Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008

Promoted

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 20:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

This article has received the Historically Good Article Status. In my belief, it has enough material and citations to withstand A Class review. I'd appreciate the time of any person willing to give it a A class Review. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus71 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 December 2008

• Support This has come a very long way indeed since its peer review. Well done, Perseus, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, we're at A-class status now, methinks. AGK 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Lazulilasher Excellent, excellent article; I very much enjoyed this read. I have a few suggestions which I hope that you find helpful. Most regard the prose/structure of the article. Here are some suggestions from the lead:

• Watch colloquial language: JG 1 was a pioneer wing in more ways than one.' Then explain the several reasons. No need for "in more ways than one"; sounds slightly like an advertisement.
• Redundancies: "It was the first wing to use the Heinkel He 162 jet fighter, and was also the first wing to try out 'aerial bombing' techniques against the USAAF heavy bomber formations." Also, further, moreover, etc can probably be removed from most of the article. And: "try out"? Is there a more precise word?
• Again, we can cut down on some words here: "He was a highly decorated expert pilot (Experten) with 127 kills to his name. Several pilots associated with this unit received honors such as the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and other honors. Several..."
• "The end tally of the wing was close to 700 enemy aircraft shot down"
• "Ironically, it was the only wing that surrendered its Heinkel He 162 jet fighters to the Allies at the end of the war." Ironically? How?

Anyway, great work. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The comments are incorporated. Perseus71 (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CommentSupport MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice article indeed. I do have a few comments to make

• In the Info box: Country Deutsches Reich (I'm unsure about this bout I have seen people disputing about this before)
• In the Info box: Branch Air Force -> Branch Luftwaffe
• In the Info box: Notable commanders either sort them chronologically or alphabetically, now it is unclear
• In the Info box: Notable commanders Herbert Ihlefeld is missing
• "decorated expert pilot (Experten)" -> decorated expert pilot (Experte)
• "Ironically, it was the only wing that" I don't know what is ironic about surrendering aircraft
• "like most other wings (Geschwaders)" -> no s on Geschwader
• "Hunting Forces of Führer (Führer der Jagdkräfte)" -> Führer der Jagdkräfte translates to "Leader of the Fighter Force"
• "A list of known missing or killed in action in Operation Bodenplatte for JG 1 are given in later Sections." Where is this section?
• "German flak cre was unaware" -> German flak crew was unaware
• "geschwaderstab" -> all German nouns must be capitalzed.
• "Gruppenkommandeuren" -> no n on Gruppenkommandeure

MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the comments are incorporated. This does remind of one issue. During the GA review there was no consensus on the Casualties list. For the Opearation Bodenplatte we do have a complete list of casualties. However the reviewer felt that unless you have complete list of ALL casualties, you should not post a list at all. Especially a list for specific operations. You may find it here.Perseus71 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer, my feeling was that including a list of otherwise non-notable (in the WP sense) pilots killed in one operation implies a POV that those pilots were more important than all the other JG 1 pilots killed at other times in the war. And apart from pilots with WP notability (which are listed and linked), I'm not sure a list of all (500 or so?) casualties is appropriate here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment was related to the sentence, which was now removed. The Operation Bodenplatte article has a full list of JG 1 losses on this day. I guess it doesn't require repetition here and indeed it would over proportionally distort the picture. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am surprised the article has no counterpart on de wiki... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport

• "coincidentally, it was the" Capitalization?
• Also, why is it coincidental that they were the only ones to surrender jets to the Anglo-Americans?

• The word is removed in order to address the two comments above. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Watch double linkings, for example Heinkel He 162 is linked twice just in the lead.

• The Double links removed. Effort is made to ensure it does not repeat for other words. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know about the image in the section with all the tables - on my laptop monitor it sandwiches with the tables and covers up part of the text and a section edit link. You might want to move it further down, so it actually looks like it goes with the aircraft section.

• Images are further pushed down. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Heilingenbeil (modern Mamonovo) near baltic coast, Schippenbeil and Arys-Rostken near polish border." Reads awkwardly, needs capitalization and linking.

• Grammar changes incorporated to incorporate the comments. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• " (136 confirmed in 500+ missions)" Confirmed what?

• Clarification added. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Oberst Walter Oesau was banned from operational flying since his 100th kill with JG 2 of a Spitfire on 26 October 1941" Why would be banned from flying for being too good? Please explain this.

• Explanation added. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "This was part of the Battle of Berlin." Specify that it was the Air Battle of Berlin, lest the reader think that it was in support of a ground offensive to capture Berlin.

• Text Changed. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't link to Ardennes Offensive; it just redirects to Battle of the Bulge.

• Internal link removed.

• The See Also section can be integeated as both those topics are linked to earlier in the article.

• Section removed as there are no other relevant links. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• It could use a bit of a copy-edit, the prose is rather choppy in places.

• If you could please provide examples then I'd be happy to correct it. As it is, English is not my primary language hence its difficult for me to identify prose issues. Perseus71 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please get these issues fixed and let me know and I'll support it. – Joe Nutter 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, and I've forgotten the places that I thought could use a copy-edit. It's OK for A-class now, but if you're planning on taking it to FA I'd recommend finding someone, possibly at Our copy-editing place. – Joe Nutter 22:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I am perfectly content to stay with A. I am not going to look for FA at least for a while. Now to move on to the next on the list, JG 11. Perseus71 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remember the Iowa47. As an Iowa Battleship Sailor from Mar. 85 - Mar. 90. and someone who was there, I would hope that none of this will every be forgotten. You can split it up but please DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!!! Thank you. Muddrum

USS Iowa turret explosion

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article about one of the worst peacetime disasters in US Navy history is ready for A-class review. The article is long and detailed because, in my opinion, the story of what led up to the explosion and the investigation into why it happened is so convoluted and controversial. If you believe, however, that the article contains too much detail, as well as any of the usual issues such as prose, grammar, formatting, NPOV, or sourcing issues, I look forward to addressing your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments An initial look

• The First Navy Investigation section should be broken out into an article of its own leaving behind about 50% of what is in place now. At 160k this article needs to be reduced of size.
• The red bar in the infobox is a bit eye-watering. Suggest a more neutral color.
• The Notes section should be given a |2}} option so that it is not so long when scrolling down the last parts of the article.
• A copy editing is needed. I spied several spelling mistakes.
• A great effort on your part for an important event in recent Naval History. --Brad (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that a large part of the size comes from the references, so reducing the size of the relevant prose may not be the best idea. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering splitting the first investigation into a separate article, but am also still trying to figure out if would be best just to cut out a lot of detail. Thank you for the review. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I've now addressed all of your comments, including shortening the article [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments:
  • I agree with Brad's comment about the article being too long. In particular, the lead section is a bit too long and the description of the inquiries probably goes into too much detail
  • The 'background' section needs a copy-edit as it's a bit choppy. The quality of the rest of the article's writing is excellent though.
  • 'turret' is repeated three times in the article's second sentance
  • You don't need to say both that 'Iowa was the lead ship of her class' and 'She was the first ship of her class of battleship to be commissioned by the United States' (the second sentence should be chopped, especially as the reference to the US is confusing given that no other countries ever operated Iowa class BBs)
  • Were any of the faults which caused Iowa to fail her InSurv inspection directly related to her main armament? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I included in the footnotes some details about the InSurv inspection which included problems with the main guns. I'll move those to the main text. I'm still trying to decide whether to split the article or prune the details. Thank you for the review and comments. Cla68 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed the rest of your concerns [2]. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I want to see what the prose size is before passing judgment - I think that with lesser-detailed refs, it wold be in the 90-100kb range (not saying that the detailed refs are bad!).
  • Is the last para of the lead really needed?
  • "Iowa was the lead ship of her class of "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair."
    • Wait - fast battleship was not an official designation. According to the Wikipedia article, it was an "informal" term which "was not distinguished from conventional battleships in official documentation" or "recognised as a distinctive category in contemporary ship lists or treaties." This article makes it sound like they were called that when they were being built...correct me if I am being dumb.
    • Wikilink lead ship and get rid of the next sentence ("She was the first ship of her class of battleship to be commissioned by the United States.")
  • "16 inch (406 mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 naval guns"? Too long...I think that just " 16"/50 caliber guns" would suffice.
  • You then say that they could fire shells "some 24 nautical miles", but later (5th para, 'Gunnery training and experiments' section) you state that "Skelley claimed that one of the 16 inch shells traveled 23.4 nautical miles (40 km), setting a record for the longest conventional 16 inch shell ever fired." Is something wrong here between these two statements?
  • "After serving in both World War II and the Korean War, she was decommissioned 24 February 1958 and entered the Atlantic Reserve Fleet at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard."
    • decommissioned "on", Reserve Fleet "in", I think.
  • "After a quarter-century in mothballs, Iowa was modernized under the command of Captain Gerald E. Gneckow, primarily at Avondale Shipyards near New Orleans, Louisiana as part of President Ronald Reagan's "600-ship Navy" plan, and recommissioned 28 April 1984, one year ahead of schedule."
    • This sounds odd to me...
  • I will try to do a references check tomorrow, but I really have to get to bed. However, staying up was worth it - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. Great work, and I mean it. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted a lot of extraneous text and footnote info [3] which has reduced the article size down to about 134kb. I'm not sure that I can delete any more without removing key details.
• I removed the last paragraph of the lead.
• I fixed the "lead ship" and "fast battleships" issues [4].
• Done.
• I couldn't reconcile the "24-mile" claim with the test fire "record" so I just deleted the "24-mile" claim.
• Added "on" for the decommissioning sentence.
• Changed sentence to read, "In 1983, Iowa was modernized at Avondale Shipyards near New Orleans, Louisiana as part of President Ronald Reagan's "600-ship Navy" plan. Under the command of Captain Gerald E. Gneckow, she was recommissioned on 28 April 1984, one year ahead of schedule."
• Thank you for the helpful feedback. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Don't delete anything more if you have any doubts. A long article is not the worst of everyone's problems. :) Just make sure that everything is covered.
• Looks good. Supporting now. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• O, and those portal links at the bottom have to be moved. They are squishing the references and making them thinner! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support
  • Why did it fail the InSurv? You don't have to specify, since it is long, but if any of the reasons are related to the explosion you should mention them.
  • You need {{fixbunching}} where you have all those images on the loading procedure.
  • What's with the picture of Jerome Johnson? You can barely see him, or the plaque behind him. It looks like there's a guy standing behind the plaque, and he's semi-transparent.
  • In the Media section you like to tailhook, but capitalize it. Did you not properly disambiguate the link?

Please resolve these and the other issues brought up, but besides these I wasn't able to see any major problems. – Joe Nutter 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I added more details on the discrepancies that caused the INSURV failure, including some related to the problems with the main guns' maintenance.

• Looks good now.– Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but when I use the fixbunching it comes out like this [5]. Perhaps I'm not computer literate enough, but until someone can explain to me what I'm doing wrong I reverted it back to how it was.

• I don't know what we did differently, but somehow I was able to get it to work.– Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I added some explanation in the image caption to explain what's going on in the Jerome Johnson image.

• That's clearer now.– Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed the link to for Tailhook [6].

• That, and everything else looks good now. Good luck with FA. – Joe Nutter 14:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate the helpful feedback. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lexington class battlecruiser

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on this for 2-3 weeks, and I've greatly expanded it along with adding references. I'd like helpful hints for a potential FAC in late January/early February. I won't be on every day after this Thursday due to me going home and not having unlimited internet access (;D), but I will get on often enough to fix any content issues while La Pianista will handle any prose issues. Thanks and cheers everyone! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I gladly co-nominate. Article has very few, if any, prose issues - so finding any will be a task. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A note for anyone else who wanders here: Allanon = Ed 17, but Allanon is my alt. account, which I am using while I am at home because of insecure internet connections. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 09:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • The first thing that struck me is that the lead is pretty short; take a look at Montana class battleship, an FA on an uncompleted capital ship class for an example of how to expand this article's lead.
    •  Doing... ...will work on.
  • As far as this source is concerned, what qualifies it as a reliable source?
    • Well, I don't think that it is reliable per WP:RS, but I'm citing really uncontroversial info (the date they were laid down). If you guys want me to remove it, I'll revert back to just the month and year - (not a specific day).
      • I wouldn't trust that source. It gets the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga wrong; USS Langley (CV-1) was "CV-01"; Lexington was CV-2. If it can't even get basic information right, why should it have the dates right? – Joe Nutter 22:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I went hunting after I saw this (which was about 45 min. ago =/), and I felt stupid when I realized that my big bad Conway's book gave these dates. Almost grounds for a trouting... -_- Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure I like the photo of Guam at the bottom of the article, mainly because it's jutting into the notes and references sections.
    • I'm working on it...for the moment I'll leave it in because I have to expand the notes section (I think) -- the aim is to have it in just the see also and notes sections. For what I am trying to do, see Alaska-class battlecruiser towards the bottom
  • Other than that, everything looks pretty good. I made a couple of tweaks, but nothing too major. Parsecboy (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • The infobox does seem a little spartan compared to other A-class and FAs of ship classes (even the incomplete Montana class given by Parsecboy above) specifically in the class overview section. Try to fill in the fields that you can after look at the Montana class BB article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the poke. :) I'm working on it (slowly...)! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Having gone through the article again, I can see nothing that precludes me from supporting this article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is an excellent article; I've got a few comments to make below:

• 'Design' section - this has me pondering. Perhaps dividing the section into 'Design' and 'Development' to break it up and make it easier for the reader?
  • Breaking it where? 'Genesis' => 'Design' and the other two third-level sections => 'Development'?
• 'Even as early as 1912, the U.S. Navy (USN) had thought of constructing new battlecruisers to combat the four new Kongō-class battlecruisers that the Imperial Japanese Navy were producing' - Why is 1912 significant? What happened then? Why was it not considered earlier than 1912?
  • That's a good question. Morison doesn't say anthing more than that though...
• 'In 1903 the General Board assumed that the U.S. would build two battleships per year, but Congress had other ideas' - that last bit needs to be rewritten, it's a tad novel-ish
  •  Fixed, I think.
• 'and the USN began to expand greatly with all types of ships in 1916' - This is a bit awkward for me to read. I know what you mean, but rewording slightly would be a good idea
  •  Fixed, I think.
• 'However, the ships were not laid down right away, as capital ship construction had been suspended to facilitate construction of needed merchant ships and ASW destroyers.' - Can you spell out what ASW stands for? In fact, you do so later on, so swap them around - wikilink 'ani-submarine warfare' first, then just use a non-linked 'ASW'
  •  Fixed
• 'However, in 1917, the class came on hold' - 'was placed on hold' or 'delayed'
  •  Fixed
• 'The Lexington-class were still on hold in 1918' - Nothing wrong with this sentence, but the picture underneath it is bleeding through to the text
  • I can't see it on this old 640 x whatever computer...could anyone else fix it? =/
• '(two triple superfiring over two double turrets)' - I honestly have no idea what that means - can it be clarified?
  • I honestly have no time to create an article on tha right now with my mom limiting my time, but I will create one as soon as I can.
• Can you integrate the 'See Also' section into the text to get rid of it?
  • I think that you reviewers hate "See also" sections... :)

And can I be cheeky and ask you to review Tetrarch (tank) in return when you get a chance? It's just above this review. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • "many contemporary historians classify them as battlecruisers' This sentence is slightly ambiguous, contemporary is generally used to mean "of the time period" but the present tense is used, making it unclear if contemporary means this, primary, definition or the secondary definition of "modern".
    •  Fixed
  • The two images after the infobox sandwich on my laptop monitor, while I am no expert on image policies I believe this is bad.
    • ... On my laptop and this old cluncker that I have to use now, they aren't sandwiched...
      • Well, in FF on mine it does. The painting of the original configuration has the bottom at "Other changes" while the definitive design painting has the top at the beginning of that paragraph.
        •  Fixed Call me a liar, but my laptop did have a sandwich.
  • "The solution for this was "very unusual";" Might a colon be better than a semicolon here? It would read better.
    •  Fixed To answer your question: yes, it would be better. :)
  • " the opportunity to redesign the ships was not missed." Passive voice should be avoided when possible, who didn't miss the opportunity? Naval architects? Congress?
    • Better? "was not allowed to pass" - I don't know who didn't allow it to pass, but I'm just trying for a transtion here (sort of...)
  • The paragraph about the Hood is bad; it mentions that exposure to plans for the Hood caused the redesign, mentions various changes, and then goes back to talking about the Hood. The reader thinks that all the changes were caused by exposure to Hood plans, and then is told that not all of them were.
    • Is the para better now? I did a quick run-through...(hope it wasn't too quick...)
      • Yeah, that's better.
  • "According to Bonner," Who is Bonner? Explain this.
    • The reference/in-line citation...?
      • I suppose, but just using the last name makes it seem like you're mentioning someone previously referenced in the article. You could at least say Kermit Bonner or something.
        •  Done (will address now)
  • Any chance of including how much complete the Constitution was, to be consistent with the others?
    •  Done
  • The See Also section can be integrated: You linked to G3 earlier discussing the Washington Treaty, Admiral Class can be mentioned when discussing the Hood (HMS Hood, an Admiral class battlecruiser) and Lexington Class Aircraft Carrier can be linked to when discussing the fate of the Lexington and Saratoga."
    •  Done

Please fix these and what was mentioned above and I'll support it. – Joe Nutter 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I would be much happier if the article didn't refer to the Alaska class as battlecruisers. Particularly as this causes confusing statements like "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" - there is simply no sense in which the Alaskas succeeded the Lexingtons.
    • I fixed the caption on the Guam image, but otherwise they all have the little explanatory "modern historians..."

Yep. But that's not very helpful. The problem isn't the terminology, it's the fact that it's mentioned so often that it will lead people to create a falsse association between the two classes, which werre nothing to do with one another.

As I mentioned "Succeeded by: Alaska class battlecruiser" is a totally untrue statement. At very least, we should take that out. I would also prefer "first and last class of battlecruiser" ordered by the USN. The Alaskas were certainly not ordered as battlecruisers. In my view mention of the Alaskas should be confined to footnote A2. The Land (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, the 'succeeded by' appears already to have been removed. I have changed the article to something I'm happier with for the time being. The Land (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

:P I did that. :) Early in their design, the Alaskas were intended to be battlecruisers, though. But I doubt that this matters, and I will start to try to shove the class into a note(s). Cheers! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Otherwise, I broadly concur with the other comments, and would be happy to support if they were fixed. The Land (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments everyone! I have to go soon or now, but I will get to these as soon as I can... Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've replied to all of them now; they are interspersed above. Thanks again and cheers! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Support

• "they were originally designed mount ten"
• "making them was the only other battlecruisers ever built by the U.S."
• "and would designated as CC-1 through CC-6"
• "after an almost 5-month delay"
• "every U.S. battleship that was built in the prior to the Washington Naval Treaty"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • All fixed or removed. Thanks! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John Whittle

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-Class as I have made some substantial improvements to it over the last few weeks, and I believe it now meets the A-Class criteria. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support-Looks very good. Only comment I have is that the stats in the infobox be cited. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what stats? Do you mean his rank, the battles he fought in, etc? If so, I would prefer not to as everything covered in the infobox is expanded upon in the article. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just the years, and I think that they need to be cited (only the years though). Are they right? For one, 1901 is not specifically stated in the article, and it looks like (to me) that it should be 1901–1918, 1921 and 1930. =/ Cheers, Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 00:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-checking my sources, it appears he enlisted in 1899; I have ammended this correctly in both the prose and infobox. I have also split the 1918 and 1921 service years, as you suggested. However, as I stated above, everything in the infobox is covered in the prose and I am reluctant to reference the infobox for both that reason, but also because I have not seen (nor have I had to do) this before; even at FAC. I can understand if this was a battle/campaign, but everything in the infobox is the basic outline of Whittle's service covered in the prose. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Just passed this for GA and I also think it merits the A-Class stamp – detailed, balanced, well written, properly sourced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support, the only suggestion I have is that the reflist should be formatted into two columns. Otherwise it looks excellent, good luck with FA. – Joe Nutter 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arena Active Protection System

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a short article, on a simple topic with no a lot of information (well, there's not that much to cover). I "expanded" it and referenced it, and re-wrote it to improve the prose. I believe it meets the qualifications for A-class. Ultimately, I might push it for a FAC (I've seen shorter articles go to FAC), although this depends. First thing is first, though - the ACR. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• 'The Arena Active Protection System (APS) is an active countermeasure system developed at Russia's Kolomna-based Engineering Design Bureau to protect armoured fighting vehicles from light anti-tank weapons...' - '...designed to protect armoured fighting vehicles...'
• The third paragraph of the lead is really more of a sentence; I'd recommend either merging with the second paragraph or expanding it.
• 'The development of the system was stimulated in large part to the introduction of new high explosive anti-tank warheads.' - '...stimulated in large part by...'
• 'Drozd was designed to destroy the warhead before it engaged the armor of the vehicle which was being attacked' - engaged sounds better as penetrated
• 'It was composed of three main parts, including two launcher arrays on either side of the turret and an auxiliary power unit to the rear of the turret.[5] The arrays are controlled by two millimeter–wave radar antennae. The system uses a 19 kilograms (42 lb), 107 millimeters (4.2 in) cone–shaped fragmentation warhead' - these two sentences move from past to present tense, one only please - I would remain with past.
• 'About 250 Drozd systems were manufactured, all of which were installed on the T-55 belong to the Soviet Union's naval infantry - ...all of which were installed on T-55 main battle tanks belonging to the Soviet Union's naval infantry', and please wikilink to naval infantry
• 'It was first mounted on a T-80U in 1989, and latter showcased on a T-72B, renamed T-72BM and later T-90.' - 'latter' to 'later'
• 'The system consists of an infra–red radiator interface station' - any way of expanding that a little to make it a little less jargon-y?
• 'The system is activated when the laser warning system warns the tank commander' - 'alerts' instead of 'warns' to avoid repetition
• 'According to the manufacturers, Shtora decreases the chances of a tank being hit by a an anti-tank missile' - get rid of the extra 'a'
• 'while some which were issued reactive armor did not have the explosive charge to toggle the reaction.' - '...issued with...'
• 'As a result, the Kolomenskoye machine-building design bureau developed the Arena active protection system' - can we wikilink to the designer if there's an article?
• 'The Arena system was' - 'was' to 'is'
• 'a digital computer toggles the use of one of 26 quick-action projectiles to intercept the incoming threat' - 26 to twenty-six
• 'The system will engage targets within 50 meters (55 yd) of the vehicle it's defending' - 'the system engages targets...' and 'it's' to 'it is' please Skinny87 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be taken care of! Except, naval infantry (already wikilinked), the manufacturer (no article), and I kept engaged because I don't want to generalize and say that all threats can penetrate (but they can all at least engage). Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I was only able to find two issues:
  • Is Drozd italicized? You first italicize it, then don't, in the lead; it should be consistent.
  • You've linked Drozd twice. Make sure that this is fixed and check to make sure you haven't done it elsewhere that I missed.

Otherwise it looks good, rather short, but since it's new and Russia hasn't really used it (yet) in battle I suppose there's not much more that can be said. – Joe Nutter 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; those two point should be fixed! JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support

A very nice article, although short. My only issue was that reference [1] and another appear in the middle of sentences. Although i realise they are referencing specific claims, it might be better to move the reference behind punctuation and state in the reference exactly what it is referencing rather than have it break up the text in the middle of the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bruce Kingsbury

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is in solid shape, and I'd like to get this article to A-class so I can return my already overdue library books! \ / (⁂) 07:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with Comments

• 'The Japanese had begun to gather momentum in their attack, were threatening to cut off the entire battalion' - 'and' needs to be inserted there.
• 'It is often speculated by authors and military analysts that had Kingsbury not attacked, the Japanese would have isolated the Battalion Headquarters, eventually destroying the battalion' - Can this be expanded on a little? What would those analysts and historians believe the consequences to be if the battalion had been destroyed? And is destroyed quite the right name for a formation being wiped out?

• Comment Support
  • "have been identified as what undoubtedly saved the Battalion Headquarters, and was awarded the Victoria Cross as a result." You're missing a pronoun, I believe.
  • Watch linking things over and over. Kokoda Track campaign#Battle of Isurava is linked twice just in the lead.
  • Make sure all refs are combined. I noticed a couple of Brune ones at least, check in case there are more.

Please fix these and also the comments above, and tell me and I will come back and support it. Especially the statement about the speculation needs to be explained and expanded more.– Joe Nutter 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done I did the best I could with the second point, and I can't find the missing pronoun in the first comment. \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The refs are good, I went ahead and fixed the lead myself. It looks good now. – Joe Nutter 03:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another minor comment - although this isn't required for ACR, if you plan on taking it to FAC (and recommended in general) use The dab finder tool to specify links to disambiguation pages. – Joe Nutter 03:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support A very nice article, but I have some comments related to the article's prose before I can support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• "shot by a Japanese sniper and dying instantly." feels a little awkward, I suggest "shot by a Japanese sniper and instantly killed." instead
• "Kingsbury became close friends with Allen Avery when they were five years old" - who? Avery needs a better introduction, such as "Kingsbury formed a lifelong friendship with neighbour [?] Allen Avery when they were five years old"

OK, the problem here is that Avery is not introduced in the context of the article: unless he is already famous (and thus linked to his own article), we have no idea who he is. You need to clarify at first meeting who he was to Kingsbury, i.e. a lifelong friend. If you don't know exactly how they met, then don't worry about that.

I like the change, nice work.

• Insert links to Syria-Lebanon Campaign and Battle of Jezzine.
• "which had forced metal splinters into his spine" - is awkward, try "which drove metal splinters into his spine"
• "His attack inflicted numerous injuries to the Japanese" - awkward, try "His attack inflicted severe damage to the Japanese force"
• "It is often speculated by authors and military analysts" - This paragraph is a touch incoherent and I've had a go at making it make more sense. However, I'm not sure what "had resorted to climbing a steep hill straight towards battalion headquarters" means - I think you might be misusing the word resorted.
• I recommend that you seperate the citation from the rest of the text with some form of box, as in Thomas Crisp, although this is not essential.

 Done In regards to the second comment, I can't find any information about how they met, they could have been neighbours, school friends or whatever. I was tempted to use neighbour as they both lived in Prahan, but neighbour in Australian English typically means just the guy living next to you, not the community. I've reworded the speculation paragraph as best I can, and I will look at separating the citation. \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work, moving closer to support, I have replied on point two above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work, congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zanzibar Revolution

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am nominating this article as it has passed its GA review and I think that it is as complete as I can make it. Ideally I want to get this to FA some day, many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments before support.

• Put citations after punctuations.

Fixed a couple of cases, let me know if I missed any - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Script says there are still some left. Use the Ctrl + F feature in firefox to search for them. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I got them all. The only ones I can find without punctuation are those after the numbers in the infobox - Dumelow (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Figures in infobox should be cited.

Sorry must have missed that, now fixed - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Needs strength for both forces.

Unfortunately I have only been able to find reliable sources for the rebels but it the government forces were essentially the strength of the entire police force (which I couldn't find numbers for, although the reorganised force numbered 600 post-revolution). Would it be better to put "Zanzibar police force" in there or just leave it blank? - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Put it in there. It's better than being blank. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done - Dumelow (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Change The Revolution to just "Revolution".

The heading right? If so it is now done - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Make Umma party a stub.

OK, I'll get on that - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Lazulilasher

Good work. I only performed a cursory overview of the article and I have a number of suggestions. You mention you would like to take this article to FA at some point, and I will tailor my comments to that goal. Again, good work and I hope that you find my suggestions helpful.

• Lead: "The revolution occurred early on the morning of 12 January 1964 when the revolutionaries overran the country's police force and took their weaponry..." Revolution...revolutionaries? These words are oft-repeated consistently throughout the lead. This tires the reader. Consider rewording, perhaps "Hostilities began....when revolutionaries overran...", etc.

• • Consider: "The revolutionaries then attacked the Arab and South Asian civilians in the country."

Good point. I have made some changes to the lead which hopefully solves this - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Origins Watch redudancies in text: "It consisted of the main island of Unguja (informally known as Zanzibar), the smaller island known as Pemba to the north of Unguja, and numerous minor islands." "Numerous" doesn't add to the reader's comprehension. Is "known as" required?

I have changed this sentence a bit but left "numerous" and "known as" in as the sentence didn't sound right without them. If you can think of a better phrasing then feel free to make the change - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Likewise: "However, the major political parties were still organised largely along ethnic lines with the Arab Zanzibar Nationalist Party (ZNP) and the African Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP)"

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• "under Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah who was liked by the majority of population." What does "liked" mean? According to whom? There should be some discussion of the rubric used to determine this.

The source just says "liked by the majority of the population" but I will check it over again and change the article accordingly - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this part a bit, let me know if its any better - Dumelow (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• "There was also a significant minority of 50,000 Arabs" Watch for redundant words like "also"

I sorted this one, I will check through for more instances - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can we clarify how much more the Arabs were generally paid? As I read this, I found myself searching for a scale (i.e., was there substantial inequality?) so I could understand the situation.

I have not found any figures on this but I'll go through the sources again and check to see if any of them elaborates on this - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this to "generally much better paid" which is what the source states. I have been unable to clarify this further - Dumelow (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• "This resulted in both the ASP and the ZNP winning 11 seats of the 22 in parliament" I am not a c/e guru, but should "parliament" be capitlized?

Yes I think it should be capitalised. Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's all I have for now. I'll come back later if time permits. Again: excellent work so far. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking over this article your suggestions have been very helpful - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The "Zanzibar Police Force" for strength in the infobox is bad, for example, I could say that in the Iraq War, American strength is the "US Army" but that doesn't help anyone who doesn't know how many people are in the army.

I added this following the discussion at the top of this page (previously it was blank). My instinct is to leave it blank but I will go with which ever consensus is drawn on this page - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. While I agree that it is better to leave it blank, I suppose that it is fine as it is now. Is there anything it can be linked to that would give more information?– Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• • "Whilst much of the communist bloc had already recognised the country Britain, the US and most Commonwealth withheld recognition until 23 February." This sentence is awkward and ambiguous. Please reword it.

I have changed this sentence, should read better now - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• • "whilst the Hebe had just finished removing stores from the naval depot at Mombassa and was loaded with weapons and explosives." Hebe should be italicized.

Must have missed one. Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Can Operation Parthenon, Operation Finery, Operation Shed, and Operation Boris be linked to anything?

There are no relevant articles at the moment. The source does provide some more info on the operations so they could perhaps have their own articles, are they notable enough for this? - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that if the sources have enough information to create a decent article about them you might as well go ahead and do so; I don't see why they wouldn't be notable, the British military seems to have been pretty focused on them, at least for a short while.– Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I will start work on these new articles - Dumelow (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• • "The event caused concern to the Western powers that communism might gain a foothold in East Africa and was one of the main causes of the army riots in Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda which saw the modernisation of their armed forces." This sentence makes little sense. Did the riots cause the modernization? Please rephrase it.

Rephrased, don't know where I got the bit about modernisation from, I couldn't find it any sources so I have removed it. The legacy section could use some expansion but there isn't much written about it - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there any way to remove the See Also section? Last I heard they were discoureged, and it seems slightly pointless since it only has one link in it.

I think that is a hangover from the article prior to my rewrite. I have no objections to removing it but I will look for a way to integrate the link into the text first - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, it is a useful link to have. – Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The history is now linked in the origins section (which I expanded slightly with a new ref) so the see also section is now gone - Dumelow (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks OK; please fix these first before I can support it though. Joe Nutter 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporting now on assumption that See Also section will be fixed. – Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looked through the article, couldn't find anything wrong. Good work! Skinny87 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I can see no problems hindering support. I do have a couple of questions though: is there any information on how the Revolution was viewed in the Arab world? Are there any memorials or monuments to the Revolution in Zanzibar or elsewhere?

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tetrarch (tank)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The little tank that could(n't). I've been working on the Tetrarch for a few weeks now. It just went through a quick peer review, but now I'd like to get it formally assessed to see if it's A-Class material. Skinny87 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support; I believe the article is ready for FAC, as well. Some comments, below:

1. The prototype was completed in December 1937, and proved to be radical departure from the previous light tank designs created by the company for a number of reasons. <- Proved to be a radical departure.
2. First, the tank was designed to solve the problems found in previous light tanks designed by the company, all of which had possessed only machine-guns as armaments and extremely thin armour. <- I don't think "extremely thin" is the right group of words; it sounds like an oxymoron. I think extremely can be considered redundant, and should just be eliminated. Otherwise, I'd avoid using "thin" and instead use "were insufficiently armored".
3. Some of the conversion templates need to be revised, as the adj=on parameter needs to be taken off. This includes armor measurements (millimeters should be plural and there should be no hyphen).
4. If possible, if some measurements are in metric first then they should all be metric first; otherwise, they should all be imperial first, and then converted to metric.
5. in July 1938 it requested that 70 of the tanks be put into production <- "requested that 70 tanks be produced" sounds more proper (otherwise, it seems like you're literally taking a tank and "putting it into production" as opposed to producing the tank.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done all of those except number four - I'm afraid I'm not sure what to do with the weights and measurements. Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You could use the conversions template. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Most do have conversion templates; for future reference, you choose in which order the units will be presented in the order they're presented in the conversion template. Let's say you want to have kilometers as the main unit, and convert to miles. So, you'd have {{convert|40|km|mi}}. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport
  • In the infobox you might want to put a line break between the on and off road speeds; it looks to me like it says a fast speed, off road, and then a slower speed, with the implication that it goes slower on roads. This should be clarified.

Sorry, technical things on wiki aren't my strong point. How would I do that?

Actually, I might have solved this one. Would you take a look and see if I have to your satisfaction?

Yeah, that's good.

• • There are a lot of problems with linking, several topics are either linked twice or more, not at all, or are linked once, just not the first time they appear, including 2 pounder, linked at least twice, and Battle of France, linked in the Lend-Lease section and not Development, where it first appears.

I've fixed Battle of France, and the 2 Pounder problem, and I can't seem to find any more repetition. But if you can see any, then please let me know and I'll fix them.

Ah, and for topics being linked several times, if you're referring to something being linked in the lead and then again in the article, I was advised to do this by another editor a while ago - something about making it easier for the reader to follow a topic, I believe.

