This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
In the lead, P2, S2: the word superior could easily be taken as POV; perhaps it could be changed to something like "numerically superior" or something else that conveys the same idea without the potential baggage of the current word.
I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Really just the one issue with the word superior; I see no reason why this won't pass when that is resolved. Great job on the article! —
Bellhalla (
talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
In the lead, P2, S2: the word superior could easily be taken as POV; perhaps it could be changed to something like "numerically superior" or something else that conveys the same idea without the potential baggage of the current word.
I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Really just the one issue with the word superior; I see no reason why this won't pass when that is resolved. Great job on the article! —
Bellhalla (
talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--
Jackyd101 (
talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)reply