Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) edit
Respectfully request peer review of this article for problems that I may have missed. Cla68 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin edit
Outstanding article (as usual!); some minor stuff:
- Is it "Operation Mo" or the "Mo operation"? The two seem to be used interchangeably, but I'm not sure if that's actually correct (c.f. "Operation Market Garden" versus the "Marked Garden operation"; the latter is basically never seen in literature).
- Multiple footnotes in the same place (e.g. #33–35, 36–38) should be combined.
- In the first paragraph of the "Landings and air attacks" section, deciphering "R.A.A.F." is fairly easy, but what does "A.I.G." stand for?
- There should probably be a {{dablink}} at the top for the other engagements at Tulagi.
Other than that, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I italicized all instances of Mo and deleted the phrase "Mo operation," combined the footnotes, replaced "A.I.G." with "commandos," and added the template to the top as you suggested. Thank you for the helpful suggestions. Cla68 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I may not have been clear on what I meant about the footnotes. I wasn't suggesting that multiple footnotes to the same source be combined (although you can do that, of course, if you like that style), but rather that multiple footnotes located at the same point in the text should be merged into a single footnote, eliminating the dangling chain of note numbers. Kirill Lokshin 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. Isn't it, like, 2 o'clock in the morning on the U.S. east coast right now? You've been editing for 16-hours straight:) Cla68 06:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only 1 o'clock, actually (not that that's much better, admittedly!) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. Isn't it, like, 2 o'clock in the morning on the U.S. east coast right now? You've been editing for 16-hours straight:) Cla68 06:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I may not have been clear on what I meant about the footnotes. I wasn't suggesting that multiple footnotes to the same source be combined (although you can do that, of course, if you like that style), but rather that multiple footnotes located at the same point in the text should be merged into a single footnote, eliminating the dangling chain of note numbers. Kirill Lokshin 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Balloonman edit
Sorry this won't help much, the article is already pretty solid, but there were some REALLY long sentences in the article. Unlike many, they were pretty readable, but I am not a big fan of sentences that take 6 lines! Too many people have short attention spans and can't comprehend that much information in one block. Balloonman 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think they're as long as some of the sentences that Faulkner is known for writing. But, I hear what you're saying and will relook to see what I can do about it. One of the A-class reviewers said that there are some grammar problems with the article which may be related to your concern. Thank you for the review and suggestion. Cla68 12:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)