Mmk, I suppose there is an exception in WP:CONTEXT for that, so it's fine.

• • "too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively" Please do not use the same word twice in such close proximity.

That's done!

• • I'd recommend a copy-edit, as there are several places where the prose could be improved a bit.

I went through it again, but if you can point to any specific places I'd be greatful so I can improve it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

These were the only problems I could find, so please fix these, especially the thing about the links and the copy-edit and tell me and I'll return and support it. – Joe Nutter 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks better now, good job. – Joe Nutter 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - another excellent article. Cam ^(Chat) 19:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• It might be worth thinking a bit about the numbers. As it is now, we quote various sources and say "between 100 and 177 were produced". Do we have any basis for the "between"? It could well be that one or the other of the references is right, and that it would be more accurate to say "either 100 or 177 were produced"... what exactly do the sources say on this? Shimgray | talk | 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The basis for the between is that most military historians cite 177 as the number produced, but Keith Flint did a more detailed study and states that the official records are vaguer and we can't be sure - all he knows is that it's a minimum of 100. Thus, between 100 and 177 is the best we can do, really. Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote Flint, p. 12: "Final production of the tank is given in most published sources as 177 vehicles. However, a lower figure of only 100 tanks is given in some surviving official documentation, and the later perceived shortage of Tetrarchs for airborne use would seem to suggest that this lower figure is more accurate." Now, to me that seems quite convincing, but of course Flint is only one historian, and there are several others who state the 177 figure; I think Flint is personally right, as other historians like Tucker state that Tetrarchs were used in Operation Varsity, when they weren't, suggesting they haven't got their facts quite right. But I thought it best to be slightly vaguer and write 'between 100 and 177' to highlight that historians differ slightly on the number produced, and the fact that we'll probably never know because I think some of the documentation is missing that would give a definitive number. Skinny87 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense; it just seemed to convey a bit of a muddled message before. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• 'Support - I'm writing this as I am going through it, and the biggest problem appers to be that you are missing commas after years... (O_O zomg! How could you forget? A few comments/questions/whatever, in no particular order:
  • 'Variants' section - is ^[58] needed twice.

I think so - to over all the information about the vehicle there.

k, no prob, just checking.

• • Last sentence, 'Operation Ironclad' - reference?

Erm, it does! Footnote No. 32!

=)

• • Fitzsimmons in your sources - pg "16" needed? (Or is that a volume?)

That's a volume, is that okay?

Actually, what's the proper template for adding a volume number for an encyclopedia?

I think you did it right - I just didn't take the time to click [edit] and see if the template was made up right! =/

• • Personal preference - can you rename the "Footnotes" to "Refereces" and the "References" to "Sources" or "Bibliography" per User:the_ed17/Rename Notes? I'm just afraid that it could be confusing.

Done!

Thanks!

• • Cheers! Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments. I'll start working on them straight away, but my computer has caught a virus (swine), so it might take a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope that your computer gets better...I'll try to remember to send a get-well card. :) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

The article has passed GA review and has subsequently been expanded to make it more comprehensive in its coverage of the unit's service history. I believe it's now ready for A-Class review. Many thanks!Tfhentz (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on references - (this version)
  • Refs that need page #'s...[7], [8], [29], [35], [51], [61].
  • Page ranges (i.e. pp. 17–32) need to use both pp. format (i.e. p. 10 OR pp. 10–12) and endashes.
    • To be a little clearer =) : references to single pages of text use p. references to page ranges use pp.
  • The "Brodhead to Washington" refs...can we have a link to the specific message please? (in the sources)
  • I'm not sure if your references follow MoS...but I'll leave that up to the more experienced reviewers to decide...
• Hope these helped. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I have revised them all. I must admit that I couldn't find the proper formatting in the MoS for the National Archives and state archives documents, so I devised a way that hopefully is logical and uniquely identifies each of these sources. Tfhentz (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another comment about references; the same references should be grouped by naming them. I.e. <ref name="Steuart122">Steuart, p. 122.</ref> and then repeated references of the same author and page number should be cited as follows: <ref name="Steuart122" />. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. I've now got the repeated references grouped.Tfhentz (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant page about that is WP:REFNAME, just as an FYI for ya Tfhentz. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • I'd recommend using full headers for the sections (2 equals on either side instead of three)
    • First, thanks for taking the time for the review. I tried using full headers and didn't like the way the header lines intersected the figures -- purely an aesthetic issue for me.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd advise against abbreviating Brig. Gen., it sounds like jargon to someone not familiar with military ranks.
    • Neither the WikiProject Military history/Style guide nor the main Wiki MoS discusses the usage of military-rank abbreviations, but the convention of The Chicago Manual of Style is to abbreviate the rank if the person's full name follows (e.g., Lt. Col. John Smith) and to spell out the rank if only followed by the last name (e.g., Lieutenant Colonel Smith). I've used this convention with a number of rank designations throughout the article. To change this one usage that you pointed out would introduce an inconsistency in the article.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I only mentioned that one because it was the first one I saw, but I suppose that if that's what Chicago says you can keep it that way.– Joe Nutter 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "As indicated by the rolls, the units had lost a number of men over the winter months primarily through desertion and a few deaths due to illness or wounds." This is awkward, please rephrase it.
    • I rephrased it.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that "pp" is not used in references for multiple pages.
    • On the Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style page, the book-citation example uses the "pp." abreviation for "pages," so I assume this is the proper Wikipedia style. Moreover, the first reviewer above requested that I use this style.—Tfhentz (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • True, I suppose that's right. It's fine then. – Joe Nutter 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

However, otherwise I can find no problems not mentioned above and support it, but please fix these.– Joe Nutter 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article is informative and well-written and seems to meet A-class requirements. Nice work. If you plan to take this to featured status, I'd suggest more explanatory prose to help fill in background details for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. For example, you could explain early on how riflemen were different from musketmen and what this meant on the battlefield. Without some color commentary, you risk losing the average reader in a sea of names and dates. —Kevin Myers 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. Your suggestion to add more explanatory prose is sage advice. This can be easily done. I've been working on this unit history so long, with the emphasis being on ferreting out dates, events, etc., and their synthesis, that I've neglected much of the "color" background.—Tfhentz (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Fine article, deserves to be an A-Class article! Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary)

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - references satisfy MoS. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - could the redlinks please be stubbed out? Skinny87 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. No problem. (It may take a couple of days, though.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know where to find reliable information for the geographic feature, but all the other red-links have either have articles or have been eliminated. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support another well-done ship piece. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Short but, as normal, sweet. – Joe Nutter 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AMX-30

This is the first article on a single tank I've worked on in probably two months, and I'm looking to take this article all the way (as usual). Any advice will be quickly implemented. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - what is it with you and these tank things? My only real suggestion is that you add citations to the infobox statistics (although I'm sure they're already in the article, it's a visual thing;) Cam ^(Chat) 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Can't see anything wrong with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I think it meets A class, however I do have some suggestions;

I think the first few sentences of the necessarily lengthy lead section should give the key facts before diverting into other details. I expect most readers who know nothing about the vehicle want to know the most relevant things first. i.e main user, period of use, relative armour / armament / mobility etc. Almost a "lead section" for a long lead section.

The other issue is there is a "wall of text" effect. While it's all relevant, it's a bit intimidating to read, and also difficult to skim. I don't know if this is best resolved with more paragraph breaks, or more subsection headings to split it up into digestible chunks, a combination, or something else entirely.

Hohum (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the lead is written in such a way where it mirrors the organization of the text; whereas, there is a background, and then it goes into detail about the tank, and finally it talks about exports and combat history. The first sentence does mention that it began production in 1966, while the lead later says that most armies were replacing the tank by the 21st century; I also think that the infobox serves as a visual aid to the lead, and also states its service record. I switched the text around, so that the tank is described before its history; what do you think now? I also broke up the first paragraph into two separate paragraphs. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead is much improved, and serves to hook people into reading further. Good job! Hohum (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

George Ingram

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to under go an A-Class review as I believe it meets the criteria. Admittedly not the longest of bios, but it is comprehensive and has been passed as GA. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support; it looks like a difficult article to write, given the lack of information on the subject and the few resources you could count on. It looks very well written, and I'm happy to support. Both images check out (to the best of my say). Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Couldn't find any problems. – Joe Nutter 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take this to FAC at some point and could use some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments-per WP:LEAD, the citations in the lead make it too cluttered. Also, one of your sentences states is considered to be or something along those lines. Could this be reworded? Sounds like a weasel word. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not seeing your point at WP:LEADCITE in terms a policy that citations clutter leads. Thanks for the weasel pointer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Tbh, I don't see the point of citing part of the lead, as opposed to all of it. If it's already cited in the text, why cite it again in the lead (unless you're citing all the facts in the lead)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalan (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It is commonly accepted at FAC that editors are free to create a either fully cited or fully uncited lead. In this case, with eleven references in the lead, the intent is to cite all controversial claims presented as facts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I know the policy; what I'm arguing is that the lead doesn't seem fully cited. For example;
        • Critical review of these images, like most of Rockwell's work, has not been entirely positive. Rockwell's idyllic and nostalgic approach to regionalism made him a popular illustrator but a lightly regarded fine artist during his lifetime. These paintings generally are viewed with this sentiment. However, he has created a niche in the enduring social fabric with the Freedom from Want image which is emblematic of what is now known as the "Norman Rockwell Thanksgiving." <- That isn't referenced. Whether this is a controversial claim for you is irrelevant; a reader like me has no idea. How are we supposed to believe that this is true or not? If none of the lead was cited we'd expect to find this information in the body, but since part of the lead is cited, shouldn't all of it be cited, as well? JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the feedback. Do you consider it fully cited now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Support; I believe the article meets A-class requirements. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The {{fact}} tag in the production section needs to be cited.
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • " In short, because he did nothing interesting, thought-provoking, rare or cutting-edge he was no Rembrandt." This sounds wrong to me, perhaps because of the no Rembrandt colloquialism.
    • I have reviewed the citation and I think I have phrased it in a more professional manner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Notes section should be split into a Notes section and a References section following it that lists the Bibliographic information for each source, while each footnote just lists the author's name and page number; see WP:CITE and related pages for details.
    • I am not currently in possession of the books, which I got from the Chicago Public Library when I took the article to GAC. Let me know if this is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please fix these and tell me and I'll come back and support it. Joe Nutter 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks better, Support. Good job. – Joe Nutter 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In the first part of the Exhibition section, the sentences are a little short and terse; expanding them slightly and amking the flow better would be nice.
  • I have expanded the sentences a bit. I am sure there is a lot of information missing. Is this enough to satisfy you?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe it's just me, but the second paragraph of the section just sounds like it's advertising the book. Is it a vital part of the article to have? Skinny87 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are going to do a comprehensive article about this series, I can think of no reason to exclude a single paragraph about the official fiftieth anniversary book from the article. The fact that the book is mentioned is no more an advertisment than the fact that the posters are mentioned, IMO. It seems like good information that should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. Interesting and balanced. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Salamis

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has just passed a GA review, I think/hope it also fulfills the A-class criteria. I'd eventually like to get it up to FAC, and figure that this is probably the next step in identifying any flaws/problems etc. Cheers, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments; this would be an excellent article to see go through FAC, and would provide valuable experience for me as at some point I wish to expand on the Battle of Zama and also make it a featured article. Here are some comments, concerning the A-class review.

• I don't think the sources section is actually necessary. Your sources will be made available through the bibliography; explaining yourself is not really necessary, especially for an article on Wikipedia (I know that some books normally go through the sources used). The heavy reliance on Herodotus might or might not be a problem; there are various second hand sources on Salamis, and people might prefer if you intersperse those in the references, or use them to back up Herotodus (it cannot be said that Herodotus is entirely a reliable source on his own; a more subjective view from a modern author may be a better "testimony").
  • I've turned the two sources sections into a 'Further reading' section.
  • As for Herodotus, trust him or doubt him, he's pretty much the only first hand source for the battle. There's an extent to which, if you reject his testament, then there's nothing you can say instead. I have included some modern views on more contentious points, but for some things (for instance the 'two bridges over the hellespont'), I don't think there's much that a modern opinion can bring. I do fully admit that it's a limitation, but it is inherent in the subject!
• Some facts, like Athens' victory at Marathon may be obvious (especially if one were to click on the wikilink), but stuff like that should still be sourced to avoid any problems in the future. You can never have too many references (unless they are becoming redundant and you are cluttering the article).
  •  Done
• An example of the above is the sentence, By early 480 BC, the preparations were complete, and the army which Xerxes had mustered at Sardis marched towards Europe, crossing the Hellespont on two pontoon bridges. <- That should be referenced, especially since it specified that two pontoon bridges were used.
  •  Done
• The links to main articles shouldn't be put in the middle of a section; they should be put under the section title.
  •  Done
• The entire last two paragraphs of background needs referencing.
  •  Done
• Is it possible to spread the table of ships across three columns? The huge white space to its right seems awkward.
  •  Done
• Another sentence which really needs a reference (although, like I said, everything more or less should be referenced, really) is, Salamis started a decisive swing in the balance of power toward the Greeks, which would culminate in the complete conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. <- That's a bold statement, especially since the link between Persian power just after Salamis and Persian military power during the invasion by Alexander the Great is not very obvious.
  • I wasn't necessarily implying any causal relationship here, just that following Salamis the "Greeks" (loose usage) were generally in the ascendency, and the Persians generally in decline. However, I've altered the sentence to be less ambiguous and more relevant.

Apart from anything else anybody else might say, if the articles touches upon my suggestions then I would be happy to support. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - many sentences at the end of paragraphs in this article are unreferenced; these need to be. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done

Support Well written, meets criteria. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on references (this version) - some issues that will kill you at FAC if not addressed:

• Consistency, consistency...
  • "Herodotus VI, 43" - what book?
    • He only wrote one! However, I've clarified this is the bibliography
    • Most, not all, of these Herodotus refs have links to the page...if you've added the link for one, add it for all. (Refs 5, 7, 49, 54, 55)
      •  Done
  • "Author, page(s)" should be what your citations go by. Not "Title, page(s), author, publisher, ISBN" or "Roman numeral here".
    •  Done
    • Speaking of "Roman numeral here", please expand refs 37 and 38's citations to include an author and page number.
      •  Done
  • Just add all of your books to the bibliography, even if there is only one reference to the book. This will clean up the references section a lot.
    • ...or am I wrong, and you do have all of them in the bibliography? If you do, then the only thing you need in the refs is "Author, page(s)". If there is more than one book by the same author, use "Author, Shortened (if possible) book title in italics, page(s)".
  • Refs 33 and 34 - if you are going to translate one of the refs (34), please translate both!
    • They are both translated!
  • References 65 through 68 need page numbers.
    • I didn't add these refs, so I don't know the page numbers, but I'll work on it.
• Did I put this ref in the right spot? (does it come at the end of what you paraphrased from that?)
  • Yes, that works.

Hope this helps! Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the helpful tips. I 'inherited' most of the problematic references from previous versions of article, so some of them I can't fix immediately. But I'll get to work on it... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - you need ndashes for page ranges and number ranges in teh footnotes. Also, it's customary to hyperlink in the title of the refs, so that it appears Herodotus VII not "Herodotus VII [7] and what not. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done

• Comment - the WP:lead is far too long and contains lots of unnecessary details that should be only part of the article. You can cut it or I can help you.
  • I'm not sure it's far too long; it's only four paragraphs. However, I agree that there are unneccesary details in there that can be removed.
    • I hope you get this done, the lead should be 10% of the article, not 20%. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I shortened the lead. I hope you agree with my version. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Basically, I do. I made a few changes in the wording, but kept it as concise as you left it.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• In the last section about the importance of the battle you have very far reaching assumptions presented as communis opinio. There are two possibilities, you undermine each of them with three independent sources or you state that these are viewpoints of a single historian. I doubt very much that the Greek alliance liberated Macedon. They revolted on their own accord and Athens took the gold mines. Same for Thrace, point me to the source that shows a Greek army or fleet moving to Thrace to liberate these poor fellows from the Persian yoke and not take any land. The discussion about the impact must be made on a much broader basis. Essentially, Greek art was deeply influenced by the Persian experience and there were philosophers in the occupied Greek city states as well as Greeks being thaught by these foreigners. I think Holland confuses military might and culture too much and I know archaeology professors who state the opposite. Just take a look at Bunte Götter (soon coming to Harvard) to see how the Greeks incorporated the foreign elements they were confonted with into their culture. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I think there are two issues here. First is the the ill-advised use of liberate. The problem here is that I'm not sure what word best describes what happened next. Conquered? Re-conquered? Colonised? De-Persified? Liberated? Certainly the Greeks probably didn't liberate Macedon; but the Macedon only became liberated because of the Greek victory. The Allied, and then the Delian league spent a long time reducing the Persian garrisons in Thrace - as you say, it wasn't a 'liberation' in the conventional sense. But what was it then? Anyway, I will change this to make it more clear.
    •  Done - Is that any better? Yes, I would slightly tweak the wording, but it's OK.
  • The second issue is the significance. Namely, how significant was it.
• I agree that the second issue is more important, especially, because it's about speculations. I strongly argue to seperate the speculations from the article and make it clear that there are two conflicting views regarding the importance of the event. Currently, the presentation of both views isn't fair and bordering to a WP:NPOV issue. I would also stress that the first naval encounter at Artemisium didn't go well instead of the many land victories. Next it needs to be discussed how many of the Persian ships were triremes.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • • As regards the significance; having just read it back, it doesn't present the issue in the correct fashion, I agree. That's not because of my personal point of view, just the way I wrote it. I will change it to balance the presentation of the two points of view.
      •  Done
    • However, the problem remains that I don't have access to a source which claims Salamis isn't important. So referencing the counter point of view is difficult; do you know of any?
      • I will try to find them, but I'm very busy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Third issue: I suggest to put more emphasis on the cultural impact (I still didn't have time to work through the whole article properly). Aegina is a good example, they installed new gable sculptures for their temple after this victory that was especially due to their brave intervention. I don't have the books ready because it was 2 years ago that I was in classical archaeology, but this should be mentioned, because it's confirmed by archaeology. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this would be good. However, I know very little about it. Also, wouldn't this work better in a more general article (like Greco-Persian Wars)? Since the cultural impacts are likely to have been more long-term, and connected with the whole 'Persian experience' rather than specifically Salamis? I'm not denying that there would have been specific cultural legacies of Salamis, just that most of the cultural effects were not so specific. In either case, the 'Significance' section should be about the significance of the battle within the war. A new 'Legacy' section (as with Battle of Thermopylae/Battle of Marathon) might be a better place to put cultural information.
    • Aegina is a the most direct impact of this battle, so yes, it belongs in the article and not in the superstructure. The general influences belong in the superstructure, but since you start the debatte about the influence of the Greco-Persian Wars at the end of this article, you have to mention the cultural impact in art and philosophy. Drawing conclusions about the effects without regarding the culture is a screwed up analysis. I agree that we should keep this and the speculations as brief as possible.Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Fourth issue: I remember reading that the supply of the gigantic Persian army was by sea. Thus without supremacy at sea the supply line was threatened and the Persian had to retreat in order not to loose the army to starvation. That was also used as an explanation for Artemisium. The defeat of the Persian seapower would force them to be independent of their naval supply and thus reduce their numbers. I don't know in which book it was, but we should search for this before submitting it to FA. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Fifth issue: I like that you start discussing the reliability of your main source first, however, you should at least mention the other primary sources, even if they are less important. This gives the reader a well rounded picture. Besides the literary sources are the archaeological verifications of Herodotus claims important. Have there been found any shipwrecks attributed to the battle? Wandalstouring (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support

• WP:UNLINKDATES Throughout. Found at least one instance of this, make sure there aren't others.
  •  Done
• "Although Themistocles has laid claim to lead the fleet, the other city states with navies had objected, and so Sparta (which had no naval tradition) was given command of the fleet." Awkward, I don't think using the historical present is wise there.
  •  Done; 'has' was a typo (for had); sentence modified to clarify anyway
• What are the numbers in parentheses in the ship table? Explain those please.
  •  Done
• A couple of terms are linked twice, please take care of that.
  •  Done

Besides that I found little issues not addressed above, so please fix those and it'll be looking great Joe Nutter 02:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To Do

1. Page numbers for refs 65-68 (or whatever these become)
2. Fix hyperlinks in the references
3. Add ndashes to references
4. Sources which play down the significance of Salamis
5. Source suggesting supply of the army by sea (?)
6. Add other primary sources in 'Sources' section
7. Briefly discuss 'Legacy' in a new section including Aeginetan temple.

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Just "finished" this article and looking to take it to A-class, which I believe can be done. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support with a few references comments - big surprise, book sources are formatted perfectly.
• However, I do have a few questions on the websites: you shorten late refs to "Jane's", but you have two Jane's in the references..."Armour and artillery" and "Defense Weekly".
• Need to add (subscription) to some of those Jane's refs.
• Ref #18 needs closed italics.
• What is up with the beginning of "Background"? To the casual reader, it seems to have nothing to do with the gun until the 5th sentence!
• Hope these helped. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything to do with referencing should be fixed. The beginning of the background is meant to give a general idea of the situation with Soviet armor and why the 120mm gun came into being. I re-arranged the sentences so that, hopefully, it will be clearer. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Nice article! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• 'It was developed in response to Soviet advances in armor technology and the appearance of new armored threats' - I assume that means Soviet armoured threats, but it needs to be specified.
• 'was soon exported to be used on tanks such as the American M1 Abrams and the Israeli Merkava tanks' - repetition
• 'Over the years, it has also been exported to South Korea and Japan, as well as nations which have procured the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams' - don't need the first three words really, they're redundant
• 'Rheinmetall's 120-millimeter (4.7 in) L/44 tank gun has a length of 5.28 meters (5.77 yd),' - Just 'The gun' is needed really, as otherwise this sentence and the following one don't make sense.'
• 'However, by 1990 the L/44 was not considered powerful enough to deal with modernized Soviet armor from the 1980s, such as the T-80B, which catalyzed an effort by Rheinmetall to develop a better main armament' - catalyzed isn't the right word; 'from the 1980s' isn't really needed.
• 'This gun has already been retrofitted into German, Dutch Leopard 2s, while were installed brand-new in Spanish Leopard 2Es and Greek Leopard 2HELs.' - spelling and grammar, missing words.
• 'Over the years of its existence' - Not sure bhow to reword this, but it does need rewording.
• 'chemical energy anti-tank warheads' - wikilink?
• 'The Israelis have also developed' - 'The Israeli Army'

Background

• The first few sentences need to mention the gun system sooner than they do, really
• 'The catalyst for the Soviet decision to increase the power of its tank's main armament had come when' - catalyst isn't needed here, just start with 'The Soviet decision'
• From 'For example, at the fighting at Sultan Yakoub...', I get confused, and I'm not sure what this paragraph has to do with the development of the gun - perhaps reorganizing the section would be a good idea. To me, that paragraph actually seems to go against what you've been saying - that NATO feared the new Russian gun system, but Israeli tanks using a Western gun system were able to knock out Soviet-exported type tanks anyway.

Gun system

• 'The bore evacuator and the gun's thermal sleeve, designed to regulate the temperature of the barrel, are fabricated out glass-reinforced plastic, while the barrel sports a chrome lining to increase barrel life.' - 'out of glass-reinforced plastic', and 'sports' isn't quite the right word.
• 'However, with recent advances in propellant technology, the average barrel life has decreased to 260 rounds, from an original barrel life of anywhere between 400–500 rounds; in some cases, barrels have had to be replaced after only 50 fired projectiles.[21] The gun's recoil mechanism is composed of two hydraulic retarders and a hydropneumatic assembly.[5]' - Okay, the last sentence should go before the barrels being replaced bit, and the barrels replacement reads a bit wonky - I think stating the original barrel life and *then* the decreased life would be better
• 'The gun, known as the M256, was based on Rheinmetall's 120-millimeter (4.7 in) L/44 tank gun, although manufactured at Watervliet Arsenal and modified to increase the resistance of the barrels to fracture and fatigue' - you don't need to repeat the whole name of the Rheinmetall gun, just call it the L/44
• 'the Israeli gun retains the inner geometry of the barrel to allow commonality with German and American ammunition' - commonality needs to be reworded - 'to allow German and American ammunition to be used as well'
• 'Due to tank sales, Rheinmetall's tank gun has also proliferated to other nations' - proliferated, whilst technically right, needs to be replaced.

Modernization

• 'The new barrel is 55 calibers long' - is calibers a measurement term? Maybe it's just me being unfamiliar with the technology.

Ammunition

• 'A variety of rounds have been developed for Rheinmetall's tank gun, around the world' - discard around the world, and integrate the following sentence as part of this first sentence.
• 'The United States Armed Forces also accepted a new demolition round' - just the United States Army, instead?

This is a good article, and interesting, it just needs some adjustments made, then I'll support. Skinny87 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the lead should be copyedited with your suggestions. There's just a few things I didn't do, or did differently. I didn't think mentioning "Soviet" twice in the same sentence made it any clearer, so I changed it so that both statements were linked to "Soviet" (that way only mentioning it once in the sentence; I felt it was redundant, otherwise). I can't change Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 to "the gun", because the sentence mentions length, where the caliber length of the gun is very relevant (otherwise, am I talking about the L/44 or the L/55?). What's wrong with "catalyzed"? The only replacement word I can think of is "stimulated", and I see "catalyzed" as a more professional term to use.

I'm not sure, in the gun system section I should move the last sentence of the first paragraph in front of the sentence which talks about the chrome lining. That chrome lining sentence is relevant to the sentence before it (which introduces it), so splitting those two sentences will just make the text confusing. In regards to the sentence that has to do with commonality between American and German ammunition, commonality makes more sense than "it allows German and American ammunition to be used." Commonality explains more than the suggested change, and commonality suggests that the relationship goes both ways.

In regards to your question about the L/55, caliber as a length is wikilinked in the text before that section. One of the footnotes also explains the relationship. And finally, the M1 tank is used both by the Army and the Marines (i.e. Navy), so Armed Forces is more neutral. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Welp, you've certainly answered all of my points, and I can't see anything else I have a problem with, so changing to Support. Skinny87 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Support The Pharaoh - User:One last pharaoh (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

13th Airborne Division (United States)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to get this to FA-Class, and after having made a fair few copy-edits to the article I think it's ready for A-Class at least. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - references mostly satisfy MoS.
  • Use "p." for one page, and "pp." for more than one page...(e.g. p. 196 / pp. 196–197)...don't mix the two. :)
  • Page ranges need an endash...(e.g. pp. 196–197)
  • Personal preference for me (don't change it if you don't want/it won't affect my vote) - see User:the_ed17/Rename Notes.
  • Just a couple easy fixes; otherwise, great work! As soon as these are fixed, I'll support. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Geez, sorry, I'm feeling kinda thick at the moment. I'll do the dashes (hopefully I'll get them right), but I don't understand the first comment. I think all of the references use either p. for one page or pp. for two. Could you give an example so I know what I'm looking for? Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, done the dashes and the Notes thingie. Just not sure about that first point. Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Endashes are entered like this (look at the edit window): – . (Don't forget the semi-colon =]) I fixed them though. :)

There was only one footnote that had the "p" vs. "pp" problem...I could have fixed it before, but I just wanted tro make sure that you knew that you had to keep it consistent for any other articles that you take to FAC...(Imagine going through something like Roman Catholic Church for a small and minor problem in even half the references... =/) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• My concerns have been addressed, so Support. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The first sentence in the "Formation" section, repeats "activated" in the same sentence. Unfortunately, my mind isn't working right now, and can't think of a suitable word with which to replace the first one (I think the second "activated" is more appropriate to the context).

Done, replaced with 'formed'

• • Also in that paragraph, I think there's a problem with ranks. You've got Chapman as an MG while in command of the 13th, but an LTG (one pay-grade higher than MG) before, while in command of the 88th. Battalions are normally commanded by Lieutenant Colonels; is that perhaps what you meant?

Ah yes, that's it. Thanks for catching that.

• • This is sort of an off topic thought: have you thought about creating an "WWII Airborne Navbox" template that could go on the bottom of the article? It seems to me that the generic "US Army" box isn't all that relevant to this article, and a template that has links to all of the Airborne units (either US only, or other Allied units as well) and the operations the units took part in during the war. Just a thought :)

I like that idea, but I wouldn't have a clue how to create one. Have you ever made one before, or know where I could look to make one. I like that idea.

Here's Template:WW2AirDefenceUK, a template I found in Category:World War II navigational boxes that might be a good frame to start your own. You could even add in the equipment used, like the Horsa gliders, C-47s, etc. as the AirDefenceUK template has. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• • As The Ed17 said above, just a couple of really minor things, otherwise, the article looks pretty good. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything done, Parsecboy! Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good now, so Support. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support with Comment - excellent article that looks nearly ready for an FA Drive (although it could use a copyedit to refresh some areas of the prose). My only real suggestion content-wise is to possibly expand on what happened between may and august of 1945. The division obviously didn't just sit there twiddling its thumbs for nearly four months, so I'm sort of wondering what it did partake in (perhaps occupation duties or prisoner processing or reconstruction or something). All the best, Cam ^(Chat) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take it though a nice copy-edit to get rid of any less than fantastic prose, and I take your point about the period May to August. I've found a copy of the division's own history on Google Books; unfortunately, it doesn't have page numbers and it's a poor copy that hurts my eyes looking at it. Skinny87 (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good news, everybody!</Farnsworth> The US Army Historical Website says the 13th moved to Oise, France in April 1945 for 'supply and administration tasks', which is a bit vague, but it's something, so it's now in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alaska class battlecruiser

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this because I think that it is ready to undergo this, even without a GA review yet (it's pending). The only real big question I have right now is the name of the article..."Alaska class battlecruiser", "Alaska class large cruiser" or "Alaska class cruiser"? If consensus says one of the last two, an admin will have to move it, 'cos I moved it from "cruiser" to its present location without really thinking about it before... =/ Anyway, thanks for any and all feedback you give me! Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • As far as the name is concerned it looks like DANFS refers to them as "large cruisers" and further defines the hull classification symbol "CB" as meaning "large cruiser". Do other sources call them "battlecruisers'?
    • See the '"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"?' section....
      • The name as it is doesn't bother me. You were just asking for opinions on what name it should be under… — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I meant that there are sources that call them battlecruisers, and just see that section. Sorry! :)
  • "See also" and "External links" sections are usually located after "Notes", "References", and "Bibliography" sections.
    • Not "See also"! See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices.
      • Whoops. My mistake. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • In referring to ships of the various classes, the awkward italic/Roman clash, as in "Alaskas", can be avoided by using other constructions like "the Alaska class", "the Alaska-class ships", or other variations. Also, in several places where ships of a particular class are referred to, a grocer's apostrophe is used when I don't believe the intention is for a possessive.
    • Trekphiler went through and removed a lot + I got some, but apparently there are more. :) I'll hunt for them.  Doing...
  • This is a really long sentence: The design process of the Alaska class was "torturous"[7] because of the numerous changes and modifications made to the ships' layouts by many different departments and individuals;[7] indeed, the ship had at least nine different planned layouts,[19] ranging from 6,000 ton Atlanta class antiaircraft cruisers,[18] to "overgrown" heavy cruisers,[7] to a 38,000 ton mini-battleship that would have been armed with twelve 12-in guns and sixteen 5-in guns.
    •  Done
  • Unclear antecedent: what does she refer to in this sentence: "Outside of the USS Saratoga (CV-3), she was the least maneuverable ship in the U.S. Navy,[7] which was due to the decision to use a cruiser-like single rudder instead of a battleship-like dual."
    •  Done
  • What's a "raining mission"? A typo, perhaps?
    • ...posssssibly.... =/
  • By using an A prefix for the discursive notes, they end up looking too much like the citations. Perhaps using the word Note would make them more readily distinguishable?
    • Having ^{[Note n]} all over bothers me...I want to have the notes look somewhat like references, if only they are short like refs.....I don't want an overabundance of nice blue ^{superscripted} text.
      • No problem, then. (Too bad they can't be sequential letters.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I thought that too... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
          • My two decimal units... I have a habit of using Roman numerals for footnotes, to contrast with the Arabic numerals in citations. See HMAS Melbourne (R21) as an example. -- saberwyn 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • When you have a sentence beginning "Arguably the best light anti-aircraft gun of World War II…", it just begs for a citation. I know that the entire paragraph is sourced to Navweaps.com, but an additional citation to make clear where the opinion comes from is in order.
    •  Done
  • For compound adjectives, WP:HYPHEN recommends no hyphen for abbreviated units, so it should be "12 in gun" rather than "12-in gun". I'd also suggest using {{convert}} for SI unit conversions; "…12 in (300 mm)…" is potentially less ambiguous than "…12 in guns…"
  • The range of speeds in the lead looks funny with differing levels of precision. If the range comes from the same source, I would expect something more like "31.4–33.0 knots (58.2–61.1 km/h; 36.1–38.0 mph)". If they are figures from differing sources, I'd just make it 31–34 knots (57–63 km/h; 36–39 mph)
  • Given that this is an article about U.S. Navy ships, the "USS" prefix is superfluous in just about every case in this article (except for the list of class ships in the "Ships" section). If you add the optional parameter "|3" at the end of {{USS}}, it will hide "USS". While adding that, you might evaluate each ship link to determine if the hull classification number is necessary in all cases. One example: in the "Design process" section, USS Hornet (CV-12) could easily be just Hornet without any loss of clarity (and would avoid the ugly double parentheses, too).
    •  Doing...
    • It's |2, by the way. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • "|2" for "Shipname", "|3" for "Shipname (AA-nn)" — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support w/Comments In addition to Bellhalla's comments, I have a few of my own:
  • Just an FYI, but its usually a bad idea to have two ranking review processes open at the same time. In the future it would be better to clear the GAN before moving on to the ACR becuase they have on occasion conflicted with each other on certain matters.
    • Can do. :)
  • Can we maybe lose some of the citations in the lead? If the info appears further down in the article it does not nessicarly have to be cited in the lead per se, although you are certainly welcome to do so if you like.
    • The info does not appear further down. :)
      • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of what appears below and generally shouldn't have material not in the rest of the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • See about integrating the links in the see also section into the article body itself and removing that section altogater, the FAC people have ion the past frowned on the presence of see also sections, so if you can get remove it now would be the time to do so.
    •  Done...I'll just remove it; it doesn't add too much to the article anyway.
  • Can we do something about the redlinks for the big guns in the article about where the Armement section is? They are kind of distracting, and could be useful to other articles if created.
  • Do we really need the external link to Wikitionary? It looks out of place in the article.
    •  Done...changed to WP link.
  • "The anti-aircraft batteries on the Alaska "large cruisers" consisted of 56 x 40mm guns and 34 x 20mm guns. These numbers can be compared to 48 x 40mm and 24 x 20mm on the smaller Baltimores and 80 x 40mm and 49 x 20mm on the larger Iowas." As a rule, anything making a camparison using numbers should have a cite since the information is open to being challenged otherwise. This paragraph doesn't have a cite, although it should be too hard to find one or two cites for the info presented.
    • Will do tommorow..as you said (I think you said, Mr. Typo King), it shouldn't be too hard. :)
      •  Done
• Otherwise it look good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as the article has now been tightened. Comments I think that this is pretty close to A-class, but it needs a bit more tightening up. Some suggestions are:
  • "The original idea for a U.S. class of battlecruiser began in the late 1930s, when the U.S. Navy wanted to counter both the German Scharnhorst class and a new battlecruiser class Japan supposedly had under construction.[7][A 7] The Alaska class were intended to serve as "cruiser-killers", in order to seek out and destroy this type of post-Treaty heavy cruiser. " - these two sentences are confusing - were the Alaskas designed to counter battlecruisers or cruisers?
    •  Doing...
  • "This was the point in the war where the Navy, and the President, realized that the next fleet carriers, the Essex-class aircraft carriers, had not even been laid down yet and only one (Hornet) would enter service before 1944" - the Essex class aircraft carrier article contradicts this sentence - three Essexs had been laid down during 1941 and they started to enter service in December 1942
    •  Doing...
  • "Even though their raison d'être served with the U.S. Navy in the last years of World War II." - I don't understand what this sentence means
    •  Done...that's what I get for trying to merge in a deleted section too fast.
  • The service history section is a bit too brief, even considering that neither of the ships served for long. It would be good if this section covered the dates the ships entered service, what the Navy's commanders thought about the ships (were they regarded as being worthwhile reinforcements, or a waste of supplies?) and why they were taken out of service in 1947 given their high construction cost and success as carrier escorts (presumably because they were less cost-effective escorts than heavy cruisers and destroyers)
  • how many kills did the cruiser group achieve?
    •  Done...whoops, zero, not few. =/
  • The sections on the Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns and Oerlikon 20mm anti-aircraft guns don't really need to be in the article - these generic descriptions of the guns should be in the articles on the guns. Was there anything unusual about the way these guns were mounted or used on the Alaskas?
    • They are just short blurbs on them so that readers can see what this "400mm gun" is without have a problem with WP:TLDR.
    • Not that any source said...
  • It would be interesting if the discussion of the ships' armament included a description of their radars and other sensors - were these the reason they made excellent carrier escorts?
    • Well, it would be nice to have a source that tells us what radar the ship used... =/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Ask FTC Gerry (talk · contribs), he may be able to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll ask, but he hasn't edited since July! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support; under the condition that everything above was dealt with. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The concerns are being dealt with, albeit slowly... I had two 5-7 page papers due this week, so my time on here has been cut for the last 3 days. =/ —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support.

