Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Unification of Germany

German Unification edit

This article had a major overhaul in the past 6 weeks, and has had a Project Germany review, but needs the military history review as well. I am completely baffled by the instructions on how to move/copy/relink an archived peer review from 3 years ago to this new review. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey edit

If you are looking for GA and above, then they will expect you to have a citation (at least one per paragraph) to cover the info

::done.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated references need to be merged. I will do some examples for you

see below, I saw your addition to the Kaplan reference. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also for number ranges, ndash needs to be used instead of a small hyphen.

done--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Further reading, I think the blurb should be changed to rm "suggestions" and the sentence as otherwise the article seems to be endorsing certain books,m which isnt allowed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go though and add the ndash, if that's the correct thing to use. I don't understand all your abbreviations, such as rm and m ....

the use of merged references I find extremely confusing to read, especially since most of them have different page numbers anyway.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Monkey's comments have been incorporated. Now what? What else should be done to move this along to a B? (or higher). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87 edit

A large number of citations refer to a number of books, but don't actually have any page numbers; this needs to be fixed immediately. I'd also support merging references if the same page-numbers are used. For reference, rm=remove and m=moerge/move depending on the context. The article also seems to rely on Sheehan quite a bit - a bit more variety might not be a bad idea, there are more than enough books listed in the Further References section to use. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus edit

The first and only instance of the use of word Poland was not wikified, leading me to note that the article needs many more wikilinks. Link to War of the Fourth Coalition added. I also wonder why the article doesn't mention that part of the "unification" included lands of the Prussian partition of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]