Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army
I've been working on this for more than a month now (though the article itself it quite new; research started way back) and now it's finally presentable. There are still areas to be improved, which is what I'm hoping reviewers will point out. I'm specifically interested in opinions of the layout, presentation, etc. With any luck, a WP:FAC hopeful. -- Миборовский 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin
[edit]Looks very nice, overall, although I would think that WP:FLC would be a better fit than WP:FAC. A few largely formatting-related remarks:
- The colors are a bit too bland; I'd suggest using a slightly more distinctive color for the table headers, to make parsing the table a bit easier. (Might I suggest our ubiquitous lightsteelblue?)
- {{KIA}} would be better than raw characters in the commander lists.
- I assume the asterisks in the lists of battles mean something important, but I can't find any indication of what that might be.
- Are the army groups and commanders not wikified due to a lack of articles at this point? The bulk of them would qualify for individual ones, I would think.
- What does "No information available" mean, in this case? (Or, more precisely, to whom is it not available?)
- The internal borders don't seem to render very consistently, but it might just be me. In any case, slightly varying the background color to create a striped effect may be easier to work with than trying to get such complex borders to work right (particularly if you change the table header color, as mentioned above).
Hope that helps! Kirill 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Can always count on Kirill to provide a prompt and discerning review. ;)
- I was using FAC generically. FLC will probably be the most correct destination. :D
- I am m using class="wikitables" and its default header color is that really light blue/aqua. I'm not sure how to override that.
- Done.
- The asterisks will be gradually removed and their true destiny shall be revealed. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of... They're an editing help and I can't remove them right now, but the finished product will not have them (or will use them in another capacity, which of course shall be duly noted).
- Most of them would indeed qualify for an article, but indeed, there is insufficient "infrastructure" at the present, so the article would be a mass of red if they were wikified. Creating individual articles for the army groups would also be very, very time-consuming, unless I just copy-paste what I have on this page to their individual pages... not the best course of action IMO. In the following days I will probably create articles for the various commanders, but individual articles for all army groups might not be created for quite a while.
- I have not been able to find reliable, accurate, complete data regarding these units. These 3 were formed after the war with Japan, and the vast majority of source content I have deal with 37-45 exclusively. Yet I don't want to change the scope of the article... so they are "no information available" at the moment.
- You mean an alternating white/light color stripe? That could work instead of having a header for every single entry... I wouldn't know what colors to use for that though. As for the borders rendering, it's a problem I noticed a while ago working on another article. Borders don't render very well in extremely long/complex tables, or when they are a lot of them (10+) on the same page. This is also why I grouped the entries into 10s instead of all together. Cutting the redundant headers could work...
- Thanks for the review. -- Миборовский 04:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of borders, I actually meant vertical rather than horizontal stripes. In other words, something like this:
- The color change in the "Organization column is, admittedly, a bit bizarre; perhaps a straight horizontal layout would be better for that than a multi-column vertical one:
- This would eliminate the need for most (all?) of the internal borders. Kirill 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah interesting. It looks cleaner and better-defined than my current version. However the mass of wiki-markup required looks quite intimidating... and the lack of horizontal borders could possibly lead to some unclearness over which commander fought which battles. I think I could tweak this a bit... stay tuned. -- Миборовский 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
| Unit | Organization | Commanders | From | To | Major battles | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Army Group 第一集團軍 |
Established | Aug 1937 | Disbanded | Apr 1938 | Song Zheyuan 宋哲元 |
Aug 1937 | Apr 1938 | Tianjin-Pukou Railway Operation Battle Northern and Eastern Henan |
| Reestablished | Oct 1938 | Reorganized into 1st Army Corps | Sep 1947 | Long Yun 龍雲 |
Oct 1938 | Jan 1939 | N/A | |
| Lu Han 盧漢 |
Jan 1939 | Mar 1945 | Battle of Nanchang First Battle of Changsha 1939 Winter Offensive* Second Battle of Changsha* Third Battle of Changsha* Battle of Zhejiang-Jiangxi* Battle of West Hubei* Battle of Changde* | |||||
| Sun Du 孫渡 |
Mar 1945 | Sep 1947 | N/A | |||||
| Unit | Organization | Commanders | From | To | Major battles | |||
| 2nd Army Group 第二集團軍 |
Established | Sep 1937 | Reorganized into 4th Appeasement Area | Oct 1945 | Liu Shi 劉峙 |
Sep 1937 | Feb 1938 | Beiping-Hankou Railway Operation Battle of Taiyuan* |
| Sun Lianzhong 孫連仲 |
Feb 1938 | Aug 1943 | Battle of Suizao* 1939 Winter Offensive* Battle of Zaoyi* Battle of South Henan* Second Battle of Changsha* Battle of West Hubei* | |||||
| Liu Ruming 劉汝明 |
Aug 1943 | Oct 1945 | Battle of Changde* Battle of West Henan-North Hubei* | |||||
Something like this. Thoughts? -- Миборовский 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nice, but I'm wondering if the multiple "columns" within "Organization" are going to be obvious to the reader without any sort of visual distinction. I'm not sure what a good way of formatting the text to avoid that would be, though. Kirill 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are probably correct... maybe I should change it to the two-line format you used, and also combined From and To dates in one column, ie. "Sep 1937 - May 1939"... Of course there's still the problem of the code being a MESS, with potential for the server to fubar while rendering it... -- Миборовский 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now completely revamped as per suggestions above. -- Миборовский 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)