• • ""pocket battleships"," In the Genesis section; shouldn't the comma be inside the quotes?
  • "Indeed, the ship had at least nine different planned layouts,[19] ranging from 6,000 ton Atlanta class antiaircraft cruisers," This might be better rephrased as "ranging from a design similar to the 6,000 ton Atlanta..." unless one design morphed into Atlanta class? This is a rather confusing sentence.
  • "a realization that these "cruiser killers" had no more cruisers to hunt—the fleets of Japanese cruisers had already been defeated by aircraft and submarines—made the Alaska class "white elephants"." Again, I think the period should go inside the quotes (might want to check to see if there other cases that I missed). Also, it kinds of reads a bit awkwardly, you might want to consider rephrasing it - not necessary though, just a personal thing.
  • "She served in the Pacific with Alaska almost all of the same operations." This is awkward, please rephrase it.
    
    Besides those, however, it looks good. Fix those and the other changes made above, and it'll have earned my support. Joe (Talk) 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Improvements do need to be made to the article, although I can't pick out anything that hasn't already been listed above. Having said that, significant improvements have already been made since the listing here began, and the_ed17's commitment to implementing these changes means I have no qualms about thowing my support in now, as I think that the current incarnation is sufficient for A-class. -- saberwyn 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edmund Herring

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-Class as I believe it meets the criteria. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is way to POV, and needs to be rewritten.

 Done Kind of lobotomises it though

The lead is still slightly too POV, and the repetition of "was" in the opening paragraph doesn't sit well. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a coyuple of "was". All that is left is a string of facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, although I believe the inclusion of "skillfully" is rather POV. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• An endash is required in the infobox between Herring's service years.

All ndashes fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 06:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Would it be feasible to expand on why he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross, particulally the former?

 Done The former was for commanding his battery but for most of Herring's period of command it was marching to the Turkish border and then back again. I can expand on the latter though.

• Linking dates is no longer required, and it is prefered not to have them as such. Consider delinking them.

 Done

• The final paragraph under the "Papua" section is unreferenced, as is half of the last paragraph in the "New Guinea" section and the last sentence in the "Chief Justiceship and later life" section; these need to be.

 Done

• I don't particually see the value or use in the "Awards and decorations" section, but if it is to remain, it must be referenced.

 Done

Several of Herring's medals remain unreferenced. Also, are you sure his entitlement to the specified World War II service medals is included in his service record? The record is not digitised at the present time, and it is not very often when entitlement to service medals in World War II is contained in the service files. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The record is not digitised because Herring did not serve in the First AIF. It's there though. Every file I've consulted contained the receipts for the campaign medals. There was a stamp with their names and the entitlements are usually ticked off. My problem is his WWI service medals; without a file, they cannot be referenced. If it's a problem, I can remove the references. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether Herring served in the First AIF is irrelevant; several WWII service personnel have had their records digitised. Actually, it isn't often when one comes across the medal sheet, many of the records do not include them. I'm not sure on what you mean by "remove the references" as this whole section must be referenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also note that the "It's an Honour" website violates WP:VER, and is probably best not to be used.

 Done Under the old Imperial honours system, awards were gazetted twice, in the London and Commonwealth Gazettes. Since the former reference is there, the latter could be safely removed.

• The "Innes, Prue, "A full Life of Service in Khaki and Silk", The Age (Melbourne), 6 January 1982" reference lacks an access date, and must have one.

 Done Still there, so I entered today's date. Also restructured the bibliography while I was at it.

Sorry, but this has not been done. Also, it is prefered to use a cite template for both book and web sources. Consider implementing these. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Innes has an access date in the sources at the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It does now. I posted this comment before you added the date today. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• In the info box should the allegiance of any Australian Army Officer not be to the crown ?

I'll await the outcome of the discussion on the Australian military history task force.

• Awarded a DSO for his service as a battery commander - the battery should be added to the list of commands held.

 Done

• The link for fifty Australians should be changed to this one that takes you to the correct page http://www.awm.gov.au/fiftyaustralians/22.asp

• Not a fan of the Awards and decorations section in this format , but can live with it if no further objections.

The rest looks good Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport with the changes.
  • Blamey should only be linked the first time. The second time you mention him, with respect to the Generals' Revolt, you should probably include his first name since it's been a while since he has been mentioned.

 Done

• • "The White Guard was reportedly a response to the rise of communism in Australia, its members ready to stop a Catholic or Communist revolution." Needs to be rephrased, it implies that Australia was communist, and it sounds awkward.

 Done

• • "(who had himself relieved a couple of division commanders)" specify, how many, who, etc.

 Done

• • "On 28 September], Herring, along with his BGS, Brigadier R. B. Sutherland, and his DA&QMG, Brigadier R. Bierwirth, boarded a US Fifth Air Force B-25 Mitchell bomber at Dobodura." First of all, why is there a bracket there. Second, please spell out or link the abbreviations to avoid jargon.

Unfortunately, there are no articles to link, so I have merely removed the stray bracket and described them as "staff officers".

• • "Herring trained his men for the next operation." This sentance is short and ambiguous. What is this next operation?

 Done I suspect that my ambiguity was deliberate. Herring didn't know what the next operation would be.

Besides those problems it looks good, however I would recommend getting it copy-edited before I will support it. Please do this and make the other changes I suggested and tell me and I'll come back and support it. Joe (Talk) 01:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on the references (this version)
  • (Sources) What in the world is ""The Honourable Sir Edmund Francis Herring, KCMG, KBE, DSO, MC, ED" 1982 Victorian Reports, pp ix-x."??

It's a legal journal. I've put it into the citation template. Unfortunately, it's only available online from 1989.

• • .#15: "AMF Army List of Officers, October 1950" ...what is this?

The Army list? It's a list of all the officers in the Army. Contains all the officers of the Army listed in order of seniority, with career summaries. (See Oscar White's The Importance of Being Earnest). Rare as hens' teeth. Added a reference.

• • .#'s 22, 24 & 25...I know that you have links to the books(?), but you need to use {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} anyway.

 Done

• • .#41..." Extracts from Berryman Diary, 20 September 1943, AWM93 50/2/23/331"....where is this from?
  • .#44..."Gavin Long interview with Lieutenant General F. H. Berryman, 11 September 1956, AWM93 50/2/23/331"....where is this from?

AWM93 is the "Australian War Memorial registry files" Item 50/2/23/331 is "War of 1939-45. Correspondence with Lt Gen F H Berryman regarding the loan of private papers, diaries and photographs and information for and comments on the official history [some comments are included]"

• • .#54..."31 August 1964, 1964 Victorian Reports, p. 47"...where from?

See above

• • .#'s 58 and 59 need dates of retrieval...consider using {{cite web}}.

 Done

• • .#58 again...can we get a specific page from the site? You just get us to the main page...

 Done

• • That's all for now. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I have a few comments:

• I think you should use World War One instead of Great War for the section header, it is more encyclopedic.

 Done

• I thought that the correct form for Australia was First World War / Second World War and not WWI/WWII ?

 Done The correct form is Great War/Second World War. But First World WAr is more encyclopedic. Corrected in the infoboxes.

• The infobox seems a bit overwhelming to me. Could some of the commands be removed and/or some of the battles?

Another editor wanted more added. :(

• (entirely optional) The lead seems a bit choppy to me, though I see that you cut it down earlier. Perhaps merge some of the shorter paragraphs?
• The text itself seems a bit choppy to me, no specific issues, just didn't read quite right to my eyes. That is entirely subjective though and different for each reader. I would strongly suggest a copyedit before any attempte at FAC.

Agree completely. Unfortunately, I cannot do that at the present time - I have no search/replace or spell check at the moment. I'm not sure whether it should become an FA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Regards. Woody (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stanley Goble

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-nom for this article on a significant figure in Australia's military aviation history, as I believe it meets the criteria. Was a B-class article for some time, after which I reviewed and made some enhancements, nominating for GA which it's just passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Comment

• Allegiance = Commonwealth of Australia would this not be the Crown ?
  • "Commonwealth of Australia" (or simply "Australia") seems to be an accepted way of rendering it in similar articles.
• Is Federal Govenment the correct term the link take you to The Commonwealth of Australia is a federal constitutional monarchy under a parliamentary democracy.
  • May not be ideal but closest thing to an Australian Federal Government article I've seen. If it seems confusing, an alternative might be to just use "Australian Government" and lose the link entirely.
• Any more details on his early life section, Born then went to work with the Victporian Railway leaves a lot out schooling etc ?
  • Agree but, as discussed in the GA review, none of references consulted include schools, or much of anything else in his early life.
    • Expanded the section somewhat.
• Why did he fail the strict medical criteria?
  • Again the sources are not too precise but will review and see if I can add any more useful detail.
    • Done.
• Why and for what did he win the Croix de guerre ? i presume it was not for being promoted to Flight Lieutenant Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, brought up in GA review - unfortunately nothing in any current sources I've seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworded slightly to minimise any suggestion of direct connection between promotion and Croix. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Please format references according to this referencing style.
  • Not sure about this, the style employed here is the same as for other related articles I've worked on which have passed ACR or FAC, e.g. George Jones (RAAF officer), Richard Williams (RAAF officer) and Morotai Mutiny, and I think broadly follows guidelines. Would prefer to stay consistent with these similar articles, but happy to discuss.
• Use endashes for page ranges in citations. Example: p. 31-32 -> p. 31–32.
  • Done.
• "Early career" section needs expansion and more references in my opinion.
  • Done.
• Same for 1st and 2nd paragraphs, "World War I" section; last paragraph, "Circumnavigation of Australia" section and 1st para, "World War II" section.
  • World War I done.
  • Circumnavigation of Australia & World War II done.
• Per MOS:IMAGE, text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images (Circumnavigation of Australia section).
  • Done.
• It would be nice if you'd add some references in the infobox, especially within "Unit", "Commands held" and "Awards".
  • My reading of things has always been that we don't clutter the infobox with citations unless absolutely necessary; rather that, like the intro, it should summarise referenced info in the body of the article. I believe everything in the infobox is cited in the main body, so do you still consider this an issue?

Good job and keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate, will address all the other points you've raised in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that all my above comments would make your life easier through a FAC, it's up to you whether you apply them or not. I will support this article now as it meets all our A-class criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and in the few short days since it's passing the article has been enhanced even further in standard. This is a well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's something vaguely disturbing about an article that leaves me with questions rather than answers.

• I'm also curious about what was wrong with his physique that caused his rejection by the AIF but not the RNAS. The most common cause was height - but this is not the case here.
  • You and me both - at the outset I'll just say that Goble does have one of the most intricate rank and service histories of anyone I've written on. On this point, only snippet I haven't already put in is from Alan Stephens, who mentions "minor medical grounds". Didn't think that added anything I could put it in if you think it's an improvement.
• "That year [1919] he returned to Australia a Lieutenant Colonel". But Goble returned to Australia on the Gaika on 8 November 1918, as major.
  • The 1919 date was from the ADB entry but you must have another source - can you supply the details?

NAA (Vic) MT1487/1 2001/00494397 [8] Digitised, so you can read it online. Just a page on his coming home. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• In what capacity was he seconded to the RAN?
  • No info on that - ADB just uses that expression, Gazette from 6 August 1920 says "empld. with the Commonwealth Government of Australia (Royal Australian Navy)".
• "On 9 November 1920, Goble, like Williams, dropped the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and became a Wing Commander". But the RAF changed over to its new ranks on 1 August 1919. Why didn't he change then? Wasn't he still an RAF officer?
  • Stephens suggests both Goble and Williams were Lt Colonels in the Australian Air Corps, a branch of the Army, at this point. I can put that in to make it clearer.
  • Well the ADB says "Thus, although he received a permanent commission in the Royal Air Force as a squadron leader on 1 August 1919, he was at once made an honorary wing commander and seconded for service with the Royal Australian Navy." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, and that's also backed up by the Gazette. Also found another Gazette entry that we don't yet have in the article which notes that he resigned his commission from the RAF the day the Australian Air Force was formed (to join the AAF). I think I'll put that in and drop entirely the LtCol to Wingco bit. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "the Federal Government allegedly had a policy of ensuring that they were never in the country at the same time" But the article makes it clear that this was not the case. (Also note Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)
  • I think the article makes pretty clear that they were rarely in the country at the same time. I used "allegedly" since there appears to be no actual evidence of such a policy, simply that many commentators have suggested it. Can reword a bit.
    • Done - believe the expression used now is consistent with cited source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Newspapers reported that Goble had resigned "on a matter of high principle" " What high principle was that? The abandonment of the concept of an autonomous Air Expeditionary Force? The hare-brained EATS? Conflict with Air Commodore John Russell? (Over what?) The article does not make it clear at all.
  • I can add some more from that news report.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you've made me look it up. I discover that it was the conflict with Air Commodore John Russell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's one of the reasons noted by the sources, but the abandonment of the AEF is also part of it. If you're not sure about my latest version of this, can you suggest wording? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's a Featured Article on the Morotai Mutiny. Why isn't it linked to?
  • Yep, I know that article quite well and don't normally need an excuse to link to it, but it didn't seem particularly appropriate in this case. Caldwell was court martialled for alcohol trafficking on the island, not for the "mutiny" (some have implied a connection of course but I wasn't going to get into that here).
• "Many other senior RAAF commanders who were veterans of World War I, including Richard Williams, were also retired at this time, ostensibly to make way for the advancement of younger officers." The article details the difficulties involved if there are too many senior officers left at the top after a war. But Jones' actual words seem to be recommending Goble's discharge on medical grounds, and Goble dies of hypertension a couple of years later.
  • No disagreement but not sure what you're recommending. Jones said what he said, but Goble's exit should also be seen in context of the other forced retirements of his fellow high-ranking officers at the same time.

It seems on the face of it that things are the other way around; that Jones ostensibly removed Goble on medical grounds, but actually to get rid of another annoying officer more senior than himself. I take your point. Leave it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "cerebro-vascular disease" be Cerebrovascular disease? And linked?
  • Thanks, will do.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• You credit Goble with seven victories but [9] lists ten:

        Date            Time    Unit    Aircraft                Opponent                Location
1 	21 Jul 1916 	1750 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Dixmude
2 	15 Aug 1916 	0720 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	Seaplane C (DES) 	Off Westende
3 	22 Sep 1916 	1530 	1W 	Sopwith Pup (3691) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Ghistelles
4 	16 Nov 1916 	1055 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Gommecourt
5 	17 Nov 1916 	1535 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DES) 	        Bapaume
6 	27 Nov 1916 	0950 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DESF) 	        SE of Bapaume
7 	04 Dec 1916 	1100 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	Halberstadt D.II (OOC) 	SE of Bapaume
8 	11 Dec 1916 	1010 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Bucquoy
9 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (DES) 	Bohain-Le Catelet
10 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (OOC) 	Bohain-Le Catelet

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, it's an impressive list - but how reliable is this site? I see it quotes a book but I don't know Frank's accuracy vs. Cutlack and Stephens. Perhaps a footnote to the seven victories we mention in the article already, saying he has been credited with as many as 10 and citing this? (I was hoping the two figures could be reconciled by assuming Cutlack and Stephens only credited him for victories as a pilot but according to this table that'd give him 8, not 7.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reviewed everything and found - mea culpa! - that Cutlack did not give a figure after all, leaving it between Stephens with 7 and The Aerodrome / Frank with 10. Have rejigged the article to accommodate both, and of course am open to further discussion or suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on references: (this version)
  • What makes #11 and 37 reliable?
  • That's all. Otherwise they look excellent. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ed. Re. #11, The Aerodrome, I'm primarily relying on the site - which has been used in many WP articles - because it shows evidence of robust sourcing, in this case a book by Norman Frank which I've since located and found agrees with the representation on the web. Of course I could just use the book but I prefer to include online references where possible for ease of verification. To be fair, I was initally dubious myself in this instance (see above) but that was when I thought I had two reliable references claiming 7 kills vs. the The Aerodrome / Frank with 10, when in fact it was only one claiming 7 vs. one claiming 10. Re. #37, Powerhouse Museum is a major Australian museum so I think its web site is as reliable as say the Australian War Memorial. Last thing, re. your arbitrary change to the references section format - I'd prefer to return to the earlier style as it's consistent with similar RAAF and other Australian military biography articles, and is within MOS guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No objections then, but watch Aerodome if you go to FAC...you might will get questioned by Ealdgyth if you go there, so make sure that it passes WP:V. :)
        • Tks for the warning - and appreciate your faith referring to FAC but don't want to get ahead of ourselves, still got to get through ACR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • After I changed the section names, I made this, which will explain why I did that much better than my edit summary.....but yes, they pass MoS either way. =D
        • For now I'll opt for consistency with similar RAAF bios but many tks for further explanation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If there is still a problem with 7 vs. 10, see what Maralia and I did on USS Nevada (BB-36) when a question about the number of torpedo tubes appeared...(in the infobox). You might be able to do the same.... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That looks like a pretty elegant way of dealing with multiple viewpoints of similar reliability, Ed. With just the two sources in this case I'll stick to how it is but if more arise then your method makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Elegant? Noooo. Practical? Yes. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Woody

Oppose for now I can't see much wrong with the article, though I have a few lingering content concerns. It seems comprehensive to me, though there are a couple of issues.

• Heh, poor ole' Jimmy - he seemed to have a hard time getting unqualified approval during his life, and his ACR's no different...! No prob, that's what we're here for - hopefully all objections addressed below.

MOS stuff

• The images at the bottom should be staggered and not all in a line. It is overwhelming the text and I think there is something in the MOS about left aligned images above level 2 section headers. If you have to, remove one to make way.

• As you may know, Woody, I also prefer staggered images. However Eurocopter pointed out earlier that when arranged that way in the original version that I submitted for ACR, text ended up sandwiched between two images on left and right, hence my moving one of those to the left. Have now rejigged the section so it should satisfy all prefs.

• If they get sandwiched, remove them. It looks fine to me now. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• May-June 1942 should have an endash.
  • Done.
• I'm not sure, but I thought Commonwealth English was First World War / Second World War as opposed to World War I / World War II.

• I know the former style is often used in Commonwealth-related articles and I don't change it in articles where it's already in place but hadn't understood it to be 'Commonwealth English' per se. I'm just going on precedent since it hasn't been raised as a concern in other ACRs/FACs I've nominated. It doesn't fuss me either way particularly but if I change it here I'd feel kind of obliged to change it in all the other similar articles I've done. However if you think we should standardise this way then I'm happy to do it - let me know.

• I'm not one for all this mumbo-jumbo about correct usage. You might find some reviewers who are vociferous about this, but I'm not one of them. If it is consistent within an article, and this one is, then I'm happy. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Content stuff

• You don't mention that he was shot down twice during WWI.
  • Done.
• There seems to be little to nothing in this article about his personal life. His wife is only mentioned when you talk about his legacy. There is no mention of when he got married.
  • Done.
• Was he buried or cremated?
  • Done.
• That's it from me I think. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support now. I have replied to some of your comments, but it looks A-Class to me. Well done. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Khafji

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working a bit on the article, trying to get in about 2kB more admittedly (so I can suggest a DYK), so I will probably add a table of Coalition armored vehicles, similar to the one on Iraqi armored vehicles. But, I want to put this through an A-class review. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments and questions:
• You might want to mention in the background section that the coalition gave Hussein an ultimatum to withdraw by a certain date or military action would commence, if that was the case.
• Since articles exist already, those tables for the armored vehicles aren't necessary.
• I believe that its customary to use headings like "First day" or "Initial attack" instead of dates as section headings.
• What nationality was Lieutenant Colonel Matar?
• What happened to the two Americans who were taken prisoner? Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

1. I added some information on the ultimatums issued by the United Nations. Unfortunately, I don't have a better source for the Gulf War, and so that's all the information I can really offer.
2. The tables aren't only just to give information on the vehicles, but to allow the reader to compare without having to go to each specific article. The idea is the same as the comparison tables in articles such as Leopard 2E and AMX-30E. It's a nice quasi-visualization.
3. I've seen both, including featured articles with both the date and a more elaborate section title. That's how I went with Third Battle of Kharkov. I went ahead and did this for this article, as well.
4. Saudi. I've added this in.
5. I added that they were released after the war in the footnote.

Thanks! I hope these answered your questions! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I really have a problem with having the vehicle tables. I don't think they belong. If however, you nominate the article for FA and it passes with those tables present, then I'll eat my hat and will no longer worry about it. Otherwise, I think it's an excellent article and meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support

'Most of their attacks were fought off by U.S. Marines units and Coalition aircraft, but one of the Iraqi columns occupied Khafji on the night of 29–30 January.' - 'Units' doesn't seem quite right to me, but it's a minor quibble

'two Saudi national guard battalions' -should national guard be capitalized?

'The battle demonstrated that air power could halt and defeat a major ground operation' - Hasn't that been shown before? If so, editing it to reflect that would be better - 'another example' perhaps, or a 'modern example', something like that

'The invasion, which followed the inconclusive Iran–Iraq War and three decades of political conflict with Kuwait, offered Saddam Hussein a chance to quell political dissent at home and add Kuwait's oil resources to Iraq's own, a boon in a time of declining petroleum prices.' - How did it give him a chance?

'In an attempt to provoke a ground battle, he directed Iraqi forces to launch Scud missiles against Israel, while continuing to threaten the destruction of oilfields in Kuwait' - Did these do any damage?

'The Iraqi Army had between 350,000 and 500,000 effectives in theater,' -Effective whats?

'Slated for the offensive into Saudi Arabia was the Iraqi Third Corps' - 'Slated' isn't a good word to use

'For many in the Arab world, the battle of Khafji was an Iraqi victory' - 'was seen as'

That'll do, I think. Just a few prose issues to sort out, and then I can support this article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of it should be fixed. I changed some words, like "effectives" (to soldiers) and "slated" (I used it three times, so I chose different words for each time), and National Guard was capitalized. Some things I couldn't really address completely. For example, "how did it offer him a chance"; I changed it to "offered him the ability to distract political dissent". I was thinking of how to include an explanation of this, but it would make the text choppy (it's similar to how the Falklands War did the same for the Argentine government, or how a war with Spain would do the same for the Moroccan government). And, I don't know the extent of damage on Israel from the Scud attacks; I don't think I have a ready source which does, but I don't think that adding in how much was damaged in Israel would be relevant to the topic of this article. Otherwise, it should be fixed! JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • "Initially, Saddam Hussein attempted to deter Coalition military action by threatening Kuwait's and Iraq's petroleum production and export." Awkward and ambiguous, rephrase please.
  • "In December 1990, Iraq experimented with the use of explosives to destroy wellheads in the area of the Ahmadi loading complex, improving their capabilities of destroying Kuwait's petroleum infrastructure on a large scale." How did the experimentation improve their capabilities? Did they discover new technologies? Please clarify.
  • "This quickly grew to over 600,000 personnel, of which over 500,000 were provided by the United States,[28] including 3,600 tanks." Does this mean that 3,600 tanks were provided by the US, or that there were 3,600 tanks in total? Please clarify.
  • I've fixed terms that have been linked twice that I noticed.
  • Don't link dates in the references section, and perhaps you should use an nbsp between the ISBN and the number for the Rottman source, it looks weird to have the number at the start of a new column.
    Make those changes, and it should look good. Good luck on FA. Joe (Talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and comments. How do you suggest that I rephrase that first sentence you noted? For me that sentence is clear, but it might be because I know the context in which I wrote it in, so it's difficult for me to find a better sentence. It's explained in the rest of the paragraph (i.e. his experiments with exploding oil well heads, et cetera). I'd appreciate any help in rewording that sentence. In regards to how the experimentation improved their capabilities, the source doesn't really specify, so I assume that it improved it just because they had prior experience (the experiments). Nothing mentions whether or not they had new technologies and what not, so I'd figure it's just a matter of experience and know-how.

I fixed the sentence with the deployment numbers by moving the final portion of the sentence in front of the statement that says that the U.S. deployed over 500,000. Hopefully, now it should be clearer. For the dates in the references; those are autoformatted by the citation template. I don't know what they're going to decide to do with that over there (although, I believe they're talking about the issue). Again, thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rereading that first sentence I mentioned, it's fine. I guess I was doing this too late at night yesterday, my apologies. If the dates are autoformatted and the source isn't clear about the wellhead destruction then everything else is fine. Joe (Talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Mauna Loa

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has passed a (strange) GA review and a peer review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support but Image:SS West Conob.jpg is tagged for no category. --Brad (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching that. I've added categories for it at Commons — 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Another example of your excellent work. Joe (Talk) 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unquestionable Support: meets all criteria and a very good read. Good work Belhalla! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support and that really was a strange GA review. I can't see any outstanding issues that would deny A-Class status. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Black Osprey

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments A generally well-written article. I focus here on a number of prose issues:
  • Watch redudancies throughout prose. Here is one example: The ship was inspected by the United States Navy for possible use as USS West Arrow (ID-2585) but was neithernot taken into the Navy noror ever commissioned under that name
    • Since USS West Arrow (ID-2585) is a redirect to the article, I was trying to make clear that though that would have been the ship's name, she was never officially known by that name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to simplify sentences, such as this one: After the United States established a "Neutrality Zone"—a zone where American-flagged ships could not enter—in late 1939, American Diamond was unable to use Black Osprey or any of the other seven vessels used on its Dutch route, and chartered the ships to other U.S. companies.
    • Sentence split into two sentences now. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • West Arrow was inspected by the 13th Naval District of the United States Navy after completion and was assigned the identification number of 2585
    • Well, the ship was inspected after completion. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's about all I have this morning, I'll try and return. Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My replies are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I corrected a minor redundancy. Do you think the article would be too short for FA? --Brad (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for catching that. (D'oh!) I don't think the length would necessarily be a problem with an FA. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as normal more than deserves A-class. Joe (Talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support I couldn't see any issues. The length is good, I have seen smaller FAs. It seems comprehensive and that is all that matters. Good work. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Vigo Bay

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote this article and havn't put an article up for A class for a long time, so any comments welcome. Thanks. Rebel Redcoat (talk)

Comment - on a quick look through the article, I have noticed that a number of sentences at the end of paragraphs are unreferenced. This needs to be ammended in order to pass criteria A1. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Issues addressed. Well written and cited article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The totals for ships in the info box, do not have a source/ref , and many statements in the text that need citations.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.

• The lead does not have a single reference.

• After the sentence Rooke sent ships to explore the mouth of Vigo Bay. A landing party had gleaned information from a captured friar that King Philip’s part of the treasure had already been landed, but that much wealth was still left on board the Spanish vessels., there should be a reference. Same as the following:

Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later.

The result was a financial windfall for Philip.

I have put citation needed tags in.

Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Redmarkviolinist - the lead does not need references. Per MOS, it is supposed to be a general summary of the entire article (which this appears to be, although I have not read the article closely), and therefore does not need to be referenced. Therefore, I have removed the fact tags you placed in the lead of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose A decent start, but there are too many citation needed tags, and too many unsourced statements. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Citations look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response

OK, there’s some inconsistency here with the A-Class reviews.

The review of the Battle of Fort Henry is a current A-class nominee: it is of a similar size to this article and has 16 fewer citations. Yet, it gets support. Maybe because the people who supported that article actually read it, rather than tick off a checklist from an ever-burgeoning rulebook – now there’s a novel idea!

Why would I need to cite the statement - "The result was a financial windfall for Philip", when the preceding sentence (cited) reads - "In total, Philip managed to keep nearly seven million pesos, representing over half the silver from the fleet, amounting to the biggest sum in history obtained from the American trade by any Spanish king."

Another example - "Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later". A more banal sentence you could not find, yet a fact tag has been slapped on the end. Why?

So we now have the situation where the article gets plastered with unnecessary fact tags, and then it gets opposed because it's covered in fact tags.

I shall cite the ship numbers, but people who are willing to re-write much of the dross found in the MilHist project should not be discouraged or strangled by an ever increasing tangle of red tape.{no citation needed} Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mate, before I read an article in a review I have a quick scan through to see if there are any telltale signs of something wrong or missing. One of the main things I look for are citations/references. Even if the article is well cited in most places, if you were to take the article to FAC now it would not possibly pass with so many sentences at the end of paragraphs unreferenced. You have compared this review and article to the review and article of Battle of Fort Henry in the number of citations. If you look closely at the aforementioned article, you will see that everything in it is cited. Mate, please don't react badly to anything mentioned or stated above. If you try and replace the "citation needed" tags with proper citations, then it is highly likely that the oppose will disappear and you will gain supports. Redcoat, I'll make you a deal: if you find references/citations for the sentences and place them in, I will read every scrap of this article and provide you with either comments on the article's text that could lead to a support, or a support itself. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Having another quick look at the article, I can see that a number of "citation needed" tags have been added in the middle of paragraphs. If these sentences have been cited by the next source slightly further down in the paragraph, then just remove the tags stating that it is cited in that area. However, please do not remove the tags on actual unsourced statements until they are referenced. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abraham ( and the others editors as well) - I think the stress has finally got to me! I thought the easiest thing to do was to simply cite all the queried sentences. If anyone wishes to oppose please do. My primary concern is whether the article reads well and is historical accurate (or at least as accurate as I can make it); relatively speaking, what grade it gets is of minor consequence. If it fails A-class that's perfectly OK. I shall answer any queries if I can in the next day or two, but then I'm taking a break from Wiki. Thanks again. Cheers for now. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and now I will uphold my end of the bargin and throughly review this article. On a quick look through, everything now appears to be very well cited and if I were you, Redcoat, I would contact Juliancolton about revoking his oppose as his concerns have now been addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the "cultural references" should be removed, given that it sounds a lot like "popular culture". JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • Use Template:fixbunching to fix edit section links at the top.
  • Shouldn't the Spanish be included as one of the belligerents in the infobox?
  • I would recommend using the cite book template in the references section.
  • I agree about the Cultural References section, it is extremely short and would be better integrated into the article somehow.

Besides those minor points it looks good. Joe (Talk) 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the bunching myself. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the lead section it states that "hopes of capturing the bulk of the silver cargo had eluded Rooke". Did you really mean that the hopes eluded Rooke, or is it that the capturing eluded him?

Yes this is poorly worded. I’ll change it.

• • In he final sentence of the lead, does "Allied" refer to member of the Grand Alliance? Maybe you could move that link up in the sentence.

Done.

• • "Victuals", "whence"? I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but perhaps some more widely accessible words could be used?

Well, victuals is the correct nautical term – a supply ship is a victualer. I'm reluctant to change it. I’ll change ‘whence’ to ‘From where’.

• • Inconsistent spelling of "Câdiz"/"Cádiz"

I spotted one, if I haven’t missed any more.

• • "Whilst" is specifically mentioned as a word to avoid in the Manual of Style

While is an older word than whilst. ‘Whilst’ is BrEn, and as an Brit I hope to continue to use the formal whilst and amongst. But if it’s a big problem, it can be changed.

• Perhaps a mini summary of the "Aftermath" section (a sentence or two?) would help avoid having the subhead "Plunder" directly under "Aftermath"

The simplest thing to do is to delete the ‘Plunder’ heading: it’s not needed.

