Lead improvement effort

I think this article's current lead section can be improved in many ways. I have attempted to do so and my good faith efforts can be seen in this revision. I do not quite agree with the rationale given by the user who reverted almost if not all the modifications I made. - Zaheen (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is totally ok for one general overview article that cover all militaries, and describe the most common aspects for them in clear and understandable way. This is not a blog and not a place for OR. Nubia86 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective. I certainly did not write a blog, nor did I engage in OR. It was intended to be a lead of this article with key points to be found eventually with details inside the article. It was supposed to give the reader a more accessible overview of the article. While the current lead is ok at best, it can be improved content-wise and language-wise in my opinion. Let's take my first paragraph, could you please tell me where it is OR or blog-like in this purely definitional paragraph that I wrote? I genuinely don't see it. --Zaheen (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current long-standing content (incl. the first paragraph) seems clear, understandable for readers, and concise for general overview article. Nubia86 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you mean to say that my modified first paragraph was not OR, nor a blog, but also not clear and not understandable for readers? How so? Which parts of the first paragraph are unclear or not understandable? --Zaheen (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, understandable, readable and especially as it is very important concise, as it is now. Nubia86 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military
No tags for this post.