This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2006-07-08 This is the basic outline of what needs to be done. Early encounters text needs to be substantiated with references; I adapted much of the text from John French, 1st Earl of Ypres.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 19, 2019. |
I have removed the image of a Serbian medal ribbon which was wrongly being used to illustrate a Montenegrin medal. I don't think we have a ribbon for the Montenegrin Obilić Medal. DuncanHill (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting sections on reputation to the article Draft:Reputation of Douglas Haig and then moving it to the main space. It looks like the article meets the criteria for splitting, and another article in the draft space seems to have expanded on this section. It already is over the recommended Wikipedia:Splitting size limit, and says the splitting is very likely needed at the current article length. aaronneallucas (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting. The article, Reputation of Douglas Haig, looks really good. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has made the article live. Will copyedit it and then slim down the relevant bits in this article, being careful not to lose anything.Paulturtle (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has tagged the page as "too long to read and navigate comfortable". I am removing the tag as I think, in this case, the length is not unreasonable and fragmenting the flow of the article would be unhelpful. I happy to consider proposals from a willing editor as to how they propose to spilt it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]