• In the "Plunder" section I think the two colons (both after the word French) should be semicolons. There are other colons throughout the article that seem like they should be semicolons as well.

The colons are correct. Vigo Bay was a major naval disaster for the French: of the 15 French warships, 2 frigates and one fireship, not a single vessel escaped. The first part of the sentence is a complete statement, introducing a directly related explanation. Therefore a colon is used.

Here again, a colon is correct.

The Spanish suffered as badly: of the three galleons and 13 trading vessels in their fleet, all were destroyed, save five which were taken by the Allies.

• In the same section, the French in "French warships" is redundant, since you've just stated that you're talking about the French a few words back.

Absolutely correct. Done.

• Add some SI/metric unit conversions of the silver and gold. Also, unless the pounds and ounces are other than standard (as they may very well be), they really shouldn't be linked because they are considered common units.

Done. I’ve added kg values.

• Can you explain why the fleet's arrival was "cause of celebration to the merchants in Holland"? Forgive my American ignorance, but wasn't Holland a part of the Dutch involved in the Alliance?

The use of ‘Holland’ – as opposed to Dutch Republic – was deliberate. The province was the centre of Dutch trade, consisting of the major cities of commerce. It was an attempt to be specific. I’ve linked ‘Holland’ if that helps. If not, replace ‘Holland’ with the ‘Dutch Republic’.

• The section on the silver seized by Philip is confusing to me. Whose silver did he seize and how did he seize it?

The article states the silver was off-loaded before the battle and carted off to Segovia. As stated, most of the silver was owned by the Spanish government, but what belonged to the ‘English and Dutch traders’ was, again as stated, ‘confiscated’.

• Why are the tables in the "Fleets" section centered? On a wide-ish screen they look funny floating so far from the left margin. Also, the meaning of some of the information in the "Notes" column for the Anglo-Dutch fleet eludes me. For Mary, for example, what does "Phoenix (fireship)" mean? Was Mary attacked by Phoenix? Did Mary destroy Phoenix? I don't know.

No, these are fireships that accompanied the Allied fleet. I’ll make that clearer in the table.

• The French ship names in the table don't necessarily mesh with ship names given in the text. Example: Bourbon in the text, Le Bourbon in the table. Even if both names are correct to some extent, they ought to be identified in the article by the same name (unless, of course, they are two different ships).

I can remove the ‘le’ from the table to avoid confusing ‘Bourbon’ with ‘Le Bourbon’

• Agree with the opinions above about the "Cultural references" section. Rather than lose the information, it could be added to a footnote referenced from the "Plunder" section where the treasure is discussed.

Yes, agreed. The only reason it’s there is because it was there in the old article. I’ve deleted it.

— Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, some excellent points. I think your link to the Royal Sovereign is incorrect, though, - it’s the wrong HMS RS. I’m not contributing to Wiki at the moment due to personal reasons. Not enough time etc. I didn’t think an A-class review would take so long. I will not be able to reply, but as I stated before, it’s not important if it makes A class, but it is certainly improved thanks to your contribution, and to the others as well. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (if Bellhalla's concerns have been responded to), given that my only comment was taken into consideration and I don't see anything else which would impede its promotion to A-class. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Clarence Smith Jeffries

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-Class as I believe it meets the criteria. I have greatly expanded this article over the last few weeks, and it was reciently passed as GA. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, the article passes the A-class guidelines, in my opinion. I, unfortunately, don't feel that I can leave you comments on the prose. Otherwise, as I said, it passes the A-class guidelines, and from what I can say, this also includes the writing. Perhaps someone else can leave you more useful suggestions in regards to the writing. Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments

• "Jeffries was born in the Newcastle suburb of Wallsend, New South Wales, on 26 October 1894. The only child of Joshua Jeffries, a colliery manager, and his wife Barbara, née Steel, he attended Dudley Primary School before moving onto Newcastle Collegiate and High schools." I would split up the school part into a separate sentence.
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• What was "the compulsory training scheme." Could we have a bit of explanation or a wikilink. At the moment it is currently assumed that the reader knows what the scheme was.
  • It was a compulsory military training scheme for all males aged between 12 and 26 years of age starting from 1 January 1911. Have added a link to Conscription in Australia#Boyhood conscription. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is meters Australian English?
  • Oops. Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• The images should be alternated left to right. I would move the second image of Jeffries to left alignment.
  • Typically, yes, however, as Jeffries is gazing and has his body slightly angled to the left, I believe it was suited better to be alligned to the right. I will leave the image as it is for now, and see what others think. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Other than that, looks good. All seems factually accurate, the prose seems good to me, the images are all free, all referenced correctly. Woody (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, passed this for GA and see no reason not to promote to A-class in our project. Structure, tone, prose, citations and supporting materials are all fine. Minor comments:

• Prefer not to see "Victoria Cross" repeated in consecutive sentences in intro - perhaps abbrev. to "VC" in the second?
• Prefer not to see "was to" repeated in three consecutive sentences in Victoria Cross - first two are okay but how about just "Jeffries commanded" in the third one?
• I share Woody's preference for alternating pics but in this case the direction of the subject's gaze also leads me to go with keeping the second one as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Constitution

This article recently had a GAR and passed. I've covered all of the suggestions given in the GAR as well as reworking all the references. The exception at this point is the book by Fitz-Enz; I'm awaiting the book to become available in my library network; at this time I cannot supply the needed page numbers. Redlink fill-ins are ongoing with help from Benea (talk · contribs) in regards to the Royal Navy ships. Of course the ultimate goal will be FAC so I hope this review will shake out more MOS and other overlooked issues. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tenative Support I've been watching you improve this article for nearly 9 months now, so far as i am aware everything has and remains good, but I will take another look when I have a spare moment to ensure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed with regards to A-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, after rereading the article I am giving full support gor the bump to A-class. Well done! TomStar810 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative Support - per Tom. I'll take a look in a few days once the weekend gives me a bit more available time. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just read through the article, checked the images and references. All looks good. As the MOS issues (spacing, access, etc) are not my specialty, I did not check those things, but there are some people who are knowledgeable who will definitely let you know about the problems at FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful article. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment References satisfy MoS. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. One comment...I thought that a year ago or so I added a couple of sentences about a recent captain of the ship being relieved and charged with abusing his crew? What happened to that text? Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The mention is in the very last paragraph of the article. --Brad (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Frederick III, German Emperor

Passed --Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested this article to undergo A-Class review because over the past few months I have been improving this article greatly, culminating in receiving Good Article status and beyond. I'd like to eventually get it to FA status and feel a review by other project members and getting it to A Class would help on the way and massively improve the article. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Describing the Emperor as a "war hero" in the lead sounds rather POV, consider changing it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to how he was celebrated as a war hero because of his leadership in the wars, amd added a source with those sentiments that I cited at the end of the sentence. If you think the citation should go immediately after the claim, let me know. --Banime (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, but it still just doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Celebrated for his military successes and leadership during the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War before his reign as German Emperor, Frederick III became popular due to these achievements and his liberal ideals." What do you think? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I like that, I added it in. Things may shift around as I look at expanding/changing the intro, but the sentences themselves more or less will stay the same. I like that wording better anyway. --Banime (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead is too short. The lead should probably be expanded to about two or three paragraphs, and should cover each topic discussed in the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I edited it, you can see the full reply below. --Banime (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments in relation to the five AC-Criteria
  • A1 - Citation & Verifiability - this is mostly fine, there's a few things that need to be cited that aren't, which I have fact-tag-bombed. References are all formatted fine, all from reliable sources

    Quick question on this one, I can't see any fact tags and I tried ctrl+f searching... can you point me to the right sections? --Banime (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • A2 - Comprehensive & Accurate - this one's alright, although, as Catalan mentioned, the lead could use some rewriting and restructuring.
  • A3 - Structure - Lead warrants some expansion. Other than that, the remainder of the article is structured very well.
  • A4.1 - Prose - Generally good, although it could use a general tweaking from someone new to the text.
  • A4.2 - MoS Compliance - this one was very good. No issues here.
  • A5 - Images - this is also good. All copyright tags check out, images are well-placed and well-used.

Excellent work so far, just a few improvements and this will be good to go. Cam (Chat) 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to everyone who has looked at it so far, I'll get to work on the lead improvements (prose, expansion, and npov) and work on the citations needed. Finally, I'll try to improve the prose but I've read it so many times its hard for me to pick up on what's awkward and what isn't. Thanks again so far. --Banime (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Lazulilasher First: this is great work. Since you are on the path to FA, I am going to try and provide critical feedback; more so then I would for an article of lesser quality.

• • The Lead: This was mentioned earlier. Remember, if you get this to FA and the article goes on the main page: this is what millions will read. Thus, the lead needs to concisely summarise the entire article, draw readers in; the lead should be able to stand as a briefer, standalone article.
  • Marriage and Family: The marriage was a great love match.: Is this an oft-used historical term? Or is it colloquial? I don't understand what the implication is: did the two love one another? Were they merely a match-made?

    I added a new source with this in it. Both sources state the term "love match" but I changed it so it was easier to understand. The couple loved each other despite having an arranged marriage. Hopefully it's clearer now. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Same section: Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years.: why?
  • Franco-Prussian War I'd be interested in reading just a bit more about his involvement.
  • Vaguaries: Try to be precise, especially when making claims. For example, this sentence from the Legacy section: Many historians have considered Frederick's early death as an end to the course of liberalism within the German empire. Be clear who considers/posits/claims/asserts what: Try Lazulilasher, Saarland historian, considered...
    • In the same section: Given a longer reign and better health, many historians and scholars believe that it is possible that he would have moved Germany towards a more liberal democratic course, possibly preventing Germany's militaristic path towards war Claims, and can we expand this more? This is a WOW! Is there an argument for a "personal/political beliefs" section? Frederick's political beliefs are frequently referenced: might they merit their own section?
  • The Dr. Bergman bit is fascinating.
  • Closing: This is a good read. I would suggest just a bit more expansion on some points, but otherwise: great job. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply Thanks for the tips Lazulilasher. I made a few changes as you'll see. I'm still working on the perfect introduction and other things, but I'd like to mention my thoughts so far on some of your comments. Another editor suggested merging all of this political beliefs into one section as well too, and I'll look into it. And yes, the claim that he could've potentially stopped both world wars is a big one which is why I was really careful when writing about it. It's a big part of his life and how he is studied. Many people at the time thought he could move Germany into a liberal direction (more like England) and when his father continued to live and then he got sick it spelled doom for that idea, since his son William II was obviously not as liberal (read more about how many historians think that William II's war mongering started World War I, etc.). Many historians today write about that as well (I'll go into it and try to cite specific authors more clearly). But the fact is theres also historians who believe nothing would have changed. And no one really knows anyway, since he died so soon. His shorter life is one of history's big "what ifs" and I want to give weight to why historians still study him today but I don't want to stretch it into a long essay about how he potentially could have stopped World War II before it began (liberal>no war mongering leader>no ww1>no treaty of versailles>no depression etc>no ww2 or something like that). I'll look into it and seeing what I can do to expand it without giving undue influence to either side. --Banime (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Right, that's going to be tough. Without being an expert on the subject, I recommend: prepare an education/philosophy section investigating his beliefs, opinions, and how those were formed. I wouldn't tread too heavily on what-if-scenarios, but if it is widely enough-held I would cite it (or maybe in the notes section? and have an external link/rec reading part for those looking to read more). All in all, I think this is a well-done article and does service to the subject. Maybe a little expansion as we've discussed above to provide a broader understanding of who the man was (and in what context). Good work, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to everyone who has commented so far, especially about the lead. I have updated the lead and expanded it, but I know there must be a few problems with it. Can anyone take a look, let me know if its the right direction, and what else I may need to do with the lead? Also, everything in the lead is cited specifically later in the article, but let me know if anything should be cited again in the lead just in case. Thanks for your help so far. Once this is done I'll attempt Lazulilasher's new sectioning idea, but I want to get the intro great first. --Banime (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is much improved. It summarizes the entire article and provides an adequate overview for the new reader. I prefer uncited leads, as I loathe redundant citations. This is, however, my opinion--others might disagree. I'll keep checking in and take a deeper look at the article/prose over the weekend. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. I also don't particularly like cited leads, at least heavily cited. I also will keep it pretty general (such as the claims that "historians feel this...") and later in the article when I expand and try to work in your sections I'll try to put individual historians in and so forth. Thanks for looking at it again and I'll still be updating it. --Banime (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, another thing I was wondering: perhaps the education section could be expanded and somehow "linked" to a political philosophy section. I am trying to picture who this man was—and why. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'm doing a major rewrite now. I did the introduction, and would welcome more thoughts on improving it. Right now I'm seriously reworking the "legacy" section to get it close to perfection. I really want it well cited, specific, and yet showing all sides of his legacy (the potentially stopping world war i, world war ii, etc) both good and bad (he wasn't liberal enough, he wouldn't have changed things, etc.). I welcome tips on the legacy section as well. After that I'll try to go through and expand the military section until that is much improved as well, I'll try to better highlight what he accomplished during the wars. Finally, I'll have to rewrite all of the rest to better explain his education, and perhaps add that section on his personal beliefs to better condense all of that. I'm not sure where to put that yet though and what to include in it, so I'll be working on intro/legacy/military first. Also, I'm not quite sure how this works, but since there is a lot of work to be done should I close this A-Class review? I really appreciated getting feedback from all of you though as it helps a lot, would keeping it up be a problem? Thanks for all of your help. --Banime (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  (undent) Excellent. First, I am not an expert on MILHIST's process: but, this type of dialogue is what I imagine A-class' purpose to be. The article was brought here in good shape; what we are doing now is pushing it beyond good. Our intention should be excellence. I think these in-depth discussions are part of that process. Hence, I would support keeping the review open; you are working quickly and the article is improving each time I look at it. A-class critera mirror FA criteria. The more prepared the article is for the FAC process, the better.

  On to the content: great work so far. The key is to balance between detail and summary style (I am notoriously poor at this). I agree, an expanded military section would be useful; I am particularly curious about his involvement in the Franco-Prussian War. It appears you are working on the education/legacy/philosophies section, so let's take a look at that next. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I find it helpful to look at FAs of similar subject matter, for use as a guide. Looking in MILHIST's showcase cabinet, I found these. Perhaps they would be helpful: David I of Scotland, James II of England, and William III of England. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for those tips. I really like how the legacy section and intro are right now so they're definitely in the right direction. I expanded the military commander section a bit so far. I cited the Illustrated London News twice I think for quotes, does anyone know of anyway that I can find an author for that? It's not on the picture of it and I'd really like it, since right now the footnote just says "Illustrated London News" and in the reference section it has just the title, newspaper, page, and date.--Banime (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a decent bit of work on all of the sections that I thought needed the most help, I come to the concern of adding a new section entitled "Personal beliefs" or something. How do you think, if at all, that should be executed? As I look at it now I feel like it progresses nicely through his life, showing how he gained his beliefs on the way, and it culminates with his short reign and then the large legacy section. However I'm open to other suggestions but I'm not sure exactly how it should be implemented, if at all. Thanks for everyone's help so far. --Banime (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go read the article in one moment; I've been busy trying to start up my new project. I'll try and help in after I reread the article (I've not read it in a few days, and from my watchlist I can tell you've been working a lot on it). Lazulilasher (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't expect you to have as much time with your new admin duties now anyway. Take your time. --Banime (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, adminning (what was I thinking? :) Well, the article looks great: imo very close to FA standards. I've done some minor copy edits, mostly removing redudancies (feel free to revert my changes). I like the Legacy section; it balances both sides of the "liberal" philosophy. I'm thinking that political philosophy could be sandwiched under the Legacy part? However, I'm having a change of heart--maybe they shouldn't be included, as the augmented article already adresses these questions. Not sure; what do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, I support this article's promotion to A-class; although, I would work on eliminating redudancies (also, etc) from the copy before submitting to FA. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If there should be another section, I don't think it should be after the legacy as I like that at the end. If anything I'd put the political philosophy right after his death and before the legacy I think. However as of now I think it works well without one. I wanted it to go through his life and accomplishments and when appropriate say what things affected his development (politically and so forth) and then have that culminate with his unfortunate early death and never really being able to actually do anything. Then I think that sets up the legacy section perfectly since it shows that he's sort of the big "what if" with ww1/ww2 in many historians eyes. But I've been working this article for months so if any fresh eyes have any ideas I'll look into them of course. And yeah I'm going to go through it more, perhaps submit it to a peer review later and such before going for FAC. Thanks for all of your help so far.--Banime (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the improved lead. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, consider linking [[Revolutions of 1848 in the German States|Revolutions of 1848]], as the way it is now sounds awkward, and makes it sound like the Revolutions of 1848 were only in the German states.
  • "or could not because of the German political climate being unfavorable to liberalism at the time." in the lead sounds awkward. Consider changing it to "or could not because of the German political climate at the time, which was unfavorable to liberalism."
  • Revolutions of 1848 should only be linked the first time it appears.
  • So should liberalism. I would recommend making sure there's nothing else linked twice that I missed.
  • "Emperor William, seeking to raise the capital of Berlin to a great cultural center, appointed Frederick as Protector of Public Museums." makes it sound like he was trying to improve the capital of the province, country, etc. of Berlin, not a city. It might sound better as "seeking to make Berlin, the capital city, into a great cultural center..."
  • In the Illness and brief reign section, it might be better to write the full names of the doctors the first time they appear, instead of just "Dr. Bergman" and "Dr. Virchow."
    Besides those problems it looks good, although I would suggest a more through copy-edit before you take it to FA, as there were a couple of awkwardly worded places that I didn't mention here. Joe (Talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tips, I've made all of those improvements and will definitely get a thorough copy-edit before going to FA.--Banime (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Third Battle of Kharkov

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

After two days of excruciating pain, scouring through sources and looking for information, I have expanded this article over five fold (from 7kB to 40kB). I'm interested, right now, in taking the article through an A-class Review. Ultimately, I will also put it through a FAC, but I know and feel that it isn't ready for that yet. Hopefully, the A-class review will improve it to the point where whatever does come in the FAC will be painless to fix (well, relatively painless... FACs are always painful). Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Add some more links. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried wikilinking what I could in the lead; unfortunately, there isn't much to link to. :( JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Recommended reading" just doesn't sound right, and has a slightly POV slant. Perhaps change it to "Further reading"? Also, consider delinking the dates in the infobox to maintain consistancy with the body of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The map is of a very large scale can it be replaced with a better one showing more detail.

• A Soviet drive, spearheaded by four tank corps organized under Lieutenant General Markian Popov, tore through the German front - Tore through sounds very POV.

• Likewise attacked the Second Panzer Army's right flank, making insignificant gains - in who's opinion were they insignificant.

• In the First stage 19 February – 6 March section The Red Army's 3d Tank Army began to engage German units Is 3d correct or a typo ? as earlier in the article we have the 40th Army and the 69th Army for russian forces.

• On 12 March The divisions II Battalion was able to surround the square - there are three II Battalions in the Division one each in the 1st SS Panzer regt,1st SS Pz-Gren Regt and the 2nd SS Pz-Gren Regt. can this be made clear which Battalion

• Likewise with III Battalion under the command of Piper, this is easier as it must be the 3rd Btn of one of the 2 Pz-Gren regiments.

• In a bid to trap the city's defenders in the center, I Battalion of the 1st SS Panzergrenadier Battalion re-entered the city this does not make sense should it be I Battalion of the 1st SS Pz-Gren Regiment ?

The points above aside this is a good article which i enjoyed reading Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support now well done Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to draw my own map, and failed pretty badly. That map I found on one of Wikipedia's user's gallery, as he had also drawn the map for the Second Battle of Kharkov. I don't have any maps that are not copyrighted. The only option would be to have one drawn. I changed the two instances of tore to "broke" and "pierced". In regards to "insignificant gains" I don't think that's POV, just matter of fact. The Soviets couldn't break through the German defenses. Those words are taken from the reference that it's attributed to. I think it's a dangerous game to play to change words like that, just because they may sound as if a Russian reading the article wouldn't agree with them (when it's true—it would be like a Spaniard attempting to claim that the Battle of Annual wasn't a disaster for the Spanish Army).

In the Order of Battle, not all Soviet armies are listed because there were many of them. The 40th and 69th are used as examples (since they're the only ones provided in my references) to the average strength of a Red Army division on the sector, at the time. The 3d Tank Army is actually introduced in the first paragraph of that same section; On 22 February, alarmed by the success of the German counterattack, the Russian Stavka ordered the Voronezh Front to shift the 3d Tank Army and 69th Army south, in an effort to alleviate pressure on the Southwestern Front and destroy German forces in the Krasnograd area.

I made it clear who that battalion belonged to by adding "2nd Panzergrenadier Regiment"; the same for the III battalion, which belonged to the same regiment. And, finally, "Battalion" -> "Regiment". Thanks for catching that. Thank you for your comments! If you can think of something that is more "neutral" than "insignificant gains" I'd be happy to discuss it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged "insignificant" for "minor", as suggested. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor question I haven't read the entire article yet, although it does look very good on overview. Small question: One of the sources is "Margry, Karel (2001). The Four Battles for Kharkov. London, United Kingdom: Battle of Britain International Ltd." Is Margry the first or last name? because in the references he is cited as Karel. -- Nudve (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Margry is the last name. I mixed them up when writing the references. I'll fix them. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comment: I really like it, a nice and clean article! Perhaps the only issue I could find would be that some references are needed within the first two paragraphs of the "Fight for the city 11 March – 15 March" section. Well done! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yea, those two paragraphs are unfortunately scarcely referenced. They belong entirely to those three references; there is a lack of sources on the fighting which took place inside the city itself, thus the reliance on Margry. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • I've fixed a couple times where the same thing has been linked to twice and fixed a couple stylist errors, however I think it could stand a copy-edit, mainly for writing style, especially before FAC.
  • I am especially concerned about this sentence. I've changed it a bit, but it still sounds awkward, mainly because of the use of the phrase "long-run." "Hitler immediately flew to von Manstein's headquarters at Zaporozhe, where the German general informed Hitler that while an immediate counterattack on Kharkov would be fruitless, he could successfully attack the Soviet overextended flank with his five Panzer Corps and recapture Kharkov over the long-run"
  • "where as a Panzer Division could not normally count on more than 100 tanks and most likely was composed of only 70–80 tanks in serviceable conditions at any given time." also sounds especially awkward.
  • The title "Order of Battle" should be changed, I would recommend creating a second article with the actual OOB, and renaming that section "Comparison of forces" or something, as that is not the traditional Order of Battle, just a listing of the units and commanders.
    Otherwise it looks good though, good job. The only major problem I forsee for FAC is the need for a copy-edit and awkward writing throughout. Joe (Talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I rewrote those two sentences and changed the heading. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well constructed and well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I put this through a GA Review and found only a few things wrong with it, and after another run-through I can't see anything to object to. Skinny87 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I worked on this article heavily about a month back with spotlight, when it achieved GA. Since then work has been done to improve and clarify the prose. The article has undergone an informative PR session. I feel now that it is nearly ready for A and FAC. I hope you agree. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I've fixed up the footnote formatting, but can you fill out the refs for 25, 83 and 99? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the refs. The references mentioned above have been filled. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, a well written article that meets the A-class criteria. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Couple problems: Hessian, Nathanial Greene, and a couple of other terms should only be linked the first time they appear, and the phrase "Lafayette rebuked attempts by Cornwallis to capture him in Richmond, by evading the British forces," sounds rather awkward and should be rephrased. Otherwise it looks good, good luck on taking it to FA. Joe (Talk) 01:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  I rephrased to just "Lafayette evaded Cornwallis' attempts to capture him", the "British forces" was redudantant. I've also spent the last few days working on c/e and tightening up the French Revolution section. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anglo–Zanzibar War

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a current GA which has recently undergone a copy edit at which I was recommended to nominate it for FA/A-class. I have gone for the latter as although I have exhausted all of my current sources I do have a map which I want to make my own version of and upload before it goes to FA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've tweaked some of the footnotes for consistency, but is there anyway you can break the London Gazette template so that it aslo uses "p" for consistency instaed of "page"? Secondly isn't it a convention to use 24-hour clocks on military timing articles? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I can do about the gazette refs I'm afraid, I suppose a request could be made to User:DavidCane to change it but I am not sure what work would be involved as I have no experience of the template system. I wasn't aware of the convention for 24 hour times but I can change them if its a convention. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should just add that I am not a member of the Military History Wikiproject so the 24 hour thing could have easily have passed me by - Dumelow (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Full disclosure: I have made minor contributions to this article recently. The article is NPOV, comprehensive, well written and well illustrated. Dhatfield (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looks great so far; excellent work. I am very impressed with the length of the article; it provides an overall summary of the event without over detail. I think the article is close to FA class, but I have a few prose concerns. Here is some brief feedback that I hope is helpful:
  • Perhaps cut back a little on the wikilinks (e.g. barricade, marines, sailors, etc).

 Done, I took out many of the obvious ones which seemed to be concentrated in the lead - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned about the 2nd sentence in the lead: "With..." Maybe: The conflict lasted only 40 minutes, the shortest in recorded history. Not sure about this, though.

 Done, I have changed it to look a little more "sentencey", hopefully reads a little better now - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence: Hostilities opened with the expiry of the ultimatum at 9:00 am EAT on 27 August and a force of three British cruisers, two gunships, 150 marines and sailors and 900 Zanzibaris under Rear-Admiral Harry Rawson and Brigadier-General of the Zanzibar army, Lloyd Mathews, attacked the palace. might be better broken up. I propose: Hostilities opened with...27 August, when the British attacked the palace. The force consisted of: etc etc...

 Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps the next sentence should be in the past tense: Around 2800 Zanzibaris defended the palace; the force included recruits from the civ pop,...etc...

 Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Work on redundancies in the prose. For example: In all, around 500 of the Sultan's force were killed and the British force suffered just one sailor injured. Consider: The Sultan's forces sustained roughly 500 casualties, while one British sailor was injured.

 Done, fixed this instance, will check for more - Dumelow (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps break complex sentences into simpler, easier to understand chunks. For example, the following is lengthy: Britain and Germany vied for control of trade rights and territory in the area throughout the late 19th century; in the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 Germany ceded its rights in Zanzibar to the United Kingdom and pledged not to interfere with British actions there.

 Done, fixed this instance, will check for more - Dumelow (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I hope this helps! I'll try and come back later. Good work, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Lazulilasher, they are all good suggestions and I will try to make the changes highlighted later today. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although with a comment:

1. Anything that was checked from a website should have an access date.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I have added an access date for the times obituary which, I think, was the only one lacking. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks great. Joe (Talk) 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MS West Honaker

Closed as promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has passed a GA review and I believe it's meets the requirements for an A-Class assessment. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Comment The lead is lacking references. Looks quite good otherwise. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but where exactly is the prose missing references? Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I follow a widely accepted style that leaves the lead uncited (unless there is a contentious fact that needs it). Please see WP:LEADCITE for further informattion. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lead doesn't need refs. Cam (Chat) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great article and I found not one thing out of place. Of course redlink fill ins for FAC will be needed.

--Brad (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - another excellent article. My only real suggestion would be to possibly reconsider the use of the wool picture, as it really doesn't add that much to the article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 19:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Another excellent example of your ship work. Joe (Talk) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admiralty Islands campaign

I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-class as I believe it meets the criteria. However, I have never done this before. I am willing to make further improvements when and if necessary. Any and all comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the lead needs to be expanded. The purpose of the lead is to act as a short summary of the actual article, and should be around three paragraphs in length for an article of this size. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Comments

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.

• Images should have concise captions.

 Done. Added missing caption.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement.

 Done

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.

 Done

• Headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)').

 Done. Changed two headings.

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article.

 Done. Switched article to British spelling. One US spelling in a quotation was preserved.

• Footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between.

 Done

Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just a note, compliance with the more technical issues of MOS (dashes, dates WL) are not a requirement for A-Class Reviews. Cam (Chat) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just had a quick glance, not knowing where the Admiralty Islands are, I was quite supprised to see it was a WWII campaign.

• One thing I would like to have seen was an Order of Battle. To the non expert the 1st Cavalry Division would suggest men on horses.

They would not be wrong - the 1st Cavalry Division was indeed a horse formation. But they left their horses back at Fort Bliss. There's an order of battle on its page.

• The same with No 73 Wing R.A.A.F what did that consist of ?

Nos 76, 77 and 79 Fighter Squadrons; 114 Mobile Fighter Sector HQ; 152, 340, 345, 346 and 347 Radar Stations; 73 Wing Signals Station; 49 Operational Base Unit; 12 Repair and Salvage Unit; No 3 section, 1 Malaria Control Unit; 77 Medical Clearing Station; 12 Air Liaison Party (USAAF); Det 7, Tranportation and Movements Office; Det 4, Replenishing Centre; Det, 16 Store Unit; Det, 7 Coastal Unit; and a canteen unit.

 Done

I can supply an order of battle for Operation Brewer - but it will be large and obtrusive. I'd like to know if anyone else feels one is warranted.

 Done Added an OrBat page. Some otherv editors have helped out with this one.

• Another concern is A Yank correspondent without clicking on the link I presumed this meant A American correspondent prehaps this could be re phrased to A correspondent from Yank, the Army Weekly.

 Done

thats all for now will return later Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a very detailed and well written article on an interesting topic. My only suggestion is that the 'Japanese Perspective' sections should be integrated into the article's narrative. If you've got the material, starting an Admiralty Islands campaign order of battle article would be best way to list the units involved on both sides. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Created the Order of Battle article, added it to the "see also". A couple of other editors tidied it up for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I would like to see an OOB or a link but that does not stop my support Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The numbers in the info box(35,000 Allied) and the background section(45,000) dont match.

 Done Added an explanatory note

• The section Battle of Los Negros#Japanese Perspective starts in that vein but it changes to a US perspective, specifically in the para that starts The main Japanese attack was delivered by the 2nd Battalion by the end of that it changed perspective. The last paragraph it opens with By dawn, the attack had subsided. Over 750 enemy dead were counted in and around the American positions when writing from a Japanese perspective 750 Japanese arent "enemy dead", to me this would read better by referring to then Japanese dead. The same area details on McGill Medal of Honor doesnt fit into a Japanese perspective.

 Done Split section into two.

Besides these two and a minor copy edit I did it looks like it ready to consider an FA nomination Gnangarra 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The ndashes in the page range, MOS headers, repeated refs have been taken care of. In the shorthand refs, it isn't necessary to have the book titles, as the author is enough unless an author has multiple books. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Author-date is a common citation style in the humanities, but military historians do not use it - mainly because it is completely impractical when working with primary documents. I agree that that is not the case here, and it could be used in this case, but I would prefer that the references remain in the form that military historians would expect to see. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • In the lead, you probably mean either "the Allies reinforced their position on Los Negros..." or "the Allied powers..."

 Done

• • Also in the lead, bold "Operation Brewer," since it is an alternate name.

 Done

• • It should be American spelling throughout since it deals with an offensive by American forces.

 Not done. I take your point, and I initially wrote the article that way, but it proved impractical, and I had to convert it to English. (1) I have no way of automatically checking American spelling. (2) The style manual's overriding requirement is for consistency, and we have, for example, the category "South West Pacific theatre of World War II" down the bottom, which cannot be changed.

In that case the category name is wrong. The entire Pacific War was waged primarily by Americans, so American spelling should be used in the category too. Joe (Talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I would advise spelling out SWPA in the background section - Jargon.

 Done

• • "APDs had to be used as amphibious ships were too slow to make the distance in the time." is not grammatically correct.

 Done. Rephrased.

• • " In all, 1,026 troops were carried." This might be better not in passive voice.

 Done. Rephrased.

• • For that matter almost the whole article is written in passive. While this is OK occasionally, some of the instances sound unwieldy and awkward.

 Done. Cited example rephrased.

• • "The weather obliged, turning good," in the Battle for the Beachhead section is awkward and should be rephrased.

 Done. Rephrased.

• • "Japanese patrol was discovered that had somehow managed to infiltrate the perimeter in broad daylight and penetrate to within 35 metres of the General Chase's command post." This should either be the General's, or, preferably, General Chase's.

 Done

• • All the sections entitled "Japanese Perspective" should be renamed, or integrated with the rest of the article.

 Done

• • " How then did the Allies win?" and the other rhetorical questions in the Aftermath section should be rephrased, rhetorical questions appear unprofessional.

 Done

Those issues and those brought by other contributors need to be fixed before I can support this for A-class. Joe (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC) All my objections except the spelling have been dealt with, supporting. Joe (Talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joseph Maxwell

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-Class as I believe it meets the criteria. I have made substantial improvements to the article over the past few weeks and it has been recently passed as a GA. I am willing to made further edits for improvement. Any and all comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments,

The link to the Spring Offensive can be considered an Easter Egg (this has actually come up for me before), and so I would suggest having the text of the link read: Throughout the spring of 1918, the 18th Battalion was involved in operations to repel the German spring offensive. (Or something similar, which you believe fits better.)

