Talk:Blitz Week

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Farreled. Peer reviewers: Dwyersa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Checklist Dwyersa (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? - Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. - Nothing that is distracting, or gets in the way. - Consider uploading a picture of WWII European boundary lines for extra context, and maps of each country mentioned.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - This article is probably one of the most neutral articles I've ever read, you're good.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Provides a good balance of each topic, well organized too. I believe I said this in my original Review of the article

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? - Source 1 Seems fine, although it does link to a flagged wiki article. If there us a better source available with the same information, you may consider switching those. - Source 2 is a good one. Very trustworthy. - Source 3 Good source. Reliable. - Source 4 is good. Old, but still fine because this is a historical topic. - Source 5 is very old, and because it's a news source there may have been later revelation about the events described. Just double check that the info is true. - Source 6 is good. - Source 7 is a bit old, so check to make sure information hasn't been updated - Source 8 is good. - Source 9 A bit old, do the same as the others. - Source 10 is good. - Source 11 is good. - Source 12 is good. - Source 13 has a sketchy looking site, and it's trademarked by one guy. Probably doesn't mean anything though.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? - Each fact has a citation next to it. - The Sources are (mostly) fine - The sources are neutral in both tone and context

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? - As previously mentioned, I suggest that you include maps to deliver a better context for viewers who may not already know about WWII, and some of your sources are old, but that's to be expected with a historical topic.

Completely agreeing to all of that ^ EmGaGa (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]