Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army

Army Groups of the National Revolutionary Army[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am nominating this article which I have worked on for the past few months. Basically, it lists the army groups of the Chinese army in the Second Sino-Japanese War, including their organization, commanders, and important battles. I believe it now meets all WP:FLC requirements. A prior WP:MILHIST peer review can be found here. -- Миборовский 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as self-nom of course. -- Миборовский 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (for now) ~~Oppose~~ Support. I see the book references, but I would like to see more inline citations for the specifics such as battles and commanders. I would like to see what others think about this before I tilt either way based on this. ludahai 魯大海 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I have given thought to what citation format to use. I think it would be unfeasible and unsightly to use inline citations. It will likely result in more than 300 references (there's at a rough count around 120 commanders and a lot more battles) which will be difficult on the eyes as well as on the engine (which cannot support extensive tables which is why the list is in 4 sections) and I don't know if it can handle such a large amount of inline citations. -- Миборовский 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the fact that there are no inline citations, which as I read more featured lists, it seems standard. ludahai 魯大海 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*SIGH* I could convert it to inline. But it will look ugly. -- Миборовский 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A separate column in the table could be devoted to the inline citations. Other pages do it. I think that would accomplish the goal while still maintaining the overall good appearance of the list. ludahai 魯大海 14:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have included inline citations but to prevent them from inundating the page I have restricted them to the headers... I believe that should be sufficiently clear to indicate where I got my sources from, while avoiding a mass of citation links and horrible overall appearance. -- Миборовский 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the references and the other changes that have been made. I now support this page. ludahai 魯大海 13:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) -- Миборовский 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - no in-line refs. Also, section on 41st to 43rd Army Groups looks bad - I am sure info is available somewhere. Renata 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Per inline references, please see above. As for the last 3 entries, I do not have the information. I have done months of research and have not been able to find detailed, credible information for the abovementioned. I do not want to just take stuff from websites online and call them my sources. Published English sources are very hard to come by, and the KMT remains uncooperative as always. -- Миборовский 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English. Do you have some published sources in Chinese? Rmhermen 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No published, reliable sources (which rules out websites and forums) available in Chinese. The KMT (or the ROCA for that matter) is not very cooperative. -- Миборовский 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to inline citation. -- Миборовский 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, support, at least the 41-43 groups are sourced now. Renata 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Миборовский 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the ToC is not moved around without compelling reason (See Wikipedia:Accessibility for an example of why this can be a problem.) One concern though: "N/A" is ambiguous, as it could mean either that there is no data about any battles the unit participated in at the time, or that there simply weren't any battles at all. Also, using "major battles" when it looks like all of them with article are listed sounds inappropriate. Circeus 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that it could cause problems. Thank you for pointing that out. I have changed N/A to None, for commanders who did not see any major battles. The battles with articles are almost always the major ones. There were thousands of battles of different scale so it's unfeasible to write articles for all of them, and as a result what you see on wikipedia are the large ones and the important ones. -- Миборовский 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the recent additions have ben hugely beneficial to the article. I think it now meets all the FL criteria. I can't see anything that would improve it more than has been done already. Well done. Woodym555 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Миборовский 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]