Jump to content

Talk:German attack on Vimy Ridge order of battle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

The operation title should be in italics but it didn't work.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New header

[edit]

@Vami IV: Shouldn't B class be showing on the article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I goofed up assessing the article to B-Class standards. The only indicators of article quality that appear on the article itself are Good and Featured Articles. –Vami_IV✠ 15:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you've re-assessed it from B to start. Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with B1? Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imported discussion

[edit]

@AustralianRupert: Orders of battle for the German Attack on Vimy Ridge, 21 May 1916 B1-3 recently downgraded, justified? Keith-264 (talk) 5:45 pm, 22 March 2018, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC+0)

Just a query, but shouldn't this be assessed as a list? If it is, I'd argue that it is at least CL-class, if not very close to BL. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 1:06 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)
I don't know, it's the first one I've done from scratch, what does it need for B? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 1:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
G'day, Keith, there are some good examples here: Category:BL-Class military history articles. Essentially, a decent lead that puts the list in context and summarises it, multiple elements that fully treat the topic, an image (or more) and citations for everything. As such, I feel it would be close to BL. Regards, AustralianRupert.
I was thinking of something specific like the citations. Is (Data taken from Rogers The German Attack at Vimy Ridge [2010] pp. 46–47 unless indicated.) enough or should I cite each line? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS I couldn't find a better diagram for the infobox but i'll have another go. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Keith, those citations seems fine. I have seen that method used before in lists. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]