Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Have made a number of improvements to the article. Would appreciate comments and suggestions for further work. Buckshot06(prof) 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Woody
Overall, it has problems, the majority stemming from the article being the product of plagiarism. Some comments:
- "Selecting the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) was easy, since everyone’s first choice..." That is just speculation and not very encyclopedic in its tone, just say "The first choice for Commander was..."
- Actually, after looking into it, this section is copied directly from NATO which might be an infringement of copyright, but is most certainly plagiarism. Remove the copied text and write neutrally and in your own words.
- The relocation to Belgium section could be more concise. Merge the short paragraphs (ie all of them) into three or four all-consuming paragraphs.
- It is currently very bullet-pointy, the prose needs a lot of work in this section to make it flow. Again, this is the result of plagiarism from NATO.
- All of the references need to be formatted correctly. Many of them are missing titles, publishers, dates etc. They all need to be written consistently, citation templates can help with this.
- Just have it as a "Further reading" section.
- "ACO is likely to also take command at some point of the..." Instead, write "ACO is likely to take command of ... " and then vigorously source this and the whole structure section.
- There are a lot of unsourced speculative statements, make sure they are referenced and cited.
So, needs a complete rewrite to remove some neutrality issues, which all stem from this article being a copy of the NATO website. It is full of jargon in places as well. Some work still needed. If you have any questions, I will watch this PR, but of course my talkpage is always open. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Borg Sphere
As Woody said, it is very poorly written. It is full of Jargon, some of the prose reads badly, and there's the plagiarism issue. Other than that, it isn't too bad. The structure is fine, although the "Structure" section could use a lot of work. Also, you may wish to make it more obvious that the command structure isn't the current one. The history section could be combined into one or two paragraphs (this throughout the article).