No consensus to promote at this time Nick-D ( talk) 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
I expanded the article significantly in October. Following the failure at the B1 criterion, I decided to show it some more love and expanded it even further. It received a completely new citations system, lots of new sources, plenty of images and such. In the end,
Adamdaley also helped a lot to improve the prose of the article and point the author to some inconsistencies that needed to be sorted out before the article goes public.
All in all, I'm thinking of nominating it for GA and eventually FA status, but I'd love to hear from military historians first. Is it good enough to receive A-class assessment? I certainly hope so. // Halibu tt 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) reply
Wow, thanks for the extensive list. I already fixed most of those in the article (check the recent changes; my personal fork of your list above is located here). Most of them were easy. However, I have trouble with point 1.1 (citing sections). What is it that you want me to do? Cite names of chapters if there are any? Or not cite them?
As to reliability of particular sources:
Let me know should you see any more problems with the article. // Halibu tt 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC) reply