Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Dunkirk

Battle of Dunkirk

Nominated because I'd like to know what else I need to do to promote this article above "B"-class.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuprum17

Overall the article looks very good. Very organized and well linked.

• A red link Bulscamp exists in the article under the 'Defence of the perimeter' section, which if the spelling is changed to Bulskamp will redirect to Veurne. If this is the same locale, I would suggest making a spelling change for Bulscamp or changing the name to Veurne in the article. You would have to do a little research to see if each of these names refer to the same locale. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

• The article is far too brief to get beyond B-class at this stage, considering its place in world history
• Large parts of the article are unsourced.
• Lead is too short
• The article starts with the invasion of France without explaining any background, and although it is obvious to most people for some it would be difficult to understand

YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, good work so far. These are my comments:

• Bibliography could be formatted with {{cite book}} template;
• Lead could be expanded up to four paragraphs;
• Each paragraph needs a citation for B class, more for higher;
• Per the WP:MOS headings shouldn't begin with 'The';
• Try to add the links in the See also section into the text.

Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101

Hi, not a bad short article, but that is also its principal problem - it is far too short and lacking in detail. For an operation of this importance (and it shouldn't be forgotten that disaster here could well have knocked Britain out of the war) there is a severe lack of pertinent details - where particular defensive actions took place, when and involving which units on either side in a blow by blow breakdown. Other specific points:

• The lead is too short and inadequate for introducing the article.
• The entire evacuation section is vital - without the evacuation there would have been no evacuation and vice versa - even though it has its own article, this article must carry an extended discussion of the event. Always remember that each article should be able to stand on its own as a useable resource.
• More sources needed throughout, preferably from a wide range of historical viewpoints and national perspectives.
• The in popular culture section is a mess - I agree that one is relevant for this article, but it needs to be in the form of coherent sentences.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments, all. Do others agree the evacuation section needs to be expanded?

  I originally proposed to merge the two articles (Dunkirk evacuation and Battle of Dunkirk), but the idea did not seem popular. Given that the evacuation does have a separate article, I wasn't previously minded to give that bit much in the way of detail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please to expandions YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, what I was asking was not that the Dunkirk evacuation article be duplicated here. However I think it is absolutely vital that the evacuation is given a detailed summary: without explaining the evacuation in enough detail for it to stand on its own, you cannot put both the causes and effects of the battle into their correct context.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)