Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armed Forces of Liberia

Much improvement has been made to this article and now some outside opinions on where it needs to go now would be helpful. Buckshot06(prof) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, and I imagine that it wasn't easy to find sources! My comments are:

I think that the 'history' section should go before the 'organisation' section as it provides context
The status of the 23rd Infantry Brigade is unclear; is this a 'paper' unit, or is it a proper brigade which is currently being formed?
The box showing the structure of the military as authorised in 1956 needs to be integrated with the article (eg, the box states that the Army was to have four large brigades while the text states that it never reached a full brigade).
The paras in the 'Doe Regime' section need more sources. Also, why was the LNG Brigade important? [presumably because it was the largest armed force in the country)
Should the coverage of UNMIL be expanded?
The 'Defence Budget' section is a bit short - could it be merged into the 'Rebuilding the AFL' section? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ground forces" section needs expansion to explain how the Liberian army fights tactically. How many men in a battalion, how are they armed, and how do they fight? What ranks do they use? What vhicles do they possess? Use this section as an example.
Again, botht the "Coast guard" and "Air wing" sections need paragraphs about tactical organization.
This "History" section is great, I can't see any way you could improve it apart from doing what Nick just said ;-)
A section on uniforms and clothing would be good.

All in all a great article, though it could use a bit of expansion.--Patton^t/c 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems to be a bit odd in that is first states what the subject is doing instead of what it is, eg first sentence "Ariel Sharon is currently in a coma"
The footnotes will need to be presented in a consistent format. At the moment, some dates, and titles are missing, and not even in the same foramt. Also, some footnotes need to be merged instead of being repeated.
There seens to be a lot of recentism in the history section, particularly the last ten years. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]