Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia/archive1

With respect, your opposition seems a little hasty. I'll look at the lead and table accessibility issues. I challenge your objection about red links, this area of military history is severely underrepresented on en WP, and all of the redlinks are plausible articles under WP:GNG and supporting MILHIST notability guidelines. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is FLC, not MILHIST. WP:WIAFL criterion 5a requires that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." (my emphasis). And accessibility on more technical articles is absolutely key. Combining those with the inadequate lead, you should understand the opposition? An alternative would be to send it to peer review where this issues can (and should) be resolved before nominations are made at FLC. It also seems that the MILHIST A-Class list review is somewhat lacking if these basics are overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clear. This is my first FLC, although I have successfully nominated a few FACs in the past, and have not struck immediate opposition to an article's candidacy there. In general, my experience has been that where an article meets most but not all FA criteria upon nomination, reviewers (including myself) generally make comments and indicate that they would oppose if they were not addressed. I have found this approach tends to encourage rather than discourage editors from nominating appropriate articles, and encourages learning by less experienced editors. Thank you for your comments, I will address them regardless of your opposition and will note here when they have been addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are now per the "good" examples at MOS:DTT. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it later. I also noticed you use the x for "times" rather than the multiplication symbol. Also there's a considerable amount of unnecessary capitalisation. Anyway, after the lead and links issues are fixed, I'll happily do a more in-depth review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

multiplication symbols fixed and lead expanded. I'd appreciate a steer towards where the overcapitalisation is, I just looked through the article and it's not jumping out at me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly little things like "Mobilisation Status" -> "Mobilisation status", it's usually in the table headings I found the issue. However, I'll try to do a full review shortly.... (famous last words) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

• "Serbo-Croat" is linked too many times throughout. It looks like you're using the {{lang-sh}} template, which is cool, but you should use the "links=no" parameter on second and subsequent usages.

• Thanks, have never had anyone mention that parameter before, it answers a question I've had many times before about overlinking. Fixed.

• Better expanded intro, but surely you should be talking about the order of battle perhaps by linking it, so non-experts understand what you're talking about?

• Done, check if you think the link inclusion is ok?

• " 33 divisions and 10 independent brigades, but due to tentative and incomplete mobilisation, only seven divisions and six smaller" check MOS:NUM for comparable figures within a sentence (i.e. they need to be similarly formatted). This should be applied across the whole article.

• I think I have addressed this, but it is a little unclear when there are numerals relating to different things in the same sentence. For example, while all the aircraft numbers should be in numerals for consistency, it isn't clear if it should be four or 4 air brigades. Air brigades are not comparable to aircraft, so perhaps not. Thoughts?

• "the bulk ... the bulk" can read a little bit repetitive.

• fixed.

• The flag is, well, interesting, but nothing more than decorative. Is there a more pertinent image you could include?

• each service has its own "standard", the Army has the national flag, the Air Force has its roundel, and the Navy has its ensign. That was the purpose of including the flag, as it represents the Army. Perhaps a more explicit caption?

• Why not write "Varazdin" as "Varaždin" as you're using diacritics elsewhere?

• Done.

• What does the (-) mean in "1st Cavalry Division (-)"?

• removed, unnecessary.

• Caption says "Obsolete Yugoslav FT tank " does this mean it was obsolete at the time? Suggest a more comprehensive caption.

• Done.

• What is "vz." in the next caption?

• Model/Year, but I have anglicised it and added links.

• Beginning to get a feeling that you could merge a lot of these subsections into larger tables, including the section heading as a row-spanned entry, it would look a lot neater, and any pertinent notes could be included in therein.

• I don't agree with this point, I have amalgamated a few tables as you suggested, but I believe the tables are now logically divided and topically organised.

• I especially see this when it comes to the different aircraft type, it would be easy to add the type as a column.

• Done.

• When you say an aircraft is obsolete, what does that mean?

• explanation added.

• Navy section has a large number of red links within the table (we've already noted this...)

• Have now reduced the number of redlinks significantly. Thoughts?

• "Completes" do you mean "Completed"?

• Yup, fixed.

• This table could benefit from being sortable.

• Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]