That's how I was originally going to write it, however the repitition of "spring" didn't sound right. I'll leave it the way it is at the moment and see what others think. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, I can't really comment. The lead can probably use an expansion, if it's possible, but perhaps others would disagree with me. It looks good, so I am happy to support. Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The section on his early life could be expanded is there any infomation about about what schooling he had ?
  • There is no further information I have been able to obtain on his early life. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• A member of the Senior Cadets for three years - was this Army or Navy Cadets or another orginisation if you have the detail it should be added.
  • Army: clarified. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do we know which engineering works ?
  • It isn't specified in any sources, all I know is that it was near Newcastle. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• HMAT = His Majestys Australiian Transport ? I dont know what the abreviation is for, on searching Wiki it seems to appear only with Australian Articles. Could it be spelled out with HMAT in brackets.
  • I have not seen this typically done for any other ship name (eg. SS, HMS or HMAS), so I will leave it as is at the moment, and see what others think. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• link the Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli)
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• A tank that preceded the advance immediately became the object of enemy fire - do we know which model of tank.
  • All that is specified is "a tank". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A few minor points from a very good article, one question do we know why they would not let him serve fully in WW11 ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, as it isn't specified, but my guess would be on the grounds of his age and possibly health factors. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez I'm a dope. The only source I don't re-check has information on this! It was on the grounds of his age. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT HMAT is not a well known abbreviation like HMS ,USS , HMAS but I can live with it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I reviewed and passed this for GA just recently and see no reason not to kick it to the next level. Not long compared to some bios but as comprehensive as one could expect for the subject, which is what counts - and very well sourced. To respond to an earlier comment, given the overall length, I think a two-para intro works here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Percy Herbert Cherry

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-class as I believe it meets the criteria. However, I am willing to make further improvements when and if necessary. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice work. It meets A-class requirements, and I can't comment on grammar (better leave that to someone else!). JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks good-couple of notes. First, I personally like the date linked, and have a comma. However, that is not necessary. Second of all, I don't think that 'good shot' sounds right in an encyclopedic article. Next, when you are talking about the German officer, the grammar gets a little confusing, and mortally is spelled incorrectly. Also, under the Victoria Cross section, you state that 'the enemy was overcome'. I don't know if it just me, but the grammar doesn't sound correct. Firefight is one word, not two. Stokes Mortar should probably be an article. I wondered what they were when I was reading the article. I think that the section 'Victoria Cross and death: March 1917' should be split up. Have death separate from Victoria cross. That is not necessary, however. Good job, --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look and commenting. Now lets see: I'm not sure what date you are referring to, but it is now current practice to leave the dates unlinked; I have re-worded the "good shot" in the lead to "skilled" and in the early life paragraph to "talented"; re-worded this section and think it's alright now, if not I'll have another look; typo; this section reads alright to me, but I'll see what others think; corrected and I don't have enough knowledge on the Stokes to create a stub, however, it was just a type of mortar used during the First World War; and finally, I have split these into two sections. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits look good. I'll see if I can do anything on the Stokes page. The prose section is lacking references currently, and I'll see if I can find anything else. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say "The prose section is lacking references currently" are you refering to the Cherry article or the Stokes article? Thanks for your contributions, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cherry. There are no references in the prose section at all. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

I'm not sure what you mean, everything in the Cherry article is referenced except for the lead, which summarises referenced material in the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]

• Not required, but done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]

• There are no such dates like this in the article, as I know it is against the MoS. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

• correctly

• The word correctly is not used in the article, however the word incorrectly has been used appropiately in the "Notes" section, and is referenced. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

• I did not wish to have a third party editor copyedit this article for the time being, as I wished to see if I could achieve A-class with my own writing and copyediting abilities. Also, it is not required. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Article has now been copy-edited by Roger Davies. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought this may help too. None of this is required. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your comments, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

The Germans are frequently referred to as "the enemy". While this is fine in direct quotes, elsewhere it creates a NPOV slant.

• I have changed this in most cases to "German" or "Germans", but have also substituted in favour of "opposing" and "rival". If this still creates a NPOV slant, I can have another look. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• The quote from the London Gazette should probably be cut as follows: "His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officers and man:".
  • Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Are you sure his wife was née "Russel"? The usual spelling is "Russell".
  • I have re-checked my sources, and apparently it is just the one "l". Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Edit/recast (to reduce density)? "On 1 December, Cherry was evacuated from the peninsula to Egypt suffering bomb wounds to his face and head,[6] where, owing to a shortage of officers, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 9 December." > On 1 December, injured by bomb wounds to his face and head, Cherry was evacuated to Egypt, where he was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 9 December.?
  • Substituted in favour of your wording. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Queant or Quéant? You have both.
  • The latter; fixed. 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, good work, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your comments, Roger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to support. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I left comments at the peer review without noticing this. Fix the issues at my peer review, then please archive it. Generally, you should only have one review open on any article at any one time. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Woody, will address issues and close peer review. I usually wouldn't have left it open, but as no one had commented I was unsure on what to do. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues addressed, and peer review archived. I apologise for any inconvenience or confusion caused. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Fort Donelson

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous nomination

This is a resubmission of an article previously considered for A-Class. Prior nomination is archived here.

The criticisms of the article at that time have been corrected. I believe that it fully satisfies all criteria. My contribution has been limited to correcting one typo and editing out two discontinued templates, so I think I have no conflict of interest in promoting it. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, although again with comments -

• I'm not a fan of the image gallery of generals and commanders under "opposing forces" - it leaves a huge white space. I changed the width to 100%, although you can change it back if you don't like it. I would get rid of it altogether, but some might not agree with me.

  I agree with Catalan. To me, the gallery just doesn't sit well with the rest of the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said in the other review, I think the first instance of brigadier general should be spelled out and the abbreviation included in parenthesis.
• I have the same suggestion for the citations.

Other than that, it looks really good. Again, good job on the maps. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support (but tweaks, per above, needed for FAC). Very nice work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support While I am again unhappy with the style of citation in this article (see my comments on the A-class review for Battle of Fort Henry), it still meets the criteria. Joe (Talk) 02:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Fort Henry

This article (and that for the Battle of Fort Donelson) is a model for what Wikipedia should do. It is comprehensive but not tedious, with good writing style. It is supported by useful maps (generated by the author). It meets all criteria. And no, I have had absolutely nothing to do with its creation or editing. (For persons unfamiliar with the American Civil War, the Battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson are often considered together. To my eye, the two articles are equal in quality, and that is why I am putting both forth at the same time.) PKKloeppel (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, with some comments -

• I think the first instance of Brigadier General should be spelled completely out with the abbreviation in parenthesis, and the rest abbreviated.
• In my opinion, the footnotes are too spread apart, although they do hit upon each paragraph. The problem is that when someone adds information that isn't from that source in one of the paragraphs, then that information is no longer covered (or it might be justified by the footnote, which actually has nothing to do with that piece of information). So, I'd suggest contacting the author and perhaps adding some density to those footnotes to avoid those kinds of problems in the future.
• The maps, as images, will have to comply with MoS guidelines and will probably need to be smaller. They can always be clicked on and expanded if someone wants to get a closer look, but for some resolutions those images are too large. This was an issue I had with some of my articles when I went through the FAC process.

Nevertheless, a well-written and interesting article. Thank you for providing those maps! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

• I've fixed the map sizes per WP:IMAGE. The thumb size is picked up from the size set in individual user preferences.
• also added a missing convert template.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Overall it seems to meet the criteria, but I would appreciate it if you fixed the issues I've pointed out below. If you do, I'll fully support it.

• I agree that Brigadier General, Major General, and all other military ranks should be spelled out, it looks more professional.
• Otherwise, my main issue is the citation. It would be much, much better if instead of a citation at the end of each paragraph listing several sources and page numbers, each of these was a separate inline citation in the paragraph.
• I believe per MOS that References should come after notes?

Besides those it looks good. Fix them, and I'll fully support it. Joe (Talk) 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Nevada (BB-36)

I am nominating this because I've worked on it for a lot of hours over the last few days and got it through a GA-review, and I think that it is a good enough article to pass A-class as well. Happy reviewing and cheers, the_ed17 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'm thrilled to see this moving up the assessment ladder, but I do have a few questions:
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/01/spitfires-in-us-navy.htm
      • It isn't, but the magazine article that is on this particular page of this website is...should I just cite the article instead using {{cite journal}}? (It says on the bottom of the page that "This article was first published in Naval Aviation News, May-June 1994") the_ed17
        • Replaced with Ref #16 from USS Texas (BB-35).
    • http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/uss_nevada_bb36_data.htmremoved —the_ed17— 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it is (obviously meaning that it probably isn't.). However, I'm going to leave it there until MBK004 replies to a question I asked him about what those source; if he has a book that I can use to source those instead, I will use the book. the_ed17
        • I'll reply here. I've found a replacement online source that will stand for the info about the sinking, but nothing yet about the re-gunning. The replacement is the Naval Vessel Register: [10], which also needs to be accompanied by the following template, {{NVR}} just like {{DANFS}}. Also, Tom the Iowa participated. Perhaps something for that article? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
          • She killed her own brethren?!?!? =D Thanks MBK004!!! the_ed17 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
            • There's precedent for the fratricide: New York and Texas sank Washington in 1924. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Our government at work. =) Cheers, the_ed17 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Indeed :) I think that we can work in a mention of this "friendly" fire incident in the Iowa article, but I think its going to have a wait just a little while longer becuase I have to do anymore thinking in the next 60 minutes my brain in going to spring a leak and then I am not going to remeber anything I studied or read today for callage.
  • Consider removing the header "Service life"; as the entire article is essentially just that there really isn't any reason to have that as the lead header.
    • 'Service Life' is there to distinguish her life from her 'Design and Construction' section...should I remove it anyway and bump up the header levels for the rest? the_ed17
      • What I am getting at is that 90% of your article is service life, so it would IMO be better to remove that header and instead rely on the other headers in the article for sectional seperation. This was suggested at an FAR on USS Wisconsin (BB-64), the argument was that if the entire article was serivice history it would be better to have the WWII, Korean War, and Gulf war headings as main heading rather than being subordinate to a mast "service life" heading. Incidentally, this format has also been adopted by Brad during his continual update of the frigate USS Constitution. I bring it up here becuase I figure that it will be an FA issue, so its something I wanted you to think about before getting to the FAC page.
        • Alright then,  Done. Thanks for the clarification! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! the_ed17 00:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: I believe that all copy & pasted DANFS text has been modified now...per this debate here. the_ed17 02:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support.
  • I would consider renaming the "Between the Wars" section to something like "Interwar period," that sounds more encyclopedic.
    •  Done
  • "The overhaul took about a year; after, the battleship looked like a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]" That sentence sounds rather awkward, might it be better to have afterwords instead of after?
    • Does this sound better? "The overhaul took about a year and made the old battleship look similar in appearance to a South Dakota-class battleship.[21]"
      • Yeah, that looks good.
  • Link "the invasion of Southern France" in at the beginning of that section to Operation Dragoon.
    •  Done
  • Throughout that section there were a variety of grammatical errors and awkward phrases, which I've attempted to fix.
  • Thanks!
• Other than those issues, it looks great. Good job and good luck at FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason for the amount of awkwardness is/was due to me trying to not use copy-and-pasted DANFS text anywhere...I had a few complaints about it from doncram.... Thank you for reviewing the article! the_ed17 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • ...that incidentally was the reason I tried to rely less on DANFS while rewriting USS Iowa (BB-61). I figure this is the best premptive stike against any formal recognition of the plagerism piece. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know...but I understand where they are coming from! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Its a good article, but I am still a little concerned about those two sources. That doesn't bother me enough to oppose, but I would recommend asking about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or removing them from the article before heading for FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Left message at the noticeboard. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced one of those two sources with Ref #16 from USS Texas (BB-35)...and I have MBK004 hunting for an alternate source for the other...if he can't find it, I'll remove it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support now. I strongly suggest it needs a copyedit before an FAC. Other than that, my comments have been met. The images all seem to be licensed correctly, seems comprehensive, is well-sourced. Meets the criteria in my opinion. Regards. Woody (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, mainly prose problems.

Woody's resolved prose problems

{{{2}}}

• Date formats: having recently audited the dates of many US battleship articles and a smaller number of US military aircraft articles, I can safely say that nearly all of them (> 95%) use international DF. Until the whole autoformatting thing came up at MOSNUM, I hadn't realised that the US military uses international DF. It's written into the current proposals for new guidelines on the selection of DF. Tony (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, thank you very much for the help! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The sectioning still needs work. There should not be a main section == immediately followed by a subsection === The design section really doesn't need 3 subsections in that short of space. The references section is also a mess. --Brad (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that? Regardless, though, I changed it.  Done
  •  Done
  • What, exactly, is wrong with it??? Saying that it's "a mess" does not help me fix it! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I took a try at it? Probably easier than trying to explain. --Brad (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. =) Thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. What you think now? --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, but I added the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" section again—every other 'slice' of WWII has its own heading, so Pearl deserves one too. If this violates a guideline that is buried somewhere in the MoS, then I'm gonna go and cite WP:IAR.... =) Sorry. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your referencing is a bit heavy on the danfs article. Any possible way to reduce the cites to danfs by about half? What is the idea with all the "Quotes" throughout the article? And in the last sentence of the article "As of 2008" automatically makes your article obsolete. --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really...as with most U.S. warship articles, DANFS is the primary source, but I can't use one cite for an entire paragraph because all of the paras have more than one source (with the exception of the "Okinawa and Japan" section)!

Third party references are not found at the DANFS article. They would be first party references. Would serve ok as secondary references but not primary. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean the quotes like "huge engineering advantage"? I put them there because they are borderline POV, and quoting the source directly removes that problem.

Removed. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article meets the term {{Quotefarm}} in its present state. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed a few of the quotes; does it look better now? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondarily, using the disambig finder Third Fleet and bulkhead are used in the article...but I can't seem to find them! Can anyone help? (F.y.i. USS Nevada doesn't count because that is from the {{Otherships}} template.) Thanks, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 02:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I found them all. Quotes look better as well. --Brad (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the footnotes satisfy MOS. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Iowan

This article has passed its GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Again, great work. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good from here; one minor red link to fill if going for FA. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks great to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Epsom

Another overhauled article, this time part of Operation Overlord. Even it is quite short, it should meet all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is very close to A-class standard but could do with a bit of fleshing out, mostly for comprehensiveness.

• An early "order of battle" section would be helpful, listing precisely the units involved on either side. It makes the narrative much easier to follow. (It would expand the article a little too :)
  • Done, although i'm not very sure were this orbat ought to be placed and how its structure should look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seperate Order of Battle page has been created and the entire British order of battle bar one brigade has been added. See Operation Epsom order of battle. A link has been placed into the main article as well. I will be adding the German OOB tonight hopefully.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• In "Situation and plans", Montgomery is mentioned without being introduced. He's not in the info box either. Perhaps expand to explain his role? Also in this section Do you mean "bridgehead" literally (in which case perhaps pinpoint it).
  • Done, bridgehead also linked now. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps mention that the 1 and 12 SS Divisions were crack units? Perhaps explain the components of an SS division?
  • Done
• Which British units supplied the barrage? Was it the usual combined artillery/armoured one?
  • Unfortunately my source doesn't give such information, but most probably, the artillery barrage was executed by the supporting units of each division (for example, the 43rd division had three field royal artillery regiments). --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I should be able to provide this information later, ill check my sources and throw it into the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I have just updated the citation for this paticular issue. The citation states how many guns were used and from what Corp and each type of gun. I have the details for how many guns each division from VIII provided but i thought that may have been going over the top a little but i can that in if needed?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Before FAC, I would recommend a close copy-edit. Perhaps ask Cam or EyeSerene who worked on the closely-related Battle of Verrières Ridge for FAC?
• Good map, by the way.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work, guys. I'd very much to see the dates delinked and the prose given a quick copy-edit by an uninvolved editor before I finally support. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the copyedit. I'll get on it ASAP (might take a few days, but it'll get done.) I'll Ping EyeSerene about the possibility of assistance. Cam (Chat) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Although I'd say that this passes an A-class review, I think it's missing a degree of detail that could make it much better. For example, the operations are explained rather hastily. I think detail could make the article a much more interesting read. For example:

1. Any more detail on the German and British order of battles? I.e. materiél, et cetera.

The Order of Battle page contains information on what tanks each regiment was using and other little bits and bobs. While ill be able to provide the full order of battle for, i think its, 2 of the German divisions i dont think ill be able to provide the same level of detail i.e. what tanks each regiment etc were using.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not the same level of detail, but the current article is rather short (13,000 bytes), and so currently I don't think there is justification to split the order of battle into a different article except to make it look neater. So while the main article can go into greater depth, the order of battle article is good to have an off-hand "spreadsheet" of the information. That way the main article is expanded and there is a reason to have the second article. JonCatalán (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that the addition of the whole orbat to the main article would be useful (as it currently consists of about 100 units). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course not the main orbat, but adding more detail to the section in the main article. Currently, the article is very short. JonCatalán (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, well am just in the process of finishing off the German OOB. I appear to have the information in my sources at what each panzer regiment used and i have also put the same information for the british regiments. So the information is currently becomming available to transfer across to the main article as needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I think details of the offensive would be interesting to read, apart from the bare basics of what happened.

I also agree that the article probably needs a copyedit. But, good work insofar! JonCatalán (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If interested, Michael Reynold's Sons of the Reich: II SS Panzer Corps has a large section dedicated to Epsom. I think it's worth a look. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The info box does not show the correct allied strengths In the text it states The 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division would lead the attack and be supported by the 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, reinforced with the Guards Armoured Division's infantry brigade, and the 11th Armoured Division, with the 4th Armoured Brigade attached. - When you consider the strength of an British Armoured Division was one armoured and one infantry brigade theses extra brigades make a huge differance.

will change the info box and add in the additional armoured brigade.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know its linked via HILL 112 but prehaps a mention of Operation Jupiter (1944) could be included.

Once i get there, ill throw it in somewhere in the aftermath section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a comment but a question was it as a result of this battle that the 9th & 10th SS were moved to Arnham to recover ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

in short - no. :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Now Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Support Ironed out some of the ref formatting, should be ok now. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, a few more issues though:
  • In the paragraph about Montgomery in the Planning section, you mention that Historians have argued... More clarification/less ambiguity possibly?
    • I will attempt to address this later on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "The 44th Brigade, not facing the same problems as the 46th Brigade and advancing with there tank support, advanced facing little resistance until machine gun fire was encountered at a small stream; following which German resistance was allot more heavy." Forgive me if this is correct in British English, but in American English a lot is two words. "Allot" means to dispense or pass out, as in to allot the rations.
    • Typo by myself which has been sorted out by another user.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Might want to fix the dubious tag in there, at the end of the Main Attack section.
    • I added the tag in as another user spotted that the last line is rather wrong. I will be aiming to address that in the upcoming days.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

However, besides those issues, I can find no major faults with the article that would block it from reaching A-class that have not been discussed above. Good work. Joe (Talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS West Bridge (ID-2888)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article successfully passed a GA review, and I believe that it meets the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Again, great work. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Support-Good job. However, I would like to see J. F. Duthie & Company made into a stub. The red link shows up twice. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure you've looked high and low for references but is there a chance that the reliance on DANFS can be reduced somewhat? The first three paragraphs that describe the torpedo attack are all ref'd to danfs. --Brad (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The only two contemporary news accounts I found list West Bridge as sunk, so no details there. Crowell & Wilson have a few details of the torpedo attack mostly in agreement with DANFS, but since they report that the ship sank (mentioned in the article), I'm not sure how accurate they are. (As an FYI, the material is not verbatim from DANFS, in case that's a concern.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I guess that sometimes there won't be any other source besides danfs so as long as its not copied verbatim, all the better for an article. --Brad (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Iowa (BB-61)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Important note for closing coordinator: The nominator, TomStar, has taken an urgent wikibreak but asks that this review be kept open until his return so that he can deal with any matters arising. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The last unfeatured Iowa-class battleship is ironically the class leader, USS Iowa, which I have just updated immensely. The goal is to drive to FA and then FT by the end of the year, and this is the first stop on that road. I am open to any and all comments on the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1. This bathtub issue, while interesting, is given too much coverage and I'm not exactly sure why the pic has been left out of the article. Perhaps you could remove the mention of this from the article text and instead describe it in the photo caption. The issue over Polio and FDR is now disputed as a cause of his paralysis so introducing this debate into the article would only cause problems.
2. There is too much military lingo such as "Navy brass" "splashing planes" "flattop" etc. I understand what these mean but the inexperienced reader may not.
3. The coverage of USS Thompson (DD-627) is unnecessarily too long and should be trimmed.
4. "A glimpse of hell" is too sensational of a description for a subsection.
5. Overall I'm still confused about your reluctance to crack books on the Iowa class. You have 25 references given to an Iowa veterans website for example. Third party references would seem to imply that primary sources in this case should not be from the US Navy or veterans groups as they have an interest in Iowa only to promote her in a positive manner. --Brad (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
6. See what you can do to eliminate the "Awards" and "See also" sections. They contain limited information that likely could be mentioned in the article text or the infobox.--Brad (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectively,

• That was actually part of the construction section and was moved to its current location during a copyedit. I didn't move it back because I had not gotten any input on the article in its rewritten form, and I did not add the picture directly because it would have crammed up the spacing in the article (having the tub photo and the table would force the text to a very small size), although if more people agree with your solution I will add the photo and edit the paragraph for inclusion as a caption.
  • I went ahead and put the image in the article with caption as you suggested. Is this batter? TomStar81 (Talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that fixes things up. --Brad (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to find and eliminate as much of that as I could, but after I while it gets harder to spot and remove. I will take another pass and see if I can find any additional phrasing that needs "englishized".
• Done.
• Done. That was supposed to be remained "1989 turret explosion" before being moved out to the mainspace, although I apparently forgot to do so. M'bad :)
• I actually looked hard for books on Iowa in three separate libraries because the DANFS coverage was so bad for this ship, but all I could find were crates of material on the explosion in the gun turret. I suspect that is probably why DANFS hasn't got better info on the ship, it seems like everyone wants to forget about this vessel because of that fiasco over incident of April 19. I was also attempting to meet the plagiarism people half way with this article since some view the copy/paste of DANFS material here qualifies as plagerism. As to the veterans website, I used their site because it was more exacting on the details than any other source I could find (DANFS included). If that is judged to be unreliable then I may be up the creek without a paddle so to speak.

• I really find it hard to believe that you can't find books on this subject. I had given you a list of books that I found in my own library network that surely must be in the library network you have access to. The sources cited on the veterans page aren't exactly high quality and are evasive regarding their origins. I hate to make comparisons but for my work on USS Constitution I've read 6 books on the subject and likely will read a 7th. In total I have at least 9 books to cite including the ones I found at Project Gutenberg. This is why I'm dumbfounded when you say you can't find one book on the Iowa class. Sorry if this sounds harsh but my opinion is that your sourcing is too weak for A-Class. --Brad (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can find plenty of books on the Iowa class, just not on the USS Iowa specifically, at least none that don't devote 3/4 of the book to the turret explosion. What I am doing now is checking generic WWII books for mentions of the battleship in the various pacific campaigns. I have a GAC open on the talk page in which a user has suggest some places to check for better info, so you can look for some of that to get into the article here before too long (I hope). Thats why we these assessments, every little suggestion counts for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done.

• Comments

Hi Tom. Good luck with the FT drive! I'm wondering why there aren't more of the great images from [11] in the article. One of them - firing off Korea - is available without the annoying text. Dhatfield (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The simple answer is room issues, we haven't yet got the article to a stable version, and I need some stability in the text before adding additional photos. Also, I haven't yet had the chance to view the article on a higher moniter resolution setting, so I am not sure how much more room I have to play with in the article. I do intend to add more, I just need a little more time :)
  • For some reason this image won't load when I click on it. I will try again later to see if it will come up, but at the moment I think we may need to pursue alternative website to get to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

Overall, excellent article, just a few points:

• • There's some inconsistency with regards to the usage of "US" and "U.S." when referring to the United States. Although either is acceptable, I would clean this up to ensure that only one is used throughout the article.
  • Would it be possible to create a separate section as "References" to list the books and articles used, and then change the current refs section to "footnotes"? It becomes quite confusing at times when there isn't a list of the books used above or below
  • On that note, there seems to be a lot of articles & government publications used in the references. There's gotta be a few books out there on the Iowa-Class as a whole. Would it be possible to diversify the refs by drawing resources from some of these? While I recognize the issue raised in your response, I've got plenty of books on the Pacific Campaigns that can likely be used. I'll see what I can help with in regards to print-references.
  • There's a lot of choppiness throughout the prose (this can be solved by a copyedit, which I'm willing to do some of)
  • There's some difficulty with a lot of unnecessary dates being linked (I have problems with this in my writing as well;). I know we like blue, but it does get a bit excessive at times (like I said, I take flak for this as well)
  • That's all I can find for now, I'll take another look tomorrow morning (I'll do some copyediting in the meantime). Regards, Cam (Chat) 06:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall I thought it was a very good article, however, I cannot support it for A-class till the issues mentioned above are resolved. Besides those, I just found a few stylistic/grammatical errors, which I've gone ahead and corrected for you. I agree that the tub picture should be displayed if at all possible(funny picture, by the way - I love the little toy cruiser...for FDR to play with?). Borg Sphere (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Could have been added for visual effect, as I'm not sure roosevelt would have had any toys in his bathtub (although I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know that for a fact). I added the toy picture and am working on the other issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

Looks like a great article, just a few comments below:

1. I notice you have All Hands in the notes section, a quick search lead me to the Navy's All Hands archive site which will help you get a more full cite, and the ability to link to it.
2. According to WP:MOSNUM, inparticular MOS:UNLINKDATES: The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. So you might have to remove the date links, or wait until the handful of users who are auto unlinking arrive at the article.
3. In the construction section is there anyway to expand it? Like add more information on it's construction like how many men worked on it, any challenges faced during construction, etc. because that whole section sans 4 sentences is about the armament, which leads me to my next comment.
4. Can an armament section be created/expanded by either adding a subsection to the construction section or it's own section with like a paragraph or two about its fire power? The way it is now is 4 quick sections about it's armament, and I understand that a FA article exists on the Iowa class in general, but a section in the USS Iowa article I think is warranted.
5. I'm going on a stretch here, but can this image be placed in the article? It's a featured picture and would be well placed to show the strength of the ships fire power.

That's it for now, I'm kind of new at this so I probably be back with some more questions and comments. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Repectively:

• I hadn;t realised that they had an online archive, that will likely help in formatting the article's All Hands references. Thanks for that.
• In general I tried to link only those dates that had a full month name year setup, although I admit that I need to read up on this a little to see how exactly this effects my article here (and by extenion, the other five articles already there :)
  • Tony has removed all instances of just date linking, so we are good to go on those grounds now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• I could look into expanding the section along those lines, although I am not sure to what extent information on the subject will be available. I do know that the battleship wasn't built by men, it was built by women, who were working the navy yards for the men while the latter were off to fight the war. Apparently, the "rosies" left good luck messages engraved within a fuel tank on Wisconsin, so there maybe some material of this nature for Iowa as well.
• That bumps up against both Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:summary style, both of which need to be kept in mind when working on the article. Moreover, almost all the armament info is at armament of the Iowa class battleship. This format was adopted some time ago to keep all involved editors mostly happy, and it has worked up till now with little or no resistance. Most problematic with the issue of the construction section is that rattling one section also invites the possibility of rattling these sections for the other three completed Iowas so they maintain uniformity for a FT shot. I want to say here explicitly that I will rearrange the sections if enough people agree it needs to be done, but I until I see the enough people mark (maybe three or four people in agreement with you) I am not going to rearrange the sections (yet, anyway).
• Of course. I just need a little more stability in the article and a higher resoltion moniter before I add the image in. It will be added, trust me; this is one image that most accurately says "600-ship Navy", so it will be added even if I have to remove and article or two to get it in. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture is in. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks awesome. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with my fourth comment, I just threw it out there. Better to keep it consistent with the other articles then not to. I mainly brought it up if there was any difference in armament for the USS Iowa as compared to the other ships since she was the lead ship. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've reviewed some of the sources, and added some material myself as I build the USS Iowa turret explosion. I think the article accurately reflects the current sources and meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question...Is the section on WWII taken more or less directly from the US Navy's history of the ship and/or from Morison? It seems kind of hagiographic. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The others are, but this one isn't; the WWII section was rebuilt from the Iowa veteran's association ship's history page, with checks against DANFS (what little material there was to check against) and reports from other ships (one liners mostly) that confirm Iowa's presence in the combat actions. If you like I could try and tweak this a little, although admittedly I am not sure exactly how I would be able to pull this off. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One problem with giving the history of an individual ship, is that to perhaps get an objective outside opinion of the ship's performance might require unreasonable searching through seemingly unrelated sources. For example, the book: Brown, Herbert C. (2000). Hell at Tassafaronga. Ancient Mariners Pr. ISBN 0-9700721-4-7. states that the interception of Japanese warships fleeing Truk lagoon during Operation Hailstone was fairly botched, with at least one or more of the Japanese warships escaping in spite of the superior numbers of American warships present with many of them almost being hit by Japanese torpedoes launched during the encounter. I'll review the article again. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The concerns I had have been addressed. Excellent article. Cam (Chat) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - an excellent article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 08:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Panaman

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It has already passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class— Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support One minor issue noticed and corrected. --Brad (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and referenced article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work as usual. Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Berlin

I've just overhauled this article in the past few days by re-organizing, copyediting, adding references and fixing any style issues I could find. I think it should meet all A-class criteria though. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would send it to GAN, but that is just me. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support This is a very good article which comfortably meets the A-class criteria. The only suggestion I'd make is that the article would probably benefit from a copy-edit by an editor with a fresh pair of eyes before it goes to a FA nomination. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well constructed and referenced article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Lüttich

Passed GAN on September 6; had undergone revising and expansion since then. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria. Regards, Cam (Chat) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Only issue is the lack of a casualty count. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of that can be explained by the gradual breakdown in German logistics throughout the course of the Normandy Campaigns. I have encountered this issue in previous article (Operation Tractable, Battle of Verrieres Ridge). I can give rough estimates for armoured casualties for German forces, as well as estimates for American casualties. However, to my knowledge, no solid figures exist. I'll take another look in my sources, for what it's worth. Regards, Cam (Chat) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no further issues with this article. It is extremely well written and thoroughly covers this topic. One suggestion for further improvement is to address the casualty figures in a subsection as was done in Operation Tractable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The assault was part of an attempt made by Adolf Hitler to eliminate the gains made by the First United States Army - Was Adolf Hitler involved himself ? could this be re phrased = attempt by German forces or attempt by the XLVII Panzer Corps to eliminate the gains.

Hitler personally ordered the counterattack. Von Kluge was mortified at the order, but proceeded anyways. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on the casualty count but otherwise Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/?id=66 a reliable source to be using for much of the article?

It's the site for the Polish Memorial/Museum on Mont-Ormel ("The Mace") for the Polish 1st Armoured Division. It's for the same reasons that most museum websites are considered reliable sources. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• On 25 July 1944, following six weeks of positional warfare along a stalemated front - The use of positional warfare could be explained better, I think, perhaps changing the wording to make the meaning clearer.

Doing. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why are Allied casualties apparently Non-applicable? Skinny87 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to use "unknown" for casualty figures, but some editors prefer N/A. If you wish, I can easily change that. Cam (Chat) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone using N/A and trying to get a G, A, or FA stamp needs to meet a wet trout. Maybe we should look into putting this into the manual of style, but IMO, N/A is a bloody disgrace and a slap across the face of the brave soldiers who died in these battles. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite my head off because another editor used it. Like I said, I prefer to use "unknown", but I'm not the only one working on this article. Cam (Chat) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it appeared to be directed towards you. I meant that as a general statement. Geoff Plourde

No biggy. it's difficult to communicate accurately across the web. Cam (Chat) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment...The statement that American casaulties are unknown gave me pause. The US Army was usually fairly good at documenting its casualties in WWII. Have you looked at the sources available here and here? Many of these are official histories. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of those actually helped me find casualty figures. I've regone over my D'Este source, and it gives some approximations as to casualties taken by American forces. I'll add them in tomorrow. Regards, Cam (Chat) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes the official US Army history will give a total casualty figure for several months of action which includes several actions or battles. In that case, I usually try to find casualty figures for the other battles then subtract them from the total to approximate the total for the battle in question, then explain how I did it in the footnotes. Did none of those weblinks give any information that was useful for the article at all, besides in terms of casualty figures? Cla68 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• At first glance, I was unable to glean anything from the sites. That said, I'm extremely tired at the moment, and perhaps working on a fully-rested mind will enable me to find what I'm looking for. I'll look at this again tomorrow. Regards, Cam (Chat) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's getting very close. One more thing, some of the dates are written as "month day" and some as "day month". They need to be consistent throughout the article. Also, the new WP:MOS rule on dates is that they're not supposed to be wikilinked. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

K. I've fixed the date issues for both consistency and wikilinks. Cam (Chat) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is a good book called Battle for Mortain: The 30th Infantry Division Saves the Breakout, and another one called Victory at Mortain (by Mark Reardon). I would suggest trying to find these at a local library or buying them. JonCatalán (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I FINALLY found a reference for a range of American fatalities. It's not as accurate as I'd hoped for, but it's the best I can do. Cam (Chat) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Satisfied my concerns have been met, Skinny87 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Ohioan (1914)

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently passed GA review. I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support We can expect great things from this contributor. Both this article and the Minnesotan are worthy of A-Class. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work again. I assume that many photos of the ship were taken while she was aground off the California coast, but all the ones you have found so far are still copyrighted? Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were quite a few published of the ship on the rocks, but none that I found that were free. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment--I personally think that the lead could be expanded a bit, but otherwise it looks quite good. Nice job! ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I expanded the lead to include more details about the sinking. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Don't know how I missed this review until now. This article as with all the sister ships meets A class. --Brad (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SMS Von der Tann

Promoted: --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has been expanded significantly since passing GA in July, and was peer-reviewed shortly thereafter. I feel it meets the A-class criteria, and would like it to be evaluated by other editors, hopefully for some pointers to help the article reach FA-class. Parsecboy (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. I would suggest, though, that you try to have a citation at the end of every paragraph so that you won't appear to have any uncited material. Also, quotes are only supposed to be indented if they are four lines or longer. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, as well as for your corrections to the article; I fixed the quotes in the Jutland section that were too short to justify indenting (the other, in the Yarmouth and Lowestoft section appears to be at least 4 lines on my screen, although I know my monitor is on the smaller end, so it might not appear so to those with larger screens.). I'll look at adding more citations tomorrow, as it's getting late here. Thanks again, Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with Comment. An excellent article (and an interesting read, to boot!). One minor thing on reference formatting (which, when I get back on Sunday, I might change) is that "Smith, p407" should likely be reput as "Smith, p. 407". It helps in that it doesn't make it look as jumbled. Just a thought.....Cam (Chat) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I think I've got the references fixed as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The Land (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good to read. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Minnesotan

• Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. --Brad (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great article. I do have one question though, that applies to the Ohioan as well. The article states the the contract set a maximum cost of $640,000, but both ships' final price was above that. What happened? - Hargrimm | ^Θ 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The final cost included the financing (interest) charges. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wonderful article. Can this article be expanded further or has it reached its limit? (Forgive lack of expertise in naval realm) Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cla68, has it right. From available sources, it's pretty much at its limit, but if one were to write a book on the ship, for example, I'm sure that many more primary sources could be found. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I suspect that primary sources (port logs, naval escort ships logs, etc) might have more information on her movements over her career but I think the secondary sources used are excellent and provide enough information for a an encyclopedic entry on the ship's history. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Montanan

• Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. You wouldn't happen to have a more precise time of her sinking, would you? Cam (Chat) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regrettably, no. The sources don't give a specific time, just that she sank the morning of 16 August after unsuccessful salvage attempts. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. --Brad (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This article appears to meet all criteria for A-Class. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think I found one missing comma; otherwise, this is great. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 23:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blair Anderson Wark

• Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-class as I have made some substantial improvements to it over the last few weeks. It has just been passed as GA, and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. I am willing to make further edits for improvement. All comments and ideas welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• After a stint on the Suez Canal defences, Prehaps could be re-worked After initially being employed in the defence of the Suez Canal. I just dont like the word stint.

•  Fixed

• In the twelve months up to July 1912, Wark was a senior member of the Australian Army Cadets, later rising to the rank of sergeant. A senior member of the AAC would suggest a officer rank. So before becoming a sergeant he was a corporal ? not very senior.

• I have slightly re-worded this, but all of my sources state he was a senior cadet. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• for the next year he was assigned to full-time defence duties in the port of Sydney. This suggests that prior to this he was only assigned part time duties ? if so details of his civilian occupation at the time could be added.

• I have now clarified this; he was employed as a quantity surveyor. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is HMAT A72 Beltana ? the type of vessel could be included or if not known prehaps better to remove the detail.

• Clarified; a troopship. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• the battalion was tasked with serving on the Suez Canal defences. This suggest they were employed in Flood defences or similar prehaps again re-worked to the battalion was tasked with the defence of the suez canal.

•  Fixed

• Wark gained admission into to attend the Army Infantry School. is this a typo ? Wark gained admission into the Army Infantry school

•  Fixed

• Wark's men successfully repelled the leading waves of a German counter-attack before using artillery to repel the remaining attacks. I presume warks men did not man the artillery ? this could be re-worked then calling upon the artillery to repel the remaining attacks or then calling down artillery to repel the remaining attacks

• I think I have clarified this, if not I'll have another look. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it look good and I enjoyed reading about Wark Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Good work on an interesting and informative article. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Compared to other military bios, this one is good. This article would appear to be a future FA. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Very interesting. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Air Combat Group RAAF

Previous nomination: here

I am renominating this article as I believe that it meets the criteria and it is very well written now with a copyeditor helping it along. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good overall, these are the only problems I had:
  • It needs some citations in the lead.
    • There are none in the lead because when it is expanded on in the rest of the article it is then cited, but if it is required I will do so. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is there such a detailed section on the WOFF? It seems that this position would be fairly similar in all Australian air units.
    • The WOFF section is there because it is the most important (IMO) for NCO's and the Commander for Officer's. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article is much improved, but I still have some concerns about whether it is A-class standard (though these are not sufficient for me to oppose the nomination). The article is still mainly reliant on RAAF websites and the 'bookrags' website is not a suitable source as it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. I'm not convinced that this article provides a comprehensive overview of ACG - there is still nothing on the Hornet Upgrade Project, which may be the biggest thing affecting the group at present, and no use has been made of the Australian National Audit Office report on how the group has been performing in its core role of providing combat-ready aircraft. I should disclose that I have contributed to this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the bookrags site references, there is an extensive section on the HUG with references and a timeline. The ANAO report has been used, bit there is more that I am trying to use. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A few comments below:

• I usually tell editors that they should avoid one paragraph sections, because it makes the article look choppy. I just checked WP:MOS (MoS), however, and it doesn't say anywhere in there that I could see that one-paragraph sections are wrong. Up to you, but I think the article would look better if some sections were merged or expanded.
• You begin several sentences with "This" and "It", often in close succession. Again, the MoS doesn't prohibit this. Writing guides, such as this one [12], or this one [13] emphasize variety in sentences. For example, where you say:

"Two Force Element Groups, Strike Reconnaissance Group (F-111) and Tactical Fighter Group (F/A-18 Hornet, Hawk and PC-9A), were merged to form Air Combat Group. This establishment occurred on 7 February 2002. ACG was tasked to deliver the core capabilities of Control of the Air and Precision Air Strike. This was done with the hope that it would allow the RAAF to more quickly deploy its combat aircraft. Although the fighter and strike elements will continue to operate as discrete units for some time, ACG will provide the opportunity for the RAAF to test the organisation required to deliver a range of combat capabilities. This combining had about 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel."

Could be written as,

"The Air Combat Group (ACG) was created on 7 February 2002 with the merging of Two Force Element Groups, Strike Reconnaissance Group (F-111) and Tactical Fighter Group (F/A-18 Hornet, Hawk and PC-9A). The ACG was tasked to deliver the core capabilities of Control of the Air and Precision Air Strike with the hope that it would allow the RAAF to more quickly deploy its combat aircraft. Although the fighter and strike elements will continue to operate as discrete units for some time, ACG will provide the opportunity for the RAAF to test the organisation required to deliver a range of combat capabilities. One hundred forty-five aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel make up the ACG." [Actually, this last sentence should go in the "Structure" section]

In this way you can give more variety in the flow of your prose.

• I have altered the parargraph as suggested. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• If an object in a photograph is looking, facing, or moving towards the right, then the photo should be placed on the left side of the article. Somehow this gives the article more impact, perhaps because the reader's eyes are directed towards the text by the action in the photo. It's ok for the photo to overlap section breaks on the left.

•  Done

• Not all of your references in your footnotes appear to be listed in your references section. Perhaps this isn't necessary, but again, I think it makes the article look more complete.

•  Doing...

• All in all, I think it's a good, informative article on the subject, but I think addressing some of these issues will definitely make it A-class. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - based on the five A-Class criteria.

• A1. Adequate citation though I'm uncomfortable with the reliance on government sources. Is there any news coverage available to flesh this out a bit? "Annual Report 2001-02" should really say of what it's the annual report.

•  Done the reference, will look for more news coverage. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• A2. As there is little non-government material is this really comprehensive or neutral?

• I believe so, but if there is anything not neutral, please say. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• A3. The lead section is skimpy and should probably be doubled in length. It's not clear what is notable or encyclopedic about the "Warrant Officer Disciplinary" section. "Operation Falconer" needs a link.

•  Doing...  Done the lead, Operation Falconer has no co-existing article on Wikipedia, but I don't really know where to begin to be bold at creating it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• A4. Needs a tidy up for typos (separate etc) and to de-link dates. The Phase 1, 2, 3 etc sections are, I suspect, incomprehensible to the layman and need lightening up and linking.

•  Doing... -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• A5. Fine

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What makes this source reliable? To me, it seems a little iffy, as the site appears to be a one man fansite (albeit better run than others I've seen). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your opinion and I agreed with it up until recently. (Until I put this article up for A-Class review.) I believe the website is reliable because all of the information on it seems to have been checked out against other reliable sources, such as the ADF website, Australian Gov't website, Boeing, etc... CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support w/comment I would suggest double-citing the information sourced to the fan site link, or taking the site over to the reliable sources noticeboard before going to FA (if you decide to go to FA). In this manner you can be prepared to defend the site should the need to do so over there arise. Otherwise, it all looks good and ACR compliant. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, I have done as you asked and double referenced it all. CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comment The last sentence of the introduction is either superfluous or lacks sufficient detail. When I viewed the page the notes section was corrupted - probably a typo but please check it. Dhatfield (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Late Roman army

Prior nomination is here. We went through the issues raised during the previous nomination. We could deal with most of them. The images have been checked for complaince with other material and the captions say clearly what they intent to show. However, there are no guidelines on how drawings of ancient warriors or formations should be checked. Instead of bickering here and not in many other articles, guidelines need to be established. The article is focused on the topic, so length shouldn't be a problem. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I went through this article and was astonished that this article was still listed at B-Class. This is most definitely not a B-Class article. Aside from some minor typos, I can find no reason why this article should not be at GA, A or FA level. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support There are 14 references to centuries in the introduction - stylistically, this is not good. I would recommend converting as many of these as possible to recognisable periods. There are still a painful number of qualifiers - a comment / edit of the prior review. For example: "In the comitatus, there is consensus that vexillationes were ca. 500 and legiones ca. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. The evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either ca. 500 or ca. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between. If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish auxilia from legiones, which is the strongest argument in favour of ca. 500." contains no fewer than five abbreviations of circa - itself not a common abbreviation. This may be A-class copy, but not FA. Dhatfield (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to list such stylistic issues. We will reword it. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The prior comments apply to the whole of the article. I have a number of problems with using the century as a unit of time measurement:

1. It's a blunt instrument. History does not fall into convenient chunks of 100 years. As a result, their use here leads to (at least implied) contradictions. The introduction uses 285 as the start point, but shortly thereafter there are references to 'the 3rd and 4th centuries' and the information does not mesh well.
2. Interspersing numbers into text breaks the flow like nothing else.
3. I may be slow, but I find centuries, in that they refer to the preceeding century, to be an arcane and inherently confusing method of denoting time.
4. In summary, please use anything, anything at all, as a proxy for the incessant references to century X throughout the article.

• I'm having trouble coming up with a more elegant way to express time in the article. Replacing 'the 3nd century' with 'the 200s' not only sounds even more awkward, but also would lead to many more usages of 'circa,' which you objected to earlier. I'm sure the author would welcome suggestions on how to change that, but it is irrelevant now, unless you really feel that the use of centuries disqualifies an article from 'A' status. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In line with recent changes to the A criteria, quality of prose and style can, technically, prohibit A-class promotion. I was pushing the issue too hard, see comments below and change of vote. My suggestion would be "Principate period", "Army of the Principate", "Late period"... Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The Principate" is even more of a blunt instrument than a century, since it covers 300 years rather than 100. The only viable alternative to using centuries to describe periods of time is to use the names of Roman dynasties i.e. the Julio-Claudian period for the early/mid 1st c. , Flavians for the late 1st c. and Five Good Emperors for the 2nd c. But as I'm sure you'll agree, "the army of the Five Good Emperors" is hardly more elegant than the "2nd century army" and much less intelligible to the average reader. Also there are no durable dynasties to describe the 3rd century. As it happens, centuries coincide well with phases of the Roman imperial army. The period covered in the article, 284-395, is a close fit with the 4th c. The 3rd c. is when most of the changes to the army took place. And the 2nd c. is the period we have the best epigraphic evidence for the army, which is the reason for the frequent comparisons with the army of that period. EraNavigator (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• If I could think of another solution, I would suggest it, but ultimately that's not my role here; my role is to point out a stylistic weakness. Thereafter solutions are more useful than justifications. Dhatfield (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to limit the TOC length, maybe by limiting it to the 1st TOC level.
• "The army of the Principate underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century." Chaotic is too little information. Saying that it is covered in a later section is not enough - chaotic is just vague.

• I don't see much of a problem with this. While it is somewhat vague, it's not relevant. The article is about the organization of the army, not all the aspects of the condition of Rome in the era. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right - it's not a major issue, but vague in introductions is not good practice. It's an ideal link candidate. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is representative of a broader issue: assuming the reader knows more than they can be assumed to know. Another symptom of this is that there is insufficient linking. Firstly, I know that the MoS states that one link per topic/person is sufficient, I believe that if knowledge of a particularly link is important for understanding a given section, it should be linked. Secondly, there are lots of concepts that would benefit from being linked. Cavalry, auxiliary, emperors, buffer zones, ... The list in the introduction alone is long.
• 'Barbarian' is bandied about a lot without upfront clarification that this translates as 'foreigner'.
• "The evidence is that comitatenses regiments were considered of higher quality than limitanei. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the limitanei were a part-time militia of local farmers, of poor combat capability. This view is rejected by many modern scholars. In reality, limitanei were full-time professionals. Indeed, it was forbidden by law for them to work in the fields or herd animals. The limitanei were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem. It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity. Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the comitatus. Limitanei regiments often joined the comitatus for specific campaigns, sometimes remaining long-term with the title of pseudocomitatenses, implying adequate combat capability.". Sentences should not start with 'But'. More to the point, if you're going to write prose like this - short, unnecessarily disjointed sentences - why not just cut the pretence and make a list of facts. It isn't just that this lacks style: This. Isn't. Prose.
• Best of luck. Dhatfield (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield, this article in your opinion is good enough for A-Class. That is the purpose of this review. Everything else is moot until FAC. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the A-class vs. FA criteria are a little vague and I normally focus on style, but the technical quality & referencing put this into A despite weaknesses in other areas. Vote changed. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Any semantic errors are easily fixed, and shouldn't detract from enjoying this article's excellent coverage of its subject matter. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. References are not properly formatted. I see no isbns or publishers (with the exception of one book). Why don't you use Template:cite book?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II Pacific War campaign for A-class review. The article is long and has been under construction for about two years now, because I wanted to take all of the campaign's sub-articles to Featured status first. For the curious, this [14] is what the article looked like two years ago. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. References are in a common format and amply provided. Subject is fairly presented. Article hierarchy makes for good comprehension and flow, and its English style has great clarity. Images are high-value and support the text appropriately. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another good article which covers the topic well and meets all the criteria. I have a few comments:
  • This may just be my reading of the article, but I think that the land aspect of the campaign might deserve greater coverage - especially the non-combat aspects (eg, the base development undertaken by US and Japanese forces)
  • As this article summarises the exellent articles on the individual battles, it would probably be appropriate to include a breakdown of casualties by nationality and service
  • I would question the value of the paragraph which begins "According to U.S. historian Gerhard L. Weinberg" - everything I've read argues that the Japanese were planning to expand into the South Pacific in the second half of 1942 had they been able to develop a base at Guadacanal, and not the Indian Ocean, and it seems unlikely that the Japanese could cut British lines of communication off East Africa or enter India in enough strength to cause the collapse of the Raj. If you're going to cover a disagreement over Japanese intentions you need to present all sides of the argument rather than one (eminent) historian's view. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Very good suggestions, thank you, and I'm going to address all of them before submitting for FA. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a further note, I replaced the Weinberg paragraph and added information to the infobox footnote on Allied casualties by country [15]. As far as I can determine, the only Australian deaths were in the Battle of Savo Island and I can't find any numbers for New Zealand, Solomon Island, or other nationalities. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support This a-class review is long overdue. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article still meets A-Class criteria - TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Division during World War II

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2nd Canadian Division during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• A-class review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division

I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore (specifically based on its referencing). Ultimately, I would like to try to bring the article back up to A-class status, but if that is not possible, I believe it should be demoted. It was nominated for FAR in early 2015, and although I attempted to help deal with the issues raised in that review, I did not have access to the sources that its original author (now inactive) had. As such, it was ultimately demoted from FA and I believe that unless someone can deal with these issues it will need to be demoted from A-class also.

I am also concerned about the article's scope, as it appears to largely duplicate 2nd Canadian Division. The original editor, I believe, felt that the two formations were distinctly separate; however, the way that the 2nd Canadian Division article is written now indicates differently, so I think we also need to consider how this article is meant to nest with the other one. I guess there are a couple of options here. Potentially this one could be re-titled "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" to make it clear that the article is limited in its scope, but there are also other options that could potentially be considered while we are here. I invite any interested parties to comment on the article's compliance with the A-class criteria, and to list anything that they believe should be fixed. If I have the ability to rectify these issues, I will, but ultimately unless someone can assist with referencing, I won't be able to fix issues in that area. Thank you to all who stop by. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have resolved some of the issues above now: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have managed to resolve a few more of the missing citations, and have also added mentions of the commanders into the narrative as they were missing before. There are still a couple of citations required though. These are my recent edits: [16].
• I still wonder if this article should be re-titled to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II". If so, I think some mention of the units lineage to the First World War should potentially be added to the Formation section, and then potentially its later incarnations to the final section. Thoughts?

• Firstly as a Canadian (want to establish my inherent bias outright) I want to thank you for working on this article. I have no expertise in the area of ground units, but after looking at the articles mentioned, I would agree that the title should be changed. The basic units are essentially the same just one is an overview while the other deals with a distinct period in the unit's history. Llammakey (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for stopping by, Llammakey, I've managed to find the remaining citations now. These are this morning's edits: [17] @Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, as you took part in the FAR, would you be able to take a look at the recent changes and provide an opinion if it is still up to A-class standard. I think I've resolved most of the major issues. Equally, would you mind offering an opinion about whether this article should be moved to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comments:Keep
  • Recent changes by Rupert and Llammakey have certainly been an improvement.
  • I added one more "citation needed" tag, is this possible to be resolved?
    • Added, thanks I'd missed that one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Are the figures of the number pers that served in the division, and total casualties etc available in the sources? If so adding them would make the article more comprehensive.
    • I haven't come across anything, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, Google snippet view indicates that Maple Leaf Against the Axis: Canada's Second World War - Page 74 might have something, but I can't quite make it out, and my efforts to get the book sent to me here in Darwin have been thwarted, so I can't check. I wonder if any of our North American editors might have access to it? @Nikkimaria and Diannaa: G'day, do either of you by any chance have access to this book? If so, would you mind checking it to see if it lists consolidated casualty numbers for the 2nd Canadian Division during World War II? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I have ordered it in on inter-library loan. There's a copy at the U of A, so it might only take a couple of weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
        • There's a copy local to me, I can get it Monday/Tuesday. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Awesome! Thank you, both. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately there isn't much there. The division "suffered a disproportionate number of casualties - the highest casualty ratio in the Canadian Army - from the time it returned to combat in early July 1944 until the end of the war." Anywhere else in the book to look? The index wasn't helpful and I don't have access to the Google snippets. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks for taking a look, Nikki. I've added something along those lines: [18] My snippet view doesn't give me much, either, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
                • @Anotherclown: Does that address your concerns regarding casualties? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
                  • G'day yes if that is all that is available in the sources then no worries. Good work to those that tracked this down. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with AR's comments about the scope of the article and the need to rename it. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I've moved to keep now due to the work that's been done so far. One more minor point re the infobox - the "part of" / "command structure" field currently lists what army the division was part of; however, I though it was customary for us to place the next higher formation in this field (i.e. in the case of a division this would normally be corps-level). Should this be amended? Template:Infobox military unit has some guidance but isn't really specific so I'm just posing the question. Anotherclown (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
      • G'day, yes you are right. It seems the division was re-assigned about six to seven times,[19] serving with no less than five different corps (British and Canadian), so my concern is that the infobox would become too cluttered. I've tried to add a little more on the corps to the body, now, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Looks good mate. Anotherclown (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comments -- thanking Rupert for the ping:
  • So far I've just gone through the article at a very high level but on that basis I think it actually looks better than when it passed ACR the first time -- well done. I would need to go through it more to offer a final opinion, will try to do so in due course.
  • I agree in principle with renaming to distinguish from the overarching 2nd Canadian Division article, OTOH if "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" was its official name in WWII and at no other time then technically that does distinguish it. The alternative in that case would be calling this "2nd Canadian Division during World War II" (no "Infantry") -- do you see where I'm coming from? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • "2nd Canadian Division during World War II" would be fine with me, so long as we made "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" a redirect to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @Anotherclown, Ian Rose, and Llammakey: Are there any objections to moving the article to 2nd Canadian Division during World War II (so that it is more clearly a sub article of 2nd Canadian Division) and leaving 2nd Canadian Infantry Division as a redirect? This would make it consistent with the approaches adopted for the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 4th Canadian Infantry Division links which all redirect to article titles without "Infantry" in the name and cover both the World War I and World War II histories together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Per my comment just above, that all works for me -- tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Support move Llammakey (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes I support the move as proposed. I am no expert in the lineage of the Canadian army, so in the absence of one to provide us with advice I think we have to go with common sense (or at least uniformity). Anotherclown (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
        • @NuclearWarfare: G'day, I notice that you move protected 2nd Canadian Infantry Division (in 2010) with the rationale of move protecting it as a featured article. Given that it has been demoted from FA and there appears to be some consensus to move the article, would you be adverse to having this protection removed and the article being moved "2nd Canadian Division during World War II"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I have unprotected the page; please feel free to move it to whatever name you would like. NW (Talk) 16:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks all, I have moved the article now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment First sentence "North of Rhine" section, "rested from" ambiguous  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• G'day, I've adjusted the wording with this edit: [20]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Stacey 1995, p. 39" missing reference or (more likely, I think) typo; harv-family or sfn citations would have been helpful not only for catching this, but for linking notes to refs.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you for pointing that out. The original editor chose not to use sfn or harvnb, so WP:CITEVAR applies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I get genuinely irate when people flout CITEVAR. But if you post on talk and wait two weeks or so (or as long as the thread breathes), it isn't flouting. If you want to do that, that is.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• "planned American offensive got underway". Did the US get started late, or did they start on time but progress was slow?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I've adjusted the wording and merged the paragraph as it seemed a bit small by itself. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: @Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review on this one? I've gone through and tried to correct any issues that I could see, but it would probably be best if someone else could take a look, too. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
• File:Lesser_badge_of_the_Canadian_Army.svg: what's the copyright status of the original design?
• File:2_Canadian_Infantry_Division_patch.png isn't sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nikki, I've added PD-Shape to the formation patch, and removed the badge (as I'm not sure of the original copyright). I've also scaled up the map. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I believe that this article is probably good enough to keep its A-class assessment now. Are there any objections to closing this now? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep -- Without having gone through the article in detail, I see no prima facie reason not to; Rupert and others have done solid work, the issue of the problematic title has been resolved, everything is cited, and structurally it looks better than it has in a long time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Washingtonian

Result: promoted. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. Note: there appear to be no free images of Washingtonian (or Elizabeth Palmer, for that matter) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose With the adoption of the new five point A-class standards the articles we have are held to higher standards, and like all of Bellhalla's articles this one is exceptional for its well cited information, however it currently fails A5, the criteria on supporting visual aids. I would be thrilled to support the article, but the standards demand a picture or two (or a very good explination f why there are no pictures) before I can in good faith change my !vote. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • After thinking the matter through, I changed my mind. If there are no free images, then we could in theory add non-free images, but that wouldn't nessicarly be helpful since our low pixle policy on fair use pics would deprive the auduence of the pleasure of viewing the ship, and an external link to an image would not add signifigantly to the article. I think this qualifies as a unique circumstance and thus switch to Support. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I added Image:SS Washingtonian.jpg, a fair use image of the ship, to the infobox. (I've never added a fair-use image to WP before, so I hope I have done everything properly.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support You're on a roll here. --Brad (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support As ever, support. Meets all the A-Class criteria, the infobox would actually be enough I think, it doesn't have to have an image to become FA, though I like the fair-use one (and it is licenced correctly). I added in the == Collision == sub-header as the large block of text was a bit unmanageable. Good work. Woody (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the header and the check up on the fair use image. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Harry Murray

Promoted' --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting an A-Class review as I have made some quite substantial improvements to this article over the last few weeks, and it was recently passed as GA with no problems whatsoever. I think it covers all the requirements for A-Class, but if not, what improvements need doing? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support w/comment Would it be possible to maybe rearrange the reference section so that it becomes two independent sections? Its setup now looks a little wierd, although that in no way subtracts from the wuality of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Split into single reference section and single bibliography section. Thanks for your support mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, I just have a couple issues. First, per WP:CITE, it's preferred for the footnotes section to be named notes and the section with the bibliographic information to be names References. Also, this phrase in the Western Front section seems slightly awkward, you may wish to change it so it says 4-5 February, instead of "On the night of 4–February 5, 1917, the 13th Battalion." Also the following sentence makes no sense and you may wish to rewrite it "On November 11, 1927, with Constance Murray as petitioner, a decree nisi with costs against Henry Murray on the grounds of desertion." All of those are fairly minor issues, however, and I am supporting on the assumption that they will be fixed. Good job and good luck on FA! Borg Sphere (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I could only notice that itt should be Mount Thompson Crematorium according to my source. Other than that, looks good to me. Well done. Woody (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Pennsylvanian

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for A-Class because I believe it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support but wondering about the strange placement of pics overlapping two sections? Should they be entirely within the sections instead? --Brad (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When the Mulberry damage picture was within the WWII section, it hung down into the "Notes" section on my monitor. When I moved it up higher, I needed to move the previous image up to avoid sandwiching text between two images. If you think it's problematic, I can change it, but I like that it gives the layout some dynamism. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should try shortening the description for those pics. Maybe work the description onto the article text? --Brad (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. But, a stub article needs to be started for the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. Right now it's a glaring red link in the first part of the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article. Good job. Borg Sphere (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kaunas Fortress

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Prior nomination here

After first nomination failure article undergone further improvements: was added several new sections, older ones there expanded per request on previuos reviewer; there were introduced additional new references and carried out other improvements. Hope this article meats A req. now M.K. (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support A well-written and informative article. A few comments, however.
  • "After the battle, the fortress' military importance declined as advances in weaponry rendered it increasingly obsolete and it was used for civilian enterprises and as a garrison." -> I think this needs to be referenced. I might not have read the article well enough, but I don't believe I see this repeated in the text and referenced, and so it probably needs one in the lead. Although it might seem obvious (that fortresses became obsolete after the First World War), statements like this need to be referenced.
  • Exemplified by the edit link for the post-war section, the two pictures cause bunching. This is easy to fix (it happens a lot when multiple templates are put one after the other).
• However, the article meets A-class standards without question. JonCatalán (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added ref, and moved images to avoid clutter, M.K. (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good job. One question, though. What does, "these were fortified positions of various artillery types and were located on the line of the fort cycle" mean? Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the copy edit. This describes fortress batteries. M.K. (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, and I wasn't able to find any problems besides those mentioned above. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Criterion A4 Prose/MoS

Although this article has come a very long way since its last nomination - for which, congratulations! - the prose isn't quite to the standard of the rest. It needs a quick tidy up by an uninvolved copy-editor. Examples:

• After the World War I ... > "After the First World War" or "After World War I"?
• Complex of the constructions of Kaunas Fortress is the only remaining fortress of the Russian Empire in its entirety. > What does this mean? Could it be clearer?
• Due to its strategic location near the confluence of two rivers, Nemunas and Neris, ancient trade routes which link Vilnius to the Baltic Sea, the city of Kaunas has long been a key geopolitical feature of the region. > Could this be more concise?
• The first general plan of the fortress was made by Generals... > "The fortress was originally mapped out by Generals"?
• cork in attempt to minimize firing noise > "an attempt to reduce"

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article undergone additional c/e. Any problems remain? M.K. (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Ke

Respectfully nominate this article about the Japanese withdrawal of forces during the Guadalcanal Campaign for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a really well referenced and written article, and I think that it makes A-class easily - another one of your great articles. It's awesome that almost all (if not all) of the other battles wikilinked in the article are featured articles. Good luck on your future FAC for this article! JonCatalán (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another excellent article which meets all the criteria - and the FA criteria as well in my view. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very good article that meets all A-class criteria. Also ready for FAC in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Horses in warfare

• Prior nomination here

I am nominating this article because it recently went through a thorough GAR, which resulted in a large amount of good work being done on the article. I am nominating this on behalf of myself and the other main contributors,Montanabw, Ealdgyth and Gwinva. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The article went through a prior A-class nomination in the fall of 2007, and the issues mentioned have been dealt with as part of the recent GAR. The prior review can be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Horses in warfare/archive1

• Support. The article contains a lot of information and I believe it meets the five A-class criteria. I'm not sure that it covers everything that could be covered, for example, I know that the Americans used donkeys and mules to support their forces at various places in the Pacific War and this isn't mentioned in the article. But, again, I think it's A-class level. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Well cited and through. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all A-class criteria, ready even for FAC in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AMX-30E

Just finished writing this article, and there will be few modifications (other than those necessary to pass the A-class review). Please state any criticism - it will be dealt with quickly. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Great job. I would suggest, though, splitting the first, long paragraph in "Modernization" into two paragraphs and the two redlinks in the infobox probably need stub articles started on them. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I split that paragraph into two - I hope it looks better now. I will create stubs for those two red links as soon as possible. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a good article, and I couldn't find any flaws. Good luck on FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kiev Expedition (1018)

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A GA-class article. I wonder how close it it to MILHIST A-class? I believe it is very comprehensive, and pretty well written.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I could find no problems with it. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, with just a short notice - the strength number in the infobox should be provided with a ref. Good work, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good article! JonCatalán (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Napoleon I of France

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's reached GA status, so perhaps it can manage A-Class as well? — db48x | Talk 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support meets all criteria and would be a great benefit for our project to promote such an article. -Eurocopter (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, and it meets all the criteria. Great job and good luck on FA. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TAM (tank)

Just finished (more or less) working on this article, and I'd like to put it through an A-class review. Thanks for your comments! JonCatalán (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why are there not any links in the production section? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of those companies have articles on them, or are well known enough to have articles made on them. But, I can redlink them if that's preferred. JonCatalán (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It just seemed odd that none of the material in the section has a link to a coorosponding article here.

• Weak Support I find the one source reliance a little troublsome, but not enough to vote down. Do try to add a few other references/sources before heading up the line to FAC though, I think it would help the article. Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's a concern of mine, as well. Unfortunately, two online resources (FAS.org and global security) are unreliable (the information they provide is not really backed up by any sources, any explanations and is not supported by my published source), so I'm left with two published sources. I couldn't find anything in online Argentine newspaper archives, either. I might add a section on how the TAM compares to other tanks in South American inventories to make it seem like sources are diverse, but it wont change the fact that the information on the tank comes from one major source and one minor source (tank recognition guide). Any suggestions? JonCatalán (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of things like the armour, guns, ammo, radios, and so forth you could try looking at company websites to see if they have any info on the product. If they do, that could count as a source to add. Aside from these axamples though I am also drawing a blank. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I added two more refs from different sources - unfortunately, those references are not too in depth (I found them on Amazon and used Amazon's 'look in here' application to read them). I will continue to look for company websites, but sometimes the company doesn't have information on the system since it's 'old'. JonCatalán (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Like Tom I am concerned about the single source, but as you explained that can't be helped. Another small issue is that in the lead the phrase "know-how" sounds rather colloquial and not encyclopedic, you may wish to change that. Other than that it looks good, good work! Borg Sphere (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed "know-how" to "experience". JonCatalán (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think it meets the A-class criteria, nice work on an interesting and informative article. The only concern is the obvious one, and that is that most of the text is sourced to a single reference (La Familia Acorazada TAM). I'm not sure what you can do about that. Perhaps you can use Jane's as it appears that some of their publications probably would have information on this vehicle. I believe that as is this could be a show-stopper for getting the article featured. But, I could be wrong. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Closing as promoted with the caveat that the single-source reliance will be a show-stopper for FA. Woody (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

From where I sit this meets all five of our newly adopted A-class criteria points. This was create the other day as a fork from the Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the size somewhat, and I have combined some previously unincluded info on the DD(X) page to help make this page more comprehensive and eliminate the need to go back ond forth between the pages Iowa class battleship and Zumwalt class destoyer. At this point I think the article could go FA if it had a little extra spit and polish, hence the reason its here. As always, I am open to suggestions for improvement, if anyone has any :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm glad to see that my suggestion to fork this out of the Iowa class article was a good one. Also, it seems to me that all the requirements of the new criteria are met, and as such, keep up the good work with the current events and when resolved to a reasonable extent (with regards to the Zumwalt class), head to FAC. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This one's sorta cheatin since all the sourcing was already in place. Its easy to go up the assessment scale when all the work is already done :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support The article was copy edited since last I saw it but there are still areas were cancelled vs canceled are used. More editing would be needed for FA. --Brad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support The article seems well written and I did not see any impediments to it becoming A-class. Borg Sphere (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Mercy (AH-4)

I believe that this is ready for A-class. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

• Under SS Saratoga 2nd paragraph where the collision is described, what happened that the Captain couldn't identify the other ship? If he waited three hours, why? Did the other ship run for the hills?

It was in stormy seas at 1:00 a.m.; the article hinted that the other ship must have been OK. I would infer some combination of that plus no lights, poor sea conditions, and/or lack of maneuverability by the sailing ship in bad weather may have been a factor.

• The formating of "she/her" or "it/its" needs to be standardized. Right now there is a mix.

There were two that I found and changed.(plus one where the antecedent was the convoy, not the ship; I changed it for clarity).

• Was there a particular reason for the danfs template to be under USS Mercy rather than down in the references section?

A particular editor frequently mentions the small size of the {{DANFS}} wording when its in a "References" section, so I preemptively moved it. I did remove the bullet from in front (which made it look funny).

Also, I had failed to cite the DANFS text, but that oversight has now been corrected.

• Is there any chance for expansion? The article is a bit short and there are gaps in some continuity, though a shortage of information can contribute to that.

My usual news sources don't bring up a lot for commissioned ships unfortunately, so the postwar information is pretty sparse.

--Brad (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Support Another nice one! --Brad (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• The article contains a line commented out about setting off as part of the fifth convoy the day after being stranded after a collision. The issue of which version is correct needs to be sorted out. At least, transferred to the talk page with explanation to be worried over later.

• I did some further research and found two sources that say passengers from Saratoga were transferred to Finland and sailed about a week later. One of the sources gives the info that the hole in the ship was 30 feet (9.1 m) long. I've addressed the conflict in the text saying that one source says they sailed but was conflicted by others.

Then, as you are using footnotes anyway, I would be tempted to transfer the contradiction to a footnote. I know it is difficult to choose between versions but having lines in the main text like 'making it seem unlikely that she did sail.' is really inserting a POV about the source reliability into the article. Was there reason to think the contradicted source ought to be accurate? I dont know what others might think about how to play this one? Sandpiper (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point (no pun intended). I've moved the expanded discussion to a footnote. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• As an english reader, I am slightly puzzled by the phrase 'rest room', which tends to convey a lounge with comfy chairs. While I hesitate to change it, it doesn't come across well to me as a British reader. In context, it is also either a 'state of the art rest room', or 'both ships were outfitted with...rest rooms'. Depending on exactly how the sentence is meant, whether 'state of the art' applies to all things listed or just the first, either my mind boggles at what exactly a state of the art one is, or under what circumstances ships would not be outfitted with them.

• The exact sentence from the source is: "The equipment includes the most modern of operating rooms, X-ray laboratories, rest rooms, and various special compartments." I had replaced the "most modern of" with "state of the art" so it would sound a little less Gilbert-and-Sullivan ("… ♫ ♪ the very model of the most modern of operating rooms ♩♫ …") and a little more contemporary. The source wording, regrettably, is ambiguous as to whether or not most modern of modifies only operating rooms or all of the list. Also, my suspicion is that the article was trying to draw a distinction between a restroom (WC) suitable for female nurses and a head (watercraft) suitable for male-only personnel, but is unfortunately ambiguous on this point as well.

I'm obviously not familiar with the nuances of american euphemisms on this subject: Do you think then that this point was specifically getting at the presence of female nurses and facilities for them? Would the term customarily, in civilian usage (presuming the source to be civilian), be sex-neutral or imply female, particulalry considering the time it was written? I don't like the current sentence even though it mirrors the source, because it simply causes confusion in the reader (well, me, anyway). I think it would be necessary to interpret this somehow as 'facilities for female staff', or simply ditch it as obvious to a modern reader that female nurses would imply appropriate facilities. Though, as a liner, surely having facilities for females would not be new? I take it there is no question that at that time 'rest room' might have had the face value meaning of a room to rest in, which not being familiar with the usage was something which occured to me on reading it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "… were outfitted with state-of-the-art operating rooms and X-ray labs and could …" The more I thought about it, the more unsure I was as to whether it did mean restroom/WC or something else, because, after all, the ship was carrying female nurses when it sank (or didn't?) in New York before the conversion. Rather than add some vague "…among other facilities…" or something, I just left the rest out. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• On the subject of the collision, what is 'head gear' which the schooner lost?Sandpiper (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I looked it up in the OED and found it means rigging from the front of the ship. I have reworded that sentence into more common terms.

Thanks for the copyedits you made. They certainly clarified some muddy language. (My other replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well researched, well done :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, meets the criteria. Only suggestion would be to explain why it was painted without the hospital markings. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suppot and close as promoted Woody (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Panzer I

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer I/archive 1.

Closed: promoted, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reopening the review since I've finally been discharged from the Army and I have renewed free time (until I can look for a job :) ). JonCatalán (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Overall it seems fine, just three issues: The lead only has three citations. You should put some more in. Also, in the infobox, it says in service to 1941, but you also say that Spain used them into the '50s, so that should be noted in the infobox. Finally, there's one paragraph in Poland and the campaign in the West that is almost entirely italics, is this intentional? Fix those and it will absolutely qualify. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those things! Everything should be fixed, except the citations in the lead. AFAIK, leads should have the least citations as possible, as everything in the lead should also be in the main body of text. In fact, I took out two of the three citations of the lead, since the first citation is not really restated in the main body. JonCatalán (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance I noticed that page ranges in references should have en dashes instead of hyphens. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. There are a few things I have to do which I would have to do before putting it through FAC, including the en dashes. I'll get to that now. JonCatalán (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall good article, but as my nickname suggests I'll be a little pedantic. :)
  • Why is the word Panzer written in italics and the index isn't ? It may be ok, but looks weird to me...
  • The lead section says the armament consisted "of only two heavy machine guns". I'm not sure MG-13 (7.92 mm, about 13 kg) is heavy machine gun.
  • The paragraph starting with "Despite the limitations imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles..." is not clear enough IMHO. The treaty prohibited many things, including development of tanks, but the first sentence almost creates an impression that it prohibited organization of think tanks dedicated to study of WWI :). What was the real influence of this group and their effect on tank development ? What body encouraged the German industry to develop tanks ? What did the cooperation with USSR contribute to German tank development ?
  • AFAIK early prototypes of Pz I were referred to as Kleintraktor. In this case, the name should be mentioned.
  • Some sources (e.g. [21]) mention Ausf D (VK 602) - apparently an upgrade of Ausf C (VK 601).
  • To be continued... Bukvoed (talk)

Here are responses one by one. Thanks!

1. That is a good question. I didn't do that edit - yesterday another editor decided to italicize Panzer, but not the index. I don't even know if Panzer should be italicized. According to the Manual of Style, only foreign words which are not used in everyday non-specialized English should be used. Panzer is more or less well known, although it is specialized English - nevertheless, panzer replaces tank in most English literature when it comes to German armor. So, in my opinion, italicizing anything to do with Panzer is questionable, in the first place. What do you think?
2. Another good question, and something I was wondering myself. I'm not sure if that was me, or if that was another editor. I will remove heavy.
3. I changed the sentence to - Despite the manpower and technical limitations imposed upon the German Army by the Treaty of Versailles, several Reichswehr officers were able to establish a clandestine General Staff dedicated to the study of the First World War with the purpose of developing future strategies and tactics. Although at first the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war met with apathy, German industry was silently encouraged to look into tank design, while quiet cooperation was undertaken with the Soviet Union. I'll have to research to see if specific information is available for development between the USSR and Germany, although I don't think it is within the scope of the article - it's just general background information, not leading into an article on Soviet-German cooperation in the development of tanks.
4. I will have to look that up. Thanks!
5. Thanks! I'll have to see if I can find it in any book source, because unfortunately that site is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.

Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The word “panzer” is naturalized in English, and isn't normally italicized, although German words like Panzerkampfwagen are. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)#Type designations. Furthermore, a proper name like “Panzer I” should be capitalized and not italicized, even if it is a foreign term. —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 20:19 z

Also, “Panzer I Ausf. A” etc., should be treated as model names and not italicized. The word Ausfuhrung or its abbreviation Ausf. shouldn't be used as words on their own. If we consider it to be a common foreign term used in English, and therefore subject to being italicized, it would be better to translate it as “model” than to use a German word so many times in the article.

“Panzer Is” looks like a model name, and should be pluralized “Panzer I’s,” just like “mind your P’s and Q’s.” But this should be used sparingly: better to leave it singular or write “Panzer I tanks.” —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 23:23 z

3 Concerning German-Soviet cooperation, it is known that Soviets agreed to let Germans to test their armored vehicles in the USSR; both Grosstraktor and Leichttractor underwent trials in the USSR in 1929-30. Also, Soviets allowed Germans to operate a training facility for armored corps officers. Whether it is relevant enough to include in the article, I am not sure. I don't know if there was any direct technological cooperation of Soviets to the German tank development; I guess in late 1920s - early 1930s Soviets didn't have that much to contribute in this area. Bukvoed (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

4 I took a look at the article in ruWiki ( [22] ) and the Kleintractor is mentioned there. While you probably don't read Russian, perhaps the refs from that article can be helpful. In this case, the information came from T. L. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen I Kleintraktor to Ausf.B. — Boyds, MD: Panzer Tracts, 2002. (Panzer Tracts № 1-1) ISBN 0-97084-076-4. The article says the development of the Kleintractor was initiated by Reichswehr in 1930 and entrusted to Krupp, and only in 1933 was the La S designation introduced.

5 Ausf D is also briefly mentioned in ruWiki, as re-engined Ausf C, the source is not clear. Bukvoed (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

3 I think leaving it as it is is fine, or red-linking to a topic called Soviet-German Interwar Cooperation or something like that. The articles is not really on cooperation between the two countries, or the Grosstraktor or the Leichttraktor, or on Soviet cooperation with the Germans over armor technology. It just leads to how the Germans began the development of the Panzer I - this article is already at 40kB, regardless.

4 Unfortunately, I don't own that book. I find it strange that none of my sources mention that, and Jentz is a very reputable source. But since I don't own the book, I'm a little wary of adding that information in - I'm not sure it was a misinterpretation by the Russian editor who worked on the Russian Panzer I article (I'm not saying this is true, just saying that this is a possibility). In fact, from what you give above it says that the Kleintraktor came before even the LaS and the LAK, which may be a reason why my sources don't mention it - they attribute those as the direct ancestors of the Panzer I.

5 Like I said above, I believe that it existed, but I don't have a verifiable source to prove it.

JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean you should blindly transfer information from ruWiki, just that it may be worth checking. Bukvoed (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks very good.
  • Please make sure the naming of military units conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units). —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 23:23 z
  • PanzerKampfwagen is capitalized two different ways. —Michael Z. 2008-08-05 00:02 z

Thanks. I changed them all to Panzerkampfwagen. JonCatalán (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment More remarks:
• The article in ruWiki explicitly claims the following about tha LKA: LKA was for a long time erroneously considered a prototype of Pz I developed in early 1930s; in fact was developed by Krupp from May 1936 as a version of Pz I intended for export. A single prototype was built in 1937. The article also says LKA was short for Leichte Kampfwagen Ausland.
• The same article also mentions LKB, an export version of Pz I Ausf B. Three prototypes were built in 1937-38. According to refs, the information on LKA and LKB came from T. L. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen I Kl.Pz.Bef.Wg. to VK 18.01. — Boyds, MD: Panzer Tracts, 2002. (Panzer Tracts № 1-2) ISBN 0-97084-078-0. I wonder what LKB can stand for.
• The same article also mentions Grusonwerk as one more manufacturer of Pz I (Jentz Panzer Tracts 1-1 again).
• The same article also mentions training vehicles on Pz IB chassis called Schulfahrzeuge (mild steel, without superstructure, 295 produced in 1936-37) and Umsetz-Fahrzeuge (at least partially armored, with an option to convert to tanks by addition of superstructure with turret, 147 built in 1937-38) (Jentz 1-2).
• The article also lists Croatia (4 Pz IA, according to Panzer I. История создания и применения. — Москва: Восточный фронт, 1996 (Историко-техническая серия № 17)) and USSR (a small number of captured vehicles, according to Koschavtsev, Knyazev (А. Кощавцев, М. Князев - Лёгкий танк Panzer I - Москва: Моделист-конструктор, 2000. (Бронеколлекция № 2 (29) / 2000))) as operators. Bukvoed (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. This may be true, but none of my sources agree. My sources agree that it wasn't a prototype of the Panzer I per sé, but a further development of it (LKA 1) indeed was. Because I understand what my sources say, and I'm not sure if that statement is sourced on the Russian Wiki, I rather rely on what I know is reliable (Bryan Perrett aside, since he's not the source). Actually, it's interesting - I believe we are referring to two different vehicles - Landswerk Krupp A (prototype) and the Leichte Kampfwagen Ausland or the L.K.A., which was developed for export.
2. That's what this article says, as well - Between 1935 and 1936, an export version of the Panzer I Ausf. B, named the L.K.B. (Leichte Kampfwagen B), was designed for export to Bulgaria. The modifications included up-gunning to a 20mm gun and fitting a Krupp M 311 V-8 gasoline engine. Although three examples were built, none were exported to Bulgaria...
3. This article doesn't really state any specific manufacturers, apart from those responsible for early prototypes.
4. That is probably relevant to the subtopic on Panzer I variants - Panzer I variants.
5. If you can understand the source, could you add that in? Since I can't read Russian and I don't know specifics I don't like to add facts like that in.

JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

5 I have the book by Koschavtsev&Knyazev "buried" somewhere, I'll try to check what exactly it says on this and perhaps other topics. Bukvoed (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. According to this article, the MG-13 was a general purpose machine gun. The issue with that is resolved, then. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - the article is correct, given the caliber of the gun. JonCatalán (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Bukvoed (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2008 invasion of Anjouan

I thinks it passes all criteria --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I believe it now meets the criteria. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Comment. I think it's fairly close. Just a few concerns:

• The intro needs to better summarize the entire article, especially the background and aftermath sections.

 Done --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The quote box in the "Invasion" section needs a box around it or something to offset it better from the text.

don't know how :( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Try not to have any one-sentence paragraphs.

tidied up a bit --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a press photo related to the incident that you can upload for use in the article? Usually one fair-use image is allowed per article if it is located at the top of the article, in this case in the infobox. Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Great content and excellent work for such a recent event in an obscure part of the world. I think it needs a little bit more work though, and my suggestions are:
  • Some bits of the article need to be updated now that this operation is complete (for instance, "Sudan and Senegal were expected to provide a total of 750 troops" - did they?)
  • Some of the prose reads like news reportage and should be tweaked so that it's 'drier' (for instance, "The diplomatic source said France remains "favorable" to dialogue but on condition that Bacar accepts the presence of African troops at the port and airport of Anjouan"). I'd suggest that all the references to 'sources' in the article's text be removed (eg, so the above example would read something along the lines of "it was reported that France was "favourable" to dialogue, on the condition that Bacar accepted the pressence of African troops at the port and airport of Anjouan")
  • There are too many short two sentance paragraphs - these should be combined with earlier paras or be expanded/combined
  • "In February 2008, the Comoros rejected the African Union's extended sanctions against Anjouan and instead opted for a military solution." - needs a citation

 Done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The half-para on the ""about twenty people" in Domoni died as a result of the Comoran and AU bombardment of Anjouanese positions." is also uncited Nick Dowling (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

it is, the citation is right after the text talking about that (incl. the quote)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good in general, just a few minor issues to fix.
  • In the lead, "On May 15, France rejected Bacar's request for asylum but the French refugee office ruled that the ousted leader could not extradited to Comoros because of the risk of persecution," doesn't make sense. There's a grammatical error there.
  • In the military build-up section, you may wish to use parentheses, instead of brackets. I'm not sure what MOS says about this, but from what I've seen it's more common to use parentheses.
  • His asylum rejection needs a citation.Borg Sphere (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Passed Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

11th Airborne Division (United States)

I am submitting this article to the A-Class Review process as I wish to improve the article and attempt to get it to A-Class quality. Skinny87 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. You might consider starting an article for the Knollwood Maneuver since it was a notable and important event in US Army history. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Unlink lone years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS like in "in June 1944." and "January 1945, the "

Done!

• There's some info that I'm unsure if they are referenced or not, like "Thanks to the success of the units of the 11th Airborne Division during the exercise, the airborne division as a concept for the American military was deemed to be effective and was allowed to remain." – otherwise most of the article is well referenced to reliable sources

Done, also added a citation although I screwed up trying to combine the refs as usual, and not sure how to do it properly.

Tried to sort it out, made it worse. Think I'll leave it and let someone who knows what they're doing get that one.

Fixed Gary King (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "on June 23 1945, in" – link the year

Done!

• otherwise looks good. lots of good images, too.

Thanks, wish I could find more of the 11th Airborne though. Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another high quality piece of writing from Skinny87. There are no real problems as far as I can tell. I would like to second Cla's suggestion to start an article about the Knollwood Maneuver; given its importance in determining the fate of the American airborne forces, it's surely notable enough. Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to write it, but the info in 11th Airborne, apart from a few bits in 13th Airborne Division and 17th Airborne Division I didn't add and which I might later, is all there really is on it. Huston and Flanagan, with a bit in Devlin, are the only ones to mention it. It seems to have just faded into the background of military history. Skinny87 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support A nice article which meets the criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HMS Ark Royal (91)

I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as contributor. I believe that the concerns of the first A-class review have been adressed: namely that a significant copyedit of the prose and formatting was required. In regards to the featured article criteria, the article either meets the points given, or is within easy reach. It should be noted that my opinion may be biased, as I've done a lot of copy-editing on this article. -- saberwyn 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support The Commonwealth English throws me a bit but everything looks to be in order and the article has certainly been through the wringer enough to work out the problems. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - great work! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know that uboat.net is acceptable for sourcing, but you might want to have a response for that ready when you take the article to FAC, because I am sure that it will come up. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very good article, but I'm uncomfortable with the number of rough patches at present.
  • I would strongly suggest a comprehensive copy-edit of the early part of this article. Some of the text in the early sections is vauge or inconsistent and I think that the wording could be improved. The Service history and following sections are excellent, however.
  • "Designed to carry a maximum number of aircraft" - this is vauge - do you mean "designed to carry a large number of aircraft"?
    • That's that basic meaning. Changed.
  • "Her sinking was critically investigated, as the carrier was lost despite significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar." - this is a bit awkward and slightly missleading given that RN practice was to investigate the losses of all major ships - perhaps something like "The causes of her loss were investigated, and the ship's captain was found to have acted negligently" would be clearer?
    • I think it would be a mistake to mention the charges brought against Maund here, as I think it would tend to imply that he was in some way responsible for the sinking. Recent investigation has shown that the fate of the ship was probably out of Maund's hands the moment the torpedo struck. Better to leave this for the appropriate section where this is discussed in more detail. I've altered it to 'Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries, with the investigators keen to know how the carrier was lost, given that there were significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar.' Which I think conveys the basic thrust of the various inquiries.
  • "They found" -> "The investigation also found"
    • Changed to 'The inquiries found' (the Board of Inquiry, the Bucknill Committee and the court-martial all analysed the various aspects of the sinking to varying degrees.)
  • If the ship was laid down in September 1935 and launched in April 1937 she didn't spend "two years in the builder's yard before being launched".
    • Changed to 'nearly two years'
  • Notes b, c and d are trivia and should probably be removed. Notes a and e look suitable to be integrated into the body of the article.
  • I'm a bit confused about the para which states that "The carrier was to be deployed to the Far East" but then says that it was decided not to do this on the basis of "recent events" which include two crises which occured before she was commissioned. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that there was an intention to use her in the Far East when she was ordered, but this changed due to world events while she was under construction? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've clarified this. Benea (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden

I hope this GA getst to A-class and becomes "my" first such article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on what I've picked out so far.

• Would it be possible to add "retrieved on" to the web-resources? Although they are already in several, they should probably be consistent.

could a bot do that?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a bot to do this does not exist to my knowledge (there might be one, but I have yet to encounter it). Cam (Chat) 05:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• In "Background", there are several very small paragraphs (notably in "insurgency"). Could these be combined into larger paragraphs, so as to make the article look less choppy?

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise in "Timeline", would it be possible to reword this section slightly to make it look like less of a note-taking exercise (for lack of a better term)?

 Done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Human Rights Abuses" should probably be changed to "Allegations of Human Rights Abuses", as Ethiopia likely denies that these took place.

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise, "Ethiopian Military Brutality" is borderlining on POV.

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency with the tense used in the article. Some sections are written in present-tense, some in past-tense (I'm guilty of this myself on frequent occasions)
• "Links to the war in Somalia and Eritrea's support to the rebels" is a fairly long heading. Would it be possible to reword that slightly. Perhaps to "Links to Somalia and Eritrea".

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work on this article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments. Wow, lots of work here. Any possibility you might be interested in helping to develop other Ethiopia-related articles like those connected to the First Italo-Abyssinian War or Second Italo-Abyssinian War? But about this article:

• "Ethiopia's eastern Somali Region, known as Region 5" -- my impression is that this subdivision of Ethiopia is no longer known as "Region 5", in fact none of them are known as numbered regions. You should check with BanyanTree, who added this detail to Somali Region.

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Wardheer" in the article is better known by its Ethiopian name, Werder. (Why the HRW used the Somali version, I don't know.)

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The ONLF fought against the military dictatorship of Mengistu Haile Mariam, but was not allied to the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF), the rebel movement led by Ethiopia's current prime minister, Meles Zenawi." Well, your intent is correct. The ONLF was allied with the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, which was a coalition of which the TPLF was officially part of (although in fact the dominant member -- which is why what you wrote is mostly true). As for the clause "the rebel movement led by Ethiopia's current..." I'd drop the "rebel" part; maybe rephrasing it as "the movement which overthrew the Derg and was led by current Prime Minister Meles Zenawi".

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The ONLF then reverted to waging armed attacks against the Ethiopian government" -- I am unsure about how promptly the ONLF acted against the central government. If worldstatesmen.org can be trusted here, Mohammed Ma'alin Ali, a member of the ONLF, was president of the Somali Region from October 1997 to October 2000. I see that the HRW claims the break came in 1994, but I suspect they are wrong here; maybe the more likely date would be the 2005 general elections, when most opposition parties & outside observers believe the EPRDF stole the elections. In any case, there has been hostility between the Amhara & Tigrayans on one hand, & the Somali since at least the late 19th century when Ethiopia annexed the Ogaden -- if not for even longer.

you should source your claim and take that discussion to Insurgency in Ogaden --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, except that there has been no discussion about that page, & you have been responsible for most of the edits on that page. :) -- llywrch (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Replying to myself, let me make my point explicit here: there is a problem, which requires either (1) more research, or (2) if it is not a crucial issue find a way to write around it. The second is the easier, since one could simply refer to the long-standing antipathy between the Ethiopians & the Ogaden/Somali (a conflict which has occasionally appeared here on Wikipedia). However, I had a peak at the ONLF website, and found this account which explains the problem I pointed out above: there are/were two ONLFs, one of which was under the influence of the EPRDF. This would not be unusual: see, for example, Ethiopian Teachers' Association. -- llywrch (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the ONLF source too says the ongoing insurgency begun in 1994/1995, just like HRW. I fail to understand your problem :( maybe you should make a bold edit to get straight the point --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the source I referenced, there are two ONLFs: one is the rebel group, which is the target of the crackdown; the second elected Mohammed Ma'alin Ali (mentioned above) as president of the Somali Region. Not knowing that there were two groups with the same name, I believed that the HRW might be mistaken on when the latest insurgency started. Adding a footnote here -- & in the related articles -- might keep other readers from making the same mistake. -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you find a good source feel free to edit the crackdown page or others, you know better than me that specific matter, it seems --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In June, the Ethiopian military swooped in and vowed "to hunt down" the rebels." The Ethiopian military did not "swoop in": they've been stationed in various numbers & locales in the Ogaden since the late 19th century.

done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Somali Region and cities.PNG -- This is a very nice graphic, but the letters for Kebri Dehar are washed out on the left & unreadable. Could the letters be put in a different color, say blue?

Darn, I have to go. More comments later. -- llywrch (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

we may replace it with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ogaden_Map.jpg --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to persuade you to adapt the present image because it pulls in something I believe is vital to this article: the Somali Region. This article retells an episode that is part of the dynamics of this subnational unit; that is more important than the geographical relief that your proposed replacement has. -- llywrch (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments --

• "Ethiopia's military campaign has triggered a serious humanitarian crisis. The Ogaden National Liberation Movement accuses the government of blockading the region deliberately in order to produce a 'man-made famine'" -- Maybe I'm being overcautious here, but the way you phrase this might violate NPOV here by making the statement that the Ethiopian military is causing a "serious humanitarian crisis". Maybe better would be to write, "The Ogaden National Liberation Movement accuses the government of blockading the region deliberately in order to produce a 'man-made famine', and trigger a serious humanitarian crisis." You get the point across without risking the fury of pro-Ethiopian editors. (They are on Wikipedia, just not very visible yet.)
• The next two paragraphs seem to duplicate the same information, the first of the two in less detail & drawing more of a conclusion.

So much for a first reading. -- llywrch (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added that several humanitarian orgs declare there is a humanitarian crisis, not only the ONLF. However, I will need help with further copyedits of the war crimes part--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to meet the criteria. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments --

Sorry for the hiatus (traveling doesn't allow for a lot of wikitime, unfortunately). Seeing as I have 28 hours before the next trip, I've looked over the article again (significant improvements since last week). That said, a few things I picked up:

• There's still a few problems in terms of tense consistency. I went through and corrected a few that I noticed in the lead, but it wouldn't hurt to have a thorough copyedit to fix this before you go for FAC (If you plan to do this). If you wish, I can do this anytime after July 19 for you.
• "Ethiopia's eastern Somali Region, whose eastern part constitutes the Ogaden" sound a bit awkward. Perhaps it could be reworded to be a bit less choppy.

 Done--TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, everything seems to be in order. All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - you'll need to format those refs. Some only have raw urls. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

how, one by one...? Isn't that a bot's work? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support You need to format your references, and I think you dot-org report on Ethopian war crimes from the human rights watch is indepedently cited three or four times in the article. If the latter is in fact true then I would like to see all the independent citations to the source consolidated into a single referenced source. Aside from these two points I think the articles is cleared for lift off. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, until all of the references are properly formatted. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

how? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. There are numerous references that use just a bare URL. They need to be either filled out with the author, title, publisher, and date, or formatted using {{cite web}}. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support, as all issues were adressed. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Citadel of Saigon

Fortress that stood from 1790 to 1859. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for a wierd moment there I thought this article was for a building in the game StarCraft. It certainly sounds like something the Protoss would warp in :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't played Starcraft for 8 years and don't remember any of the things apart from the names of the three tribes? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One protoss structe was named the "Citadel of Adun", and if I recall correctly was a prerequist for some of the advanced Protoss technologies. That was what initially came to mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support on condition that the measurements be made to include both metric and standard measurements. Otherwise it was a great article. Weel done! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Did some minor syntax edits. It needs a "See Also" section linking it to a few other articles. Good job otherwise.Enriquecardova (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Some copy-edits though found it in good shape generally. There is an awful lot of detail about the general history of the area - is all of it necessary or does it repeat material on other pages? Bigger is not always better. Dean B (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, but it's important to show the historical context of the citadel to know why it was built and why it was so important. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — Would it be possible to find an image (a painting or drawing or something) of the fortress for the infobox? It would greatly add to the aesthetic quality of the article. Cam (Chat) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Vietnamese history records of the Nguyen Dynasty decided to whitewash this citadel, so there is nothing left. The two Westerners who visited as part of trade missions did not draw a picture but simply used words in their books. The raw architectural plan is in the archive of the Society of Foreign Missions in France, and isn't in any secondary sources. I'm not a researcher so I can't get into the archive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to have been any picture of the citadel, only the original architect's plan, AFAIK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Map added Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Spectacular Article (yet again). Cam (Chat) 04:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (mostly style stuff)

See MoS (ellipses) for usage.

Spaced emdashes should be replaced by unspaced emdashes.

For consistency with the rest of article, which is metric/(imperial), the acreage should be hectares/(acres).

Spelling consistency (WP:ENGVAR): mixes Commonwealth (realising) and US (self-defense) spellings. Needs a run-through for this.

Saltpeter and sulfur > "saltpetre" and "sulphur"?

The image of Nguyen Anh would probably look better ranged left, starring into the text.

A word or two explaining who each of the quoted visitors were?

Cash > "cash".

Incidentally, does His grip on the south was enhanced by a group of Frenchmen and equipment that Pigneau had recruited, although the magnitude of the aid has been the source of dispute.[11][5][12][13][14][15][16][17] really need eight refs? Can it be compressed?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Auxiliaries (Roman military)

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Review extended. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the suggestion by The Nouv, I'm submitting this article for A-class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'll look at it more in depth later, but something that really stood out was the lack of inline citations for many paragraphs. For example, in the section Roman Republic (to 30 BC), the second paragraph is note cited. In the first and third paragraphs, if those citations belong to the entire paragraph, should they not be at the end - otherwise, I could assume that the second half of those paragraphs are unsourced. There are other paragraphs all the way down which follow the same pattern, and others which are completely unsourced. Can the principle editor be pinged to see if he or she can provide more references? It's a great article, and I'd hate to see it fail. It is notable that as the article progresses citations get a a lot better.

Also, some of the citations can be grouped - for example, numbers 21, 22 and 23. Then 24 and 25. There are a few others. I apologize, but I don't know the site - what makes www.roman-britain.org a good source? I don't think this question is pertinant to A-class (not sure), but is a valuable question if the article is ever put through a FAC. Also, in reference 51 what does it mean by implied by Tacitus? If it's clear that this is said, perhaps the word implied shouldn't be used, otherwise this can be mistaken as an attempt to bring meaning out of something which may not be clear, which comes into the realm of POV and misinterpretations - I think this should be avoided.

However, like I said, a good article and it would be great to see this as an A-class - especially as someone interested in classical military history. JonCatalán (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Have the issues been sufficiently adressed? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

www.roman-britain.org is an excellent source. It gives the full epigraphic reference for each entry. EraNavigator (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have! Support JonCatalán (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support. Overall a good effort, but needs a source/citation for the following statement towards the top of the article: "There is some evidence that there was a small number of women fighting amongst the auxilia as well. This was in contrast to the legions, which admitted Roman citizens only." Enriquecardova (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this recently contributed statement is someone's idea of a joke. I've removed it. EraNavigator (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment needs a lot of MOS cleanups - date ranges need ndash instead of hyphen. I have done some of these. Secondly, the citations that are repeated need to be grouped together with a b c d etc, whereas at the moment, many are just repeated printed out in full multiple times. Also why is it using BC/AD, and with they have to be used consistently. In some places they are omitted and in other places there are spaces after the number and/or after the ca. but in other places there are not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates: BC and AD have only been used when there is ambiguity: i.e. during the rule of Augustus, which ran from 30BC to 14AD. Otherwise they are assumed AD. As for the rest of the MOS points: would you be so kind as to deal with them yourself, as I'm unfamiliar with these protocols? EraNavigator (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the suggestions in regards to B.C. versus B.C.E. and A.D. versus C.E.? B.C.E. and C.E. seem like the better choice, given their neutrality in terms of religious 'affiliation'. But, I'm not sure about Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard. JonCatalán (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe either may be used. Frankly, I think BCE and CE are politically correct nonsense and everyone I know (Christian or otherwise) has never had any problem using the traditional forms, which are easier to pronounce and distinguish. EraNavigator (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Good interesting piece but it does need a MoS copy-edit and a spruce-up by a prose pro before it goes anywhere near FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article passed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

I believe that this meets the requirements of an A-class article. I'm marching it up the assessment scale with a goal of FA, soon. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, you have certainly provided enough sources for any FAC :) I am a little concerned about the website http://www.maritimematters.com/princess-matoika-seamemory.html, it seems iffy to me; otherwise my initial look through didn;t turn up anything suspicious. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Given that it reproduces a first-person account, I felt the site was OK. (Looking around at the site, all of its pages seem to have bibliographies and personally would not have any qualms about the site as a whole as a reliable source.) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Alright then, I am happy. Everything else appears in order, although I may have additional comments later. On the whole though, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - Solidly support. I did catch a few minor wording problems and corrected those. I also found in a few places where the ship name was showing as President Arthur 's (but in italics) and fixed those, though I hope it wasn't just my browser doing that; I think I got them all. A few more redlink fill ins and FA should be a breeze and if Al Jolson sailed on this ship it should be FA! --Brad (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - However, I have some comments which may or may not be correct.

• • The lead is really long. I know that leads are supposed to cover the text, but they are also supposed to be concise. I admit that I don't really know the guidelines for leads that well, and so the lead might actually be fine, but as it stands it's incredibly long in my perspective. Perhaps some one else can offer their opinion and tell me I'm wrong. :)

JonCatalán (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're correct. The length of the lead has been a concern of mine for some time. I need to sharpen my editor's knife and be ruthless to get it down to four paragraphs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Couple of issues. The lead is too big for FA, it needs cutting down, be ruthless though you have acknowledged this above, so no biggy. The trouble with having such a huge infobox is that it can take over half the article. Under MOS:IMAGE, text should not be sandwiched between images and infoboxes so you have quite a big problem with three of the images. Images should also not be left aligned for level 2 headings. (see Image:SS Princess Alice interned at Cebu, Philippines.jpg and ==USS Princess Matoika== Some prose issues, she would not budge off the ledge. just seems a bit too colloquial to me, might just be me though. You might want to try and find one of those mythical copy-editors to review it, though to me, it reads quite well. So, I support for A-class but a few things to sort out for FA. Woody (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some replies:

• I'm working on trimming the lead.
• I reworded so it now says "remained stuck on the ledge"
• I'm aware of the no image "sandwiching", which seems to apply to text between two images but doesn't specifically address image and infobox combos. Your exact point came up in a previous FAC of mine (which ended up passing without a need to change image placement).

Thanks for the feedback. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It applies the same for infoboxes, but I went down to 800x600 and the images are pushed below the infobox so it is fine. Woody (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

  I have shortened the lead from 5 to 4 paragraphs (and cut a lot out as well)

  I have split out Mutiny of the Matoika to a sub article.

  I will soon split out American Palestine Line to a sub article as well.

— Bellhalla (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SS Kroonland

Closed as Promoted Woody (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently updated this article and believe that it currently meets the requirements for an A-class article — Bellhalla (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Detailed, informative, well-organized, and incredibly well-referenced article. The only quibble I have is that, although I know this is allowed, I don't think it's necessary to place citations in the middle of a sentence. I believe that all citations should be after periods. But, no big deal. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to review. I generally try to only put citations in the middle of a sentence when they will appear after a complete thought (and usually after some sort of punctuation, like a comma or a semicolon). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've caught a few minor errors in wording an corrected them.
• Under Troopship duties, 2nd paragraph the statement Two minutes later her lookouts spotted a submarine bearing down on Kroonland so close aboard that the liner's guns could not be depressed enough to open fire on the raider. I'm not clear on what aboard means in this context. Seems like you're saying the submarine was aboard the Kroonland?
• The infobox does not reflect the Army career of the ship unless it was too short to bother including. Are there flags available for her passenger service periods?
• I'll assume you're going for FA eventually so the remaining red links should be filled if possible.
• Overall an outstanding article with bits of relative humor injected here and there by describing the antics of passengers. It's nice to read an article and be able to chuckle a bit.
  • The "close aboard" phrase comes from DANFS. I agree its strange wording, but I'm not at all clear on exactly what it means myself.
    • close aboard normally means alongside. In the current context substituting alongside makes as little sense as the original wording. I have reworded to show that the sub was very close to the ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Army career seems, according to DANFS, to have been only one voyage. The status of the ship in the time span from the entry of the US in WWI until April 1918 is really unclear from sources. My usual WWI sources don't give any information during that span. One of the few bits of information is about the U.S. 42nd Infantry Division sailing on Kroonland in September 1917.
  • Thanks for the kind words and the corrections. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Support A solid A-Class article all around. --Brad (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well referenced, seems to meet the MOS, well-illustrated, comprehensive, the prose seems ok to me. Great work. Woody (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Tractable

Closed as promoted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Has undergone two copyedits in the last week (one by EyeSerene, the other by SGGH. Passed its GAN on June 16/17 (depending on which time-zone you're in). Respectfully submit for A-Class Review. Cam (Chat) 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment Cam for your consideration. This was the biggest encirclement as far as I know by any of the Western allies in World War II - yet it was far far smaller than many of the encirclements on the Eastern Front. Don't know whether you wish to note that or not. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can easily work in the bit about being the largest western encirclement, but I'm not sure about how I can work in the Eastern Front bit (I will try though). Cam (Chat) 23:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

'The encirclement at Falaise was the largest encirclement in the West during World War II, but it pales in comparison with the large encirclements on the Eastern Front, such as during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.' - How's that? Buckshot06(prof) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping!. I think that should be good. Cam (Chat) 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Maybe it's just me about to go to bed, but this: Canadian casualties for Operation Tractable are unknown. However, casualty figures for the combined losses during Totalize and Tractable are put at 5,500 Canadian casualties, 1,470 of these fatal. seems to contradict itself. How can the casualty figures for Tractable be unknown but then be added to those for Totalize to come to a rough figure?

