Strong object, completely uncited and unreferenced, full of weasel wording and unattributed opinion, has multiple list sections, and so forth.
Kirill Lokshin16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Changed to Strong object. Sorry, but a deeper analysis shows more worrying mistakes than I thought at first. I'm compiling a list of all those that I've been able to detect, and I'll discuss it at the Talk page once it's ready.
Phaedriel♥The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ -
14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Object Not strongly, however, as it seems a fair amount of research has gone into this article. Many citations and a bulkier lead would sway my opinion though.
UberCryxic19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Object A featured article on a battle with no maps or references? There are 3 english maps available at wikicommons, what's wrong with them?
Mieciu K16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - why are you people opposing this article? the person definetely spend a lot of time doing quality research with legit sources, provided a lot of detail (casualties, progression, etc.), found good pictures, and kept it un-biased. I wish history textbooks very like this article. --
GoOdCoNtEnT07:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Object - this is a good article. However, the objects above cannot be ignored. I suggest you recommend this article for GA status first. --
ZeWrestlerTalk17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong object, completely uncited and unreferenced, full of weasel wording and unattributed opinion, has multiple list sections, and so forth.
Kirill Lokshin16:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Changed to Strong object. Sorry, but a deeper analysis shows more worrying mistakes than I thought at first. I'm compiling a list of all those that I've been able to detect, and I'll discuss it at the Talk page once it's ready.
Phaedriel♥The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ -
14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Object Not strongly, however, as it seems a fair amount of research has gone into this article. Many citations and a bulkier lead would sway my opinion though.
UberCryxic19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Object A featured article on a battle with no maps or references? There are 3 english maps available at wikicommons, what's wrong with them?
Mieciu K16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - why are you people opposing this article? the person definetely spend a lot of time doing quality research with legit sources, provided a lot of detail (casualties, progression, etc.), found good pictures, and kept it un-biased. I wish history textbooks very like this article. --
GoOdCoNtEnT07:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Object - this is a good article. However, the objects above cannot be ignored. I suggest you recommend this article for GA status first. --
ZeWrestlerTalk17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply