Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Tudela/archive1

Battle of Tudela

I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to put this page on TFA because I want to have a footprint in Wikipedia's history, i don't know if that is a pathetic reason but, if it's ok with you...

Thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

Oh boy, there are a lot of issues to get the article to FA-class. Do not worry if you get B-class then it'd be a lot of easier than it is now. I'll have a review in the future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• referencing/citations: every paragraph needs to be referenced if you wish to take this to FAC -- one at the end of the paragraph is sufficient if everything in the paragraph is covered by that citation, or if not more may be needed throughout the paragraph. Currently, there is a single reference at the end of the section, which does not seem sufficient. If you need to repeat citations, the WP:NAMEDREF function works well
• breadth of sourcing: currently the article references only a couple of websites -- for FA (even for B-class) this will need to be expanded to include some other works -- books and journal articles, for instance
• structure: suggest removing the "Chronology of the battle" second level header and then creating three second level headers: Background, Battle and Aftermath per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. There could be two third level headers in the Background section for the "Strategic situation" and "Geography"
• the Other reading section should probably be labelled "Further reading"
• I wouldn't suggest including annotated assessments of sources as is currently done in the Other reading section as this is very subjective and based on opinion rather than citations
• replace the bare urls with formatted references (either manual or templated -- for instance {{cite web}})
• avoid sandwiching text between images, for instance currently the Battle section sandwiches text between the map and recreation image
• make sure everything that is in the infobox is mentioned, and referenced, in the body
• French/Polish strength is listed as 31,000 in the infobox, but 30,000 in the lead
• French/Polish casualties are listed as 650 in the infobox, but 600 in the lead
• I'm afraid I can't comment on content, but editors like Auntieruth55 may be able to assist here
• suggest mentioning the casualties in the Aftermath

@Great Mercian: G'day, Great Mercian, I hope you are well. Just checking you've seen these suggestions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, yes I have and this will be a [REDACTED] nightmare, but I and everyone else will try, try, TRY to get everything done.

No worries, all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Great Mercian: G'day, given this has been open since early October and there have been no new comments since mine, I'd suggest closing this now per WP:PRG. You will still be able to access the review page to action anything you wish to, in your own time. If you need a hand processing the close, please let me know. I'd be happy to make the necessary edits for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Hello my good friend, progress is slow because people don't know about this. I am trying my best.

No worries, all good. I will leave it open and check back in a month or so. You might be able to get some assistance if you post a request over at WT:MILHIST. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)