Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Red Cliffs

Have been working (along with others, notably User:Deadkid_dk) to improve this article, and could use some extra eyes. Hope to get it to FA quality within the next 6 or 8 weeks.
Would like the entire article to reflect WP:MILHIST structure for "battle of" articles. Am not a member; this article intersects with my interest in Taiwan and China.
Later sections not as well referenced as earlier ones; can get to that..
Question: Three advisors described the military situation before the battle; their assessments were flawless. At least one of these assessment stories may be apocryphal. Should the details of the assessment be scattered throughout the article & not specifically attributed to the advisors (that is the present format), or a separate paragraph or two be dedicated simply to their assessments & then the assessments revisited later (e.g., "all of the assessments turned out to be correct...")? If we move the assessment to its own chunk, the current "analysis" section will look a bit gutted...
All comments sincerely appreciated! Ling.Nut 12:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I may be away from Internet access for a week; not sure. I may be slow to respond... thanks! Ling.Nut 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article but there are still some matters that need fixing:

First, the article does not even have on citation. This needs to be fixed as you are looking to get the article FA it is essential.
My other point is that you should get rid of the see also section.

OK, I hope this helps. Kyriakos 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but this article uses the Harvard citation style, so citations are present. _dk 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]