Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Special reconnaissance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Special reconnaissance

Peer review requested 2007-12-17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. A few points to consider:

• The article unpredictably mixes footnotes and parenthetical citations; you should really decide on one style and use it throughout.

Agreed -- I thought I had converted all to footnotes, but apparently I missed some. Will fix. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Large portions of the article are uncited; this is particularly important with topics such as this one, where the bulk of the material is not common knowledge.

In some cases, I worked from one source and put the material in consecutive paragraphs. My general rule was that until I gave a new citation, it referred to the same source. Is there a better practice?

The typical convention for large sections from the same source(s) is to cite each paragraph; this minimizes the chance of running into later problems if some other editor inserts a paragraph from another source in the middle of a section with no intermediate citations. Kirill 04:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some bulleted lists may be appropriate, but others (e.g. in the "Infiltration" section) can be reasonably rewritten as prose.

There's something symbolically wrong with avoiding bullets in MILHIST, at least for an article after they've been invented. :-) Will look at these. I definitely want to use them for explaining acronyms such as CARVER.

• Long quotes should use blockquote formatting.

There may be some formats I need to learn. I've used angle brackets blockquote /blockquote more these days, but I think I've seen some other formatting methods.

• Bolding should only be used for the title of the article, not as a means of emphasis within the text.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. If you have any suggestions for additional national practices, they'd be very welcome.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)