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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
@KJP1, regarding your revert, I would like to point out that – apart from the imho doubtful, partly unencyclopedic style (e.g., using ellipsises) – there are also some typographical flaws and inconsistencies included in the given version of the captions. Hildeoc (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hildeoc - First, thanks for bringing this to Talk. And I'm absolutely fine with your making any typographical amendments you think necessary. MoS is not my strongest suit. But I do think we need more than blunt captions. This is a section in its own right, rather than just an illustration, and the text "tells a story". As to whether that approach is encyclopaedic or not, I fully accept that you take a different view. I would only point out that it was the style in place when eight editors supported the article's promotion to FA. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
