Difference between revisions of "Talk:First Battle of Mons Dei"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
m (voted) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <h3> {{PAGENAME}} FAC Vote (3/0/ | + | <h3> {{PAGENAME}} FAC Vote (3/0/2) </h3> |
''Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.'' | ''Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.'' | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''Neutral''' | '''Neutral''' | ||
#Not a bad article, but I find that it is a little hard to understand, especially the lead section. I'd like a little more background on the war in this article before I support this. '''''[[User:Ceorana|<font color="#00CCCC">→ Ceo</font>]] \ [[User talk:Ceorana|<font color="#0066CC">squawk</font>]]''''' 04:28, 30 December 2005 (GMT) | #Not a bad article, but I find that it is a little hard to understand, especially the lead section. I'd like a little more background on the war in this article before I support this. '''''[[User:Ceorana|<font color="#00CCCC">→ Ceo</font>]] \ [[User talk:Ceorana|<font color="#0066CC">squawk</font>]]''''' 04:28, 30 December 2005 (GMT) | ||
| + | #If the voice of one NSer who is browsing through to take a break from his own pagework counts, I think this page is fairly well done, but needs to be broken up a bit more clearly. Section divisions, particularly in the battles, to delineate by time, event, or topic (Strategy, Weigari Offense, or Dawn, Day 4, for example) and some maps of the battle lines as they formed, were broken through or driven back would help this article greatly. Minor reworkings of the prose, mainly for style and flow, might also help. [[User:Nairatsa|Nairatsa]] 08:21, 7 January 2006 (GMT) | ||
'''Comments/Questions''' | '''Comments/Questions''' | ||
Revision as of 04:21, 7 January 2006
First Battle of Mons Dei FAC Vote (3/0/2)
Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.
Support
- A well written story that provides all the facts in a great read.HailandKill 04:20, 30 December 2005 (GMT)
- An excellent edition towards the entire collection. If all other articles concerning the war are written with the same dedication I have little doubt that the entire 'War of Golden Sucession' will be nominated. Sarcanza
- I'll give a self-vote for this article. 18:19, 5 January 2006 (GMT)
Oppose
Neutral
- Not a bad article, but I find that it is a little hard to understand, especially the lead section. I'd like a little more background on the war in this article before I support this. → Ceo \ squawk 04:28, 30 December 2005 (GMT)
- If the voice of one NSer who is browsing through to take a break from his own pagework counts, I think this page is fairly well done, but needs to be broken up a bit more clearly. Section divisions, particularly in the battles, to delineate by time, event, or topic (Strategy, Weigari Offense, or Dawn, Day 4, for example) and some maps of the battle lines as they formed, were broken through or driven back would help this article greatly. Minor reworkings of the prose, mainly for style and flow, might also help. Nairatsa 08:21, 7 January 2006 (GMT)
Comments/Questions
- Understandable Ceo; I'll do my best to adress those concerns. Thanks also to Hailandkill; we were talking about the article and FAC issues, and I guess he decided to go for it! Macabees 04:58, 30 December 2005 (GMT)
Additional Commentary
This is a pretty well written article.
And I wish I hadn't ceased to exist so I could of participated... (Keyshona)
This was a good IC fight for me, and a damned good story if I say so myself. (Hailandkill)
