Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive3

World War II

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a core article, and hopefully can be brought to FA, however, I feel that a PR is needed before nominating.

Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I notice you haven't made any edits to the article. Please notify the some of the more active editors on this article and see if this is a good time for them to respond to comments in a peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified 5 or 6 editors that appear to be the most active on the article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

I've been heavily engaged with this article over the last few years. Before reading through the article again, I have the following comments:

Any attempt at bringing this article to FA standard should involve first developing the article to the Military History Wikiproject's A-class standards
I tried this last year, but gave up as a) it was going to be a huge amount of work given that all significant changes to the article need to be discussed on the talk page and there wasn't a great deal of enthusiasm for this project from other editors and b) I was uncomfortable with nominating an article for A-class status without either checking all the sources myself, or having editors in good standing perform such checks.
The article has way too many photos, some of which aren't well chosen.
Don't get me started about the infobox (why is Mexico there at the moment for instance?)
Historically there's been a tendency for editors to add material on their hobby horses to this article (including material on unimportant aspects of the war and a bit of POV pushing) and I'm sure that some of this remains and needs to be removed or re-written
All that said, there's no reason why this can't be developed to A-class and then FA standard, and I'd be happy to help with this. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

probably not a bad idea to start with a-class for now. I think checklinks might help with source checking, you can see a small version of the page. then again. there are 300 of them. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of sources are to hard copy books. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah. I may be able to dig some stuff up on jstor if need be. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also am ready to participate in this work. Maybe, for the beginning, it makes sense to take some section and develop it to the A-class standards?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

probably the best way to do it. perhaps start with the lead, and work our way down. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest leaving the lead until last given that it's meant to be a summary of the entire article. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good point. hate to fix up the lead, only to have to go back and redo it because of fixes to the rest of the article.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]