Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Brevity/archive1

Operation Brevity

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added to it quite a bit, expanding practically everything (only section I need to add stuff to now, is the last one on the German counterattack) and I would like to get some feedback before I try bump it up the quality ladder. I do know my grammar can be poor at times, but I’ve checked it over a few times and it seems fine to me – although this is also one of the areas I am hoping any reviewers would be able to especially scrutinise (and let me know because ill never find them lol).

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}

Awesome job so far, very to GA. Some comments:

• On the image in the plans section, see if you can make the caption a complete sentence instead of an image.
• ""Without using the Tiger cubs you have taken the offensive, advanced 30 miles, captured Halfaya and Sollum, taken 500 German prisoners and inflicted heavy losses in men and tanks. For this twenty I tanks and 1000 or 1500 casualties do not seem to heavy a cost."" - Add a reference.
• "Sources" should be "References" and "Footnotes" should be "Notes" See Stanley Cup for an example.
• The "See also" section should come before the References section (after its been renamed from above)
• The External links should come after the "Footnotes" section (last).
• Can you add more categories. As of now there are only two.
• That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the input, ive done a few of the things you have suggested and will work on the other few soon. One question though, am unsure what you are on about in your last point. Could you elaborate?