infobox in the Size field, I'd suggest including the number of men for the size, and making a new section in the article called "Structure" which could provide a detailed OOB;
 * suggest renaming the History section to Background;
 * suggest reducing the size of the recognition badge in the infobox as it kind of overly dominates the article (see for instance No. 3 Commando);
 * the second sentence in the lead would probably sound better if it were combined with the third;
 * there is a mixture of capitalisation of the word "commando" in the lead;
 * an image at the top of the infobox would look good IMO;
 * suggest wikilinking "troop" in the History section;
 * there is a bit of whitespace in the Formation section on my screen due to the placement of the first image of the Polish Troop;
 * why was the arrival of the Dutch troop first "confusing"?
 * this sentence in the Operations section doesn't quite seem right: "While men from the French No. 1 Troop were attached to No.3 and No. 4 Commando to act as interpreters gather information and persuade Frenchmen to return with them to England to enlist in the Free French forces";
 * in the 1943 subsection could a couple of the one sentence paragraphs be combined?
 * a number of sentences need more commas, for example this one: "These raids under the code names of Hardtack and Tarbrush were for beach reconnaissance the men bringing back photographs and examples of mines and obstacles that had been laid";
 * wikilink George Lane on first mention as that article exists;
 * wikilink the commando order (which should also be capitalised as it is a proper noun);
 * suggest avoiding terms like "unfortunately" and "enemy" as they convey a point of view (example in 1944 subsection);
 * this sentence in the 1944 subsection doesn't seem right: "Corporal Peter Masters No. 3 Troop was attached to No. 6 Commando was ordered to walk down the main street of what seemed a deserted village to draw fire and identify where the Germans were hiding";
 * in the 1944 section I think "allies" should be capitalised;
 * in the 1944 section you capitalise " Assault on Walcheren " but this doesn't seem correct to me. I suggest decaps and wikilinking it;
 * there are a number of single sentence paragraphs, which I feel should be combined to make multiple sentence paragraphs (e.g. first paragraph of 1945 section);
 * in the 1945, I suggest wikilinking Sweden;
 * in the 1945 you capitalise "Liberation of Norway"; I suggest uncaps and wikilink;
 * in the Legacy section I think the word "on" is missing from this sentence: "After the Second World War No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando was disbanded 4 September 1945" (I feel it should be inserted in from from 4 September);
 * in the Legacy section wikilink "Royal Marines";
 * in the Legacy section "western" (as in nations) should be capitalised as it is a proper noun;
 * in the Legacy section, this is not a complete sentence: "The Dutch Troop the Korps Commandotroepen,[46] and the Belgian Troop the Paracommando Brigade". (It is missing a predicate).
 * citation # 10 is not correctly capitalised IMO: it should be fully capitalised, thusly: "The Real Inglorious Basterds";
 * citations # 35 and 36 should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as you consolidate others (van der Bijl, p.49 );
 * the date ranges in the References section should have endashes, I believe;
 * the following citations could be consolidated: van der Bijl, p. 6; 25 and 49 according to the citation checker tool.

Good work so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a through peer review most of points corrected. I have been looking for a suitable image for the inf box. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done. I'll keep my eyes peeled for any appropriate images and let you know if I find anything. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)