Yeah, I'll reword that. Cam (Chat) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the Although the Falaise gap had narrowed to a few hundred yards in the lead seems a bit vague. I'd suggest either a more precise figue or rewording it somehow. Otherwise, it's a good article. I'll look it over again tomorrow when I have more time. Skinny87 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

done. Cam (Chat) 07:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I believe it meets the criteria, good work. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. A few comments on the article:

• Can you estimate the strength in personnel of the forces involved in the infobox? Divisions and brigades can differ in size from nation to nation. For example, an "army" in the Imperial Japanese Army was actually equivalent in size to a corps in the United States Army during World War II. So, just giving the strength in units can be unclear.

Done for German & Polish forces. Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would expand the background section by another paragraph at least to provide more details on how the Polish, Canadian, and German forces involved got to the positions they were in at the beginning of the battle, even though more background is probably provided in the Operation Totalize article.

Done. Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I belive one-paragraph sections make the article look too "choppy". I would recommend combining one paragraph sections with either the preceeding or subsequent sections or else expanding them to at least two paragraphs. Also, I don't think it's necessary to use dates as section headings, instead use the other titles you already have, such as "Opening phase", etc, then put the dates, in wiki-linked format, into the text.

Done (I think). Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any maps available of the battle or of the area in which the battle took place that you could add to the article? Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking all over for maps of Operation Tractable. I've found several non-free ones that I'll try to convert to a rendered map once this thing is done (it's on my to-do list for the article). Cam (Chat) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that this review be extended for 3 days so as to garner further comment, as only 3 users have actually responded to the ACR, and only one has indicated a support or oppose position. Cam (Chat) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support; I've made a few tweaks to the article, correcting some redirects, dabs, a few cases of AE/BE issues, etc. The article seems to be well written, comprehensive, and appears to be neutral; the sourcing appears to be more than adequate, photographs are in order in terms of licensing, etc. The only thing I would like to see is a map or two, but Climie has indicated he's got that in mind. I can find no real problems with the article. Greak work all around! Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: You've done a great job here; this has considerably expanded since my GA review, and is a far more rounded and much improved article as a result. Just a couple of points:

• From Offensive strategy, "...although the 272nd Grenadier Infantry Division had been withdrawn on 10 August". If the division had been withdrawn anyway, why mention them?

That's a good point. I'll fix that. Cam (Chat) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hill 262 (Mont Ormel) para 1: Is the description "two strong SS Panzer divisions" a little exaggerated? Both 2nd and 9th SS Pz were shadows of their former selves by this point.

Maybe "well trained SS Panzer Divisions"? Granted, the 9th didn't take nearly the beating that the 12th & 1st had. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can we identify the lone "Panzer" on Point 239 (also in Hill 262 (Mont Ormel))? If not, perhaps we could call it a "German tank" rather than a Panzer - I think using 'panzer' when we mean 'tank' comes over as jargon.

That's a good point. Fixed. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a side note, watch those caps! There's no need to capitalise things like "armoured division" unless part of a unit name ;)

Aye Caramba, that's always been a problem of mine (I think my left Hand sOmeTiMes AccIdenTaLlly moves oVer to tHe shIft keY. i'LL look it over and see if I can find any mistakes. Cam (Chat) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Strasbourg

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Battle of Strasbourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and would need quite a bit of work to bring it up to standard. It has already been demoted via adjustment of the assessment criteria but would appreciate formal confirmation of its delisting as an A-Class article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up. Hopefully it will either draw some editors in who can help improve the article, or it can determine consensus to demote. By way of some background, some of the concerns raised about the article in its current state can be found at this version of the MILHIST talk page: [23] Additionally, the previous ACR was in 2008 and can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Strasbourg/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Iazyges and Cplakidas: Sorry for the ping, but I wonder if either of you have any recent sources that might help reference and improve this article? Based on some of your past noms, this might be an area you have some knowledge of, I think (please correct me if I am wrong). Unfortunately, it seems that the original A-class nominator from 2008 (Wandalstouring) seems to be no longer active. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Goldsworthy's In the Name of Rome springs to mind, he has an entire chapter devoted to Julian's operations in Gaul. Ammianus' Julian: Narrative and Genre in the Res Gestae is also an important critical look into Ammianus' narrative (which is the main source) and the possible motivation and purpose behind its depiction(s) of Julian. I also remember reading Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs and the Antichrist, which had a description of the battle with some interesting observations. There are also a few biographies of Julian that I haven't read, but which certainly ought to be used. Even Osprey has since published a Campaign series book on the battle, which might be interesting to at least look at. In brief, there's no shortage of sources, although I want to point out that the over-reliance on a primary source (Ammianus) is not in itself a problem, nor uncommon with ancient battles: he is the only detailed source, and the narrative will perforce rely on him. The problem is rather that Ammianus is used without being 'verified' by modern sources, and used to cite a lot of what appears to be personal reflection and analysis. I am too busy in other projects and real life right now, and the article is simply too large, else I might attempt to salvage this myself. I am not sure if this is his cup of tea, but perhaps Gog the Mild might be interested as well. Constantine ✍ 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that Gog the Mild will be a big fan of the "neat little rectangles in dead straight lines on the map"! Harrias ^talk 18:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am interested, it would be my cup of tea, and I have a couple of the sources, including Goldsworthy, but sadly I am also too busy with other projects to spare the time for this right now.

@Harrias: I don't know what you mean. I am sure that the Germans in particular lined up exactly as shown, dressing their lines with Teutonic efficiency. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:07 constantius2Chrono354.png Needs a US PD tag, and is missing source information to demonstrate that it meets the PD requirements.
• File:Greatpalacemosaic.jpg Needs a US PD tag, and is missing all source information to demonstrate that it meets the PD requirements.
• The table in the Roman order of battle includes some images without context.
• Generally the captions are a bit long for my taste, but it is exactly that: my own taste. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

General comment from Harrias

Obviously the sourcing is the main issue here. Many statements are completely unsourced, and what is given relies very heavily on primary sources. If no significant work is completed on this (beginning with a complete overhaul of the sources), then I would support delisting. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Gog the Mild

• This is a very long article, going into quite a bit of detail; and so arguably fails A2: "does not go into unnecessary detail".
• The language is ok, and not, IMO, a reason - on its own - for demotion, but if it were up for ACR I would personally want quite a lot of copy editing and tweaking before I would support it on A4: "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant." Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• "File:07 constantius2Chrono354.png" lacks a US PD tag.
• As does "File:Greatpalacemosaic.jpg" Both easily resolvable of course.

To come off the fence - Delist, on A2. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Delist by Nick-D

Delist The very heavy reliance on a literally ancient primary source means that WP:V isn't met. There are several modern secondary sources on this battle, including an Osprey Publishing book from a few years ago, so there should be little need to use ancient sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Delist

Overreliance on ancient primary source of dubious reliability means that it fails source review. This is so bad it's verging on {{one source}} territory. buidhe 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delist: Unfortunately, it doesn't appear this one will be able to be brought back up to standard at this time, so I would suggest delisting. No prejudice about it being brought back to ACR some time in the future. Thank you all for sharing your opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Delist by CPA-5

• This is even far from B-class. I recommend delisting this article to start. Per above comments I believe it doesn't meet b1 and b2 which is for me good enough to delist it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse

Respectfully submit this article on a battle from the Guadalcanal Campaign for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: Some comments, though -

• The Japanese were taken by surprise, and by nightfall on August 8 the 11,000 Allied troops, primariy from the 1st Division of the United States Marine Corps under the command of Lieutenant General Alexander Vandegrift, secured Tulagi and nearby small islands as well as the Japanese airfield under construction at Lunga Point on Guadalcanal.
  • It seems like this could be long and akward for some. Could it possibly be split up into simpler sentences?
• Throughout the campaign, the Japanese used Mount Austen (called Bear Height by the Japanese and Mount Mambulu by the local Solomon Islanders), located west of the Lunga River and about 6 miles (9.7 km) from Henderson Field, to observe the American defenses around Lunga Point, to emplace artillery with which harassing fire was delivered on Henderson Field, and as a defensive point to protect their positions around the upper Matanikau valley and to protect the Maruyama Road which was a trail used to move men and supplies into the interior of the island.
  • Another huge sentence. Perhaps it could be split into - Throughout the campaign, the Japanese used Mount Austen (called Bear Height by the Japanese and Mount Mambulu by the local Solomon Islanders), located west of the Lunga River and about 6 miles (9.7 km) from Henderson Field, to observe the American defenses around Lunga Point. Emplaced artillery on Mount Austen delivered harassing fire on Henderson Field. The hill was also used a defensive point to protect their positions around the upper Matanikau valley and to protect the Maruyama Road which was a trail used to move men and supplies into the interior of the island.?

The following is from an automated peer review script, so it may or may not apply to the article - take this with a grain of salt!

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 300 yards, use 300 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 300 yards.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, aren't, isn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

Again, those are all based on a bot script, so they may or may not apply. However, as a whole this is a really good article and I'm glad to support its promotion to A-class. JonCatalán (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate the constructive criticism. I changed the two long sentences just as you suggested and am checking what the automated script found. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another great article. I also have some comments:
  • Some sentances are too long, and are difficult to read (for instance "Throughout the campaign, the Japanese used Mount Austen (called Bear Height by the Japanese and Mount Mambulu by the local Solomon Islanders), located west of the Lunga River and about 6 miles (9.7 km) from Henderson Field, to observe the American defenses around Lunga Point, to emplace artillery with which harassing fire was delivered on Henderson Field, and as a defensive point to protect their positions around the upper Matanikau valley and to protect the Maruyama Road which was a trail used to move men and supplies into the interior of the island.")
  • "In the meantime, the Japanese secretly decided to abandon Guadalcanal" - 'secretly' seems redundant given that the Japanese weren't in the habit of (deliberetly) informing the Americans of their plans.
  • Why was Colonel Leroy E. Nelson replaced? - was he relieved due to poor results (and was this justified?), or was he wounded or sick?
  • "the tank, protected by a wedge of 16–18 riflemen" - what's meant by 'wedge' in this context? Can you just say "the tank, protected by 16–18 riflemen"?
  • Is it worth discusing whether the campaign to take the inland hills was nessessary or justified in retrospect? Given that the Japanese were clearly in difficulty and were dependent on their supply landing points in the coastal area, the Allies probably could have foregone these battles in retrospect. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review and constructive feedback. I broke-up some of the long sentences and made the other corrections you suggested. I had explained Nelson's relief in the footnotes, but added it now to the text. Only one source I've seen so far, and a source I haven't used in the article yet (No Bended Knee by Merrill B. Twining), discusses whether the Americans should have been trying to capture Mount Austen and the other, nearby hills in the first place. Twining, a 1st Marine Division staff officer who was treated rudely by Patch and his staff when they took over operations on Guadalcanal, argues that it should have been obvious that taking Mount Austen was a waste of time and resources. I think I'll add a sentence or two on that to the Aftermath section. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article! --Eurocopter (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Brevity

The article has undergone extensive work since it was last rated as a B, it now covers the subject more extensively, features new and better images and has been edited to death to spruce the grammar up and get rid of anything which was no needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Gott’s plan for Operation Brevity was to advance in three parallel columns. - this needs a ref, as well as: In the afternoon, A Squadron, 2RTR was ordered to conduct a reconnaissance patrol to Sidi Azeiz with its nine remaining cruisers.
2. A reference is needed in the strength section of the infobox (especially for tanks inventory)
3. Please use en dashes for page ranges in the refs, per WP:DASH.
4. The "Footnotes" section should be placed before the "References" one.

The article is very good per overall and I will support it after these minor issues are fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Meets all criteria now. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Gott's plan to advance in 3 parallel columns need a reference, given that the next paragraph details more exactly this plan, with sources? I'll leave it to Enigma to confirm whether the 2nd RTR patrol is sourced by the ref at the end of that para.

The ref posted in the paragraph should be also added at the end of this sentence. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The information in the infobox is simply a summary of sourced information given in the main narrative. Does the infobox figure need to be sourced as well? --FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to be closer to FA level. See also, Operation Camargue. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the changes as requested, including adding in a couple of extra citations just to make sure there is no area not covered. However i have not done point 3, after reading through the article you have linked to, well to be honest i have no idea what you need doing?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain, instead of pp 23-25 (hyphen) you need pp 23–25 (endash). You can insert an endash by typing –. See dashes for other input methods. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Decent article. That said, a few comments:

• I know some people aren't fans of essays in the infobox (I'm not one of them). However, would it be possible to briefly expand on "inconclusive" in the infobox under "results"?, since inconclusive is a fairly ambiguous term.
• In ref #57, would it be possible to WL Operation Compass?, seeing as you've done it for the tank variants in ref #23.
• Would it be possible to remove the "this map shows" in some of the image captions? It tends to make the image text a bit on the choppy side.
• Would you happen to have a numerical strength of each force? Battalions can range greatly in size (especially in Africa, where units frequently went long periods of time without reinforcement).
• In the infobox, under the "part of" section, shouldn't it be "Part of North African Campaign (World War II)" rather than the other way around?
• There's a bit of inconsistency with regards to multi-ref formatting in the article. For example, ref #2 cites multiple sources within the same ref, while the block of 5 refs in "aftermath" all use separate sources. Would it be possible to format them the same?

Other than that, looks good. Great work on this one! Cam (Chat) 06:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Roger, i follow now!

Cam, the only reason i have made ref 2 etc a single citation is not that the info box is not cluttered up with them. I can easily change that if you want?

Just change that massive 5-ref bunch. It sort of does what you were trying to avoid (just for that one section. I have no problem with double or triple cites). Cam (Chat) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As for adding in the overall strength of each British battalion, there is no chance of that am afraid. There is just no information on that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm able to take that in stride (I've encountered the same problem before). Cam (Chat) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 04:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, with disclaimer and comments:

• I am one of those responsible for editing this article to death, having copyedited it mercilessly, for which Enigma's patience in putting up with my constant 'heckling' is to be commended.
• I see nothing substantively wrong with this article, but if it is to progress to FAC, and I see little reason why it shouldn't, then the following points might need addressing:
• Smallish point - can we have movements marked on the map produced for this article?
• Bigger point - I suspect that two of the images; Fort Capuzzo and the Halfaya Pass, will encounter problems with copyright. In particular the copyright notice from the source for the Halfaya Pass drawing stipulates that the image cannot be sold, and I believe that Wikipedia licensing of its content allows it to be redistributed even for commercial purposes.
• Big'ish point - The aftermath section still only deals with Rommel's reinforcement of Halfaya Pass, whereas the Operation Battleaxe article (Operation Battleaxe#Axis_preparation section) credits Brevity with more influence in Rommel's defensive preparations and subsequent outcome of Battleaxe. I think these two need to be aligned more.
• Big'ish point - having wandered through some of the web sites that deal with Brevity, a common theme is that it has been interpreted as an attempt to relieve Tobruk. I know that this is dealt with implicitly in the plans sections, which clearly states an intention to exploit towards, not relieve, Tobruk, but it might be worth including a short commentary on this in the aftermath section (along the lines of "Some sources state that Brevity was an attempt to relieve Tobruk [references], but Gott's plan was simply to...etc [refs]).
• Small point - there are still some copyediting issues to be sorted. Mixed use of Kampfgruppe von Herff, and Kampfgruppe Herff, "...the Australian 9th Infantry Division and other allied forces fell back to the fortress of Tobruk,[14] while other British and Commonwealth force withdrew a further 100 miles..." is a little odd ("other" British forces, or "remaining" British forces?), it surely cannot be right to start a sentence with lower case (". von Herff")? and some others that surely cannot escape the eagle eyes of really good copy editors. I think this is important as good copy editors are hard to come by, and if you want to make an attempt for FA, you should start looking for a really thorough copyedit now.
• Tiny issue - I find the 5 refs for the British losses excessive. Do they refer to the individual sentences preceding, and if so can they not be distributed amongst them as appropriate?

As I say, I do not consider any of the above to be substantive issues. This is a well researched well referenced piece of work, and well done Enigma... --FactotEm (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to answer a few points quickly, dont have the time to respond to them all at the moment. After double checking The Rommel Papers, he notes that the defensive preperations made to the frontline was only done so after Operation Skorpian retook Halfaya Pass. The recapture of key terrain and lessons learnt from Brevity made him take action, perosnally i think it should be placed in a aftermath section for Skorpian. As for start a sentance without a capital letter, as i understand it under no circumstance is the 'v' in 'von' capatalied. If this is the case, the sentance will need to be played around with.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, in my opinion this is A-Class worthy. I'm only emphasising the 'review' element here, with a view to a possible FA attempt in the future. As far as I'm concerned you don't need to respond to anything here and now, either on this review page or in the article. --FactotEm (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have double checked, it appears the only exception for the 'v' in 'von to be capatlised is at the beginning of a sentance, my bad - have made the change.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments This is a very promising, well-researched, piece that still needs some work for FA.

• Prose: The copy falls short of the "professional standard" required at FAC and is likely to encounter significant opposition there. It needs a spruce up by a copy-editor new to the article first. This will probably take about a day. Here as some specific examples:

• Capitalisation: The Commander-in-Chief of the British Middle East Command > "The commander-in-chief ..."
• Hyphenation: counter–attack > "counter-attack" (hyphen needed instead of endash)
• Awkward phrasing: Threatened with being caught by German armour in open ground, the centre column was withdrawn.
• Semi-colons: Libya were reinforced with the German Afrika Korps; two divisions under the command of General Erwin Rommel. Not really what semi-colons are for: either dashes or commas work better. This is one of several in the article (the Axis forces were now in; fought to a standstill outside of Tobruk etc).

• Sources: Why is the 11th Hussar war diary a reliable source? Is it a verbatim proof-read transcript from the official war diary? It also needs a retrieval date and publisher information.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there anything which makes it unreliable other then the fact its on the internet?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no automatic assumption of reliability in reliable sources so - especially on the internet where often anyone can edit, the credentials of a source need to be established. This also applies, to a lesser extent, to paper published works but though books from a well-known writer published by a generally respected publisher are usually assumed to be okay. So, the short answer is: yes, it's because it's an internet source and its credentials are unknown :) This will come up at FAC. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was promoted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars

Intending to bring this article to FAC, and in order to get further feedback for any more improvements and things I have may missed or not elaborated accurately and adequately, I nominate the article here, after having it peer-reviewed.Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good job. Interesting and complete summary of a long and complex historical event. Cla68 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good article on a interesting topic. Kyriakos (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Excellent article, although the citations could do with merging, as in Operation Varsity, just a thought. Skinny87 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, they are! At least where possible!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support. In the section of the infobox with "Commanders", would we happen to know whether any of the commanders were KIA while on campaigns against one another? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Killed in action, to answer your question. I noticed it's been answered.

• Support Good article, close to FA. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Varsity

This article was the first that I participated in, and recently passed a GA review. I am now hoping to have it pass the A-Class review process, primarily to help improve the article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent article. Just a few minor things: Support
  • Would it be possible to find a non-captured statistic for German casualties?

Asked the editor who cited the captured German forces to see if the source cites casualties, as I've never been able to find one.

• • "where it was engaged by heavy small-arms and 20mm anti-aircraft fire" — "heavy small arms fire" sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps you should change it to "significant amounts of small-arms fire & 20mm anti-aircraft fire", so as to make it flow slightly better.

Done!

• • "Perhaps the main flaw that can be seen in the operation is that, in many ways, it was unnecessary" should probably have a citation.

Also done! Skinny87 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't been happy with that section for a while, and I've realized that some of it can't be supported, so I've deleted the OR section, although I hadn't realized it actually was OR until now. Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than that, looks good. Fix those few minor things, and you should be good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Noticed that you'd fixed most of the stuff. The lack of casualty-statistic for German forces is a minor issue, and I'm able to take this stuff in stride. You have my vote. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've loked through my books, and even Peter Harclerode, who goes into excessive and often anal detail, doesn't list any casualties for the Germans. I'm wondering if the Allies simply didn't know. When I looked through the Parachute Regiments archives on Varsity a year back, I don't remember any Axis casuaty reports. Skinny87 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the editor who inputted the figures double-checked, and there are no killed/wounded/missing figures. Skinny87 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There appears to be a sentence fragment in the first paragraph of the "6th Airborn Division" section, "significant amounts of small-arms fire & 20mm anti-aircraft fire". I'm sure that can be fixed quickly. Nice article. Cla68 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be my bad. I was the one who suggested that it change to that, rather than "heavy small arms fire". Thanks for catching that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, thanks for catching that. Skinny87 (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. A wonderful article, well written and well referenced. Some admittedly minor suggestions -

1. The two airborne divisions would be dropped behind German lines, with their objective to land around Wesel and disrupt enemy defences in order to aid the advance of the British Second Army towards Wesel. - Reference #11 should perhaps be also added after this sentence. In any case, good job! JonCatalan (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done!Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As JonCatalan states, this is a well written article, and you've added even more references since I merged the rest the other day with the "ref name" tag, which prompted me to merge the new ones too. You've also mananged to track down some good photographs from during the operation, which greatly improves the quality of the article. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Parsec, although 'm afraid doing Jon's request created another one for you to merge f you wouldn't mind! Skinny87 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, got'r did :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was promoted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lince (tank)

This has gone through an extensive peer review, although it did produce some 'shake-ups' (rewritten statements turned some correct facts into incorrect facts), these have been dealt with as a I re-read the article to make sure everything is correct (please, if you copy edit and change things around make sure that the sentence implies the same thing). It passed a Good Article review today, and I'm looking to make this A-class. Thank you. JonCatalan (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written and informative article. If there is any remaining legacy from the Lince program, such as plans for using any of its research for other, future designs, that probably should be mentioned in the article. If little of value was gained from the Lince program, then it appears that the Spanish government spent 1.8 billion dollars for nothing. Was there any public outcry in Spain over this expenditure for a canceled program? Were any hearings held in the Spanish government? Were any military or political leaders fired or removed because of the cancellation of the program in spite of how much money was spent on it? In any case, the article meets the A-class standards. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! The Lince does seem to be 'wasted money'. None of the news article I have read have mentioned anybody publically critisizing the cancelation of the project. I do know that at the time the Spanish military preferred the Lince to the M60, but to those I have spoken to they also mention that the Leopard 2A4 and then the Leopard 2E were much better choices in the long-run. Unfortunately, I have no 'hard' references to add that in, as it's all 'own research'. JonCatalan (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed and copyedited this for GA, so I don't know if my support is acceptable, but I would like to say that I found this very interesting, informative and well-written and think it should certainly make A-Class.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Verdeja (tank)

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating the article Verdeja due to the amount of time I've spent working on it and its recent promotion to Good Article status. Furthermore, due to the lack of comments on the peer review I believe it has a good chance to make A-class. This bars necessary changes that might have to be made before people support the promotion, but these changes will be made when the issue is brought up. Ultimately, my ambition is to make it a featured article. In any case, thank you all for your time. JonCatalan (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article uses both Armor and Armour. The rest of the spelling seems to be US, so consistent spelling should be applied. Also, is it "reequip" or "re-equip"? Not sure myself. Also, the metric units quoted in the article should use the {{convert}} template with conversions to imperial/US units. Leithp 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Single years aren't usually linked, unless part of a date, i.e. 1 January 2000. Leithp 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to issues with the converter, including my failed attempt to change it to confer from meters to feet and inches I decided to do the conversions manually. From a look at other articles, it seems that these conversions are only necessary in the info box. Would I be correct to assume so? I think it would be a bit cluttered if I were to include these conversions for each unit of measurement I used throughout the article. From input from IRC the word should be re-equip; thank you for catching that. Single years and single months have been 'de-linked', and the reference of 'armour' has been changed to 'armor'. JonCatalan (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't convert 75 mm etc, I agree with you there. There are a few km/h speeds and perhaps some others that would be worth doing, though. Leithp 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you get them all? I noticed that some were converted when I started to edit. If so, thank you! JonCatalan (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so, apart from the comparison table. Would the comparison table be better placed at the end? I'm not sure. Leithp 08:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you confirm from the source that it was M37 and M44 howitzers that the US offered? I couldn't find any references to these guns on Wikipedia, which is surprising. Leithp 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find the Wikipedia articles, as well. In specific, according to the stated source Spain received 12 M44 (155/23) and 18 M37 (105/19). To the right is an image of what I believe to a M37 of the Spanish Army (it looks similar to the historic photographs provided by my source). Here is an online source on the M37 and here an online source on the M44. Unfortunately, I don't believe I have an image of the M44 as they don't have one at the base of El Goloso; although, they do have a 203mm self-propelled artillery piece not covered by the source! And, regarding the comparison table, I'm not sure. I put it where it's at to offer some type of review of sorts. JonCatalan (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

M37?

Interesting. Well, assuming you add the unit conversions to the table, I think I can quite happily Support. A nice article, very comprehensive. Leithp 11:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

• There are several sources in the bibliography (notably the "García, Dionisío" ones) that lack a "retrieved on" statistic. Judging by the formatting of them, I'll take it that these are magazine/journal articles. Even so, you should still put the "retrieved on" date on that citation template.
• On that note, is it possible to find a web-version of the articles listed? It would be helpful in citing the sources (most modern-journals are published as both hard-copy & web-format, at least from what I've seen)
• I've done a quick copyedit of the lead.

Other than that, looks good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, SERGA does not have web-versions of their articles. Yes, anything that does not have a retrieved date is from journals or books that I have published on paper. JonCatalan (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm able to take all of this stuff in stride. Seeing as there are virtually no other issues arising from the article, you have my

• Support. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Meets all requirements now. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • I think the outline could use some minor tweaking. It looks a little odd to have the Verdeja 1 as an H3 and the Verdeja 2 as an H2.
  • Rif War needs to be disambiguated.
  • Are the ten FT-17's Spain had at the start of the Civil War the same ones from 1919? If possible, it should be made clear.
  • I'd change the sentance "The lack of armor prompted the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Italy to supply both the Popular Front and the Nationalist armies with light tanks", it reads like the SU, Germany and Italy were each supporting both sides. Perhaps "At the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, light tanks were supplied to the Spanish Nationalists by Germany and Italy, while the Spanish Republic was supplied by the Soviet Union."
  • I think there's a bit to much mostly unrelated material in the article. Things like the upgunning of the Panzer I should probably be kept in a place like Foreign support during the Spanish Civil War.
  • The comparison table should probably go at or near the bottom of the article, it would also help if the column and row headings were in bold and borders were added.
  • I would try to get pictures of the Panzer I and T-26 that show the tanks at the same angle and accurately proportional in size to each other. Putting them into a single image montage would be of use.
  • To make the images a bit more clear, you might want to grey out the background, like that done here.

Oberiko (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Here is a point by point response/confirmation -

1. I made Verdeja 2 H3 and changed the overall H2 header to 'Develope of the tank'.
2. Done!
3. I cleared it up in the footnote, since it would have been a bit clunky to add it to the text.
4. I changed the sentece to: The lack of armor prompted the Soviet Union to supply the Popular Front and Nazi Germany and Italy to supply the Nationalist Front with light tanks.
5. The idea was to give a general background history of upgrade attempts on the existing fleet of tanks, in order to provide the country's justification for the Verdeja program. For example, had the Panzer Is been sufficiently upgraded I don't believe that the Verdeja would have gotten as far as it did.
6. Since you're the second member to suggest it, I will do it. However, I put it there to offer some type of introduction/overview before the reader went right into the text. But, if this opinion is flawed, then I will move it without a problem!
7. I will try next time I go to the El Goloso armor base, here in Madrid, but I'm not sure when I can go. Unfortunately, it's not an open museum (as in, you can't just walk in).
8. I'm not sure how to do that.

I will fix these issues as soon as they're cleared up! JonCatalan (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Rather good. I enjoyed it. The biggest likeliest cause of trouble at FAC is the sources, which are mostly in Spanish, though this depends whether anyone picks it up. The applicable guideline is WP:RSUE. This basically says that for self-translations you need to provide the original text. I think you may have to change the way this is footnoted for compliance. Perhaps you could separate the source from its citation, in separate footnotes and references sections (see Operation Camargue for an example). Next in Footnotes, you could perhaps include the essence in Spanish of what you are relying on, with the translation. Imaginary example:

^998 Diaz (1957), p 45. En enero de 1939, se terminó el diseño del primer prototipo ("The first prototype was finished in January 1938")

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be correct, but I rather wait until it's brought up in the FAC. A lot of the footnotes cite over two pages (understandably, this book goes into much more depth than the article), and I think that this would be impossible to copy over. Some of the smaller claims, in my opinion, are not extraordinary. But, I rather wait and see. Or, do you suggest otherwise? I honestly don't know, and most of the time would rather play it safe, but this would actually be quite the task! JonCatalan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Up to you entirely :) As a halfway house, you might split cites and refs prior to FAC, to make it easier to add text later if you need to. But again this is your decision :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Byzantine navy

The article passed the GA review without problems in March, and after some additions & restructuring, I feel it is much improved and as comprehensive as it can get. I would like to submit it for FAR in due course, so any comments are appreciated! Cplakidas (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • First off, I believe in your above statement you ment to FAC instead of FAR since the article has yet to be awarded its bronze star :)
  • In the section "The naval expeditions of Manuel I" you have the sentence "Despite initial successes, the expedition was ultimately defeated in 1156, 4 Byzantine ships were captured." I would recommend adding a word of some sort between the 1156 and the 4, otherwise people speed reading may mistake that as one whole number instead of two seperate numbers.
  • Make sure none of your sentence start with a number, spell the number out if your sentence starts with a numerical quantity. I spotted at least one instance of this and fixed it myself, but it may be worth the effort to make another pass to ensure that the article is fully compliant with the MoS on this issue.
  • Make sure that any measurement figures given use nonbreaking spaces. Case in point: The third sentence of the third paragraph in the ships section contains the line "Overall length must have been between 35 and 40 m.", but   doesn't appear between the "40" and the "m".
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On point 1), yes, I did. ;P. Point 2) has been taken care of, and I can't find any other occurrences of point 3), although I'll keep looking. As for 4), I changed "m" to meters, so it is OK. Aside from these minor issues though, I would really like to know though how the article reads to a non-expert. Where it is too loaded with information, or where more ought to be added, if phrasing is awkward at places, etc. Thanks, Cplakidas (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think you have just the right amount of information, although as a big battleship man myself I may be just a little bias :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent Article. No objections here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article. Kyriakos (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Montana class battleship

This just cleared a GA-class review with no compliants so I am listing it here for A-class status. The next stop is FA, so if anyone sees anything that needs to be fixed/addressed, please speak now so I can fix it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent Article. no objections here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Ready even for FA in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. One concern, the subjective opinion paragraph at the end of the history section is not cited. You might consider deleting the word, "interestingly" and moving the sentence up to be the last sentence in the preceeding paragraph. Anyway, a well done, informative, and complete article. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your concern has been noted and addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• SupportComment Seems to be accessible to non-mariners, though I am not the best person to judge that. Before I "support," I have a few questions about the sources. You really need the publisher for all refs, specifically 1, 4, 10 as of my timestamp. Is this reliable? How reliable is warships1.com? Reference 1 is dead. I changed a few ndashes to mdashed per WP:DASH, and I added a few commas. Other than the small refs issues, nice work. Woody (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll look into your comments right now and get back to you with more deatiled info in a little bit, but I can say that I am aware that the ussmissouri.org links are dead, or to be technically correct, the museum which runs the website recently had it updated, in the process wiping out almost all of the old links. Thanks for pointing that out to me, as I had forget some of the ussmisouri.org links were on this page as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, 1,4, and 10 now have publisher information. The missing ussmissouri.org link has been reinstated through the use of the internet archive, so the page should show as visable now. the website warships1 should be reliable; I checked a few pages on the Iowa class battleship there and compared their statistics against those in a copy of Janes I have at the house and both sources seemed to agree with each other. I believe daveswarbirds.com is accurate for the statistics proveded, although I will see about adding other sources to reinforce the website. This may take a while though...but it will be done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Just had a look at our seahawk page, and it appears that daves war birds is used as a source on that page as well as this one. Moreover, it use on the seahawk page is as it appears here, so I would assume that its presence on two pages on Wikipedia means that the source is reliable. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, that argument really doesn't stand up. Youtube is used on thousands of pages, it doesn't make it reliable. By the way, this link is being used on about 40 pages, a few of those are for images, so it is being used as a source on about 30 pages. At FAC, you will have to explain why this is a reliable source, how is it verifiable? If it is simply a personal interest website, then it cannot really be used as a verifiable source. It is run by David Hanson apparently, but it does seem to be well funded and well supported, but I can't see where they got their information from.
      • I have changed to support as one possibly dodgy reference does not stop it from being A-Class, but at FAC, this will probably be asked again. Woody (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support and a question, should the hull numbers that belong to the individual Iowa's in the beginning of the history section be wikilinks to those ships? ({{USS}} has a parameter for just the hull number) -MBK₀₀₄ 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Verrières Ridge

This is perhaps one of the most overlooked battles in Canadian Military History (many of the major D-Day historians put little to no emphasis on the conflict). This article has been in the making for nearly 14 months. It passed its GAN on April 28, 2008 (3ish weeks ago). I feel that it is now at (or extremely close to) A-Class quality. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Is there any way the image in the section "Background" could be moved or integrated with the template? To me it looks out of place (note that I will not block a promotion on these grounds, it is merely an asthetic issue for me, nothing else).
  • Can you find any information on the 166th armoured division? The red link looks out of place.
  • In the section Operation Spring you have two pictures at either end of the section, are both needed? The positioning there looks a little ackward to me, hence the question.
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already shifted the Simonds image to the section above it. It cuts a bit into the very top of the Operation Spring section, but very little. I'm keeping the map (as it's sort of essential if we're going to use the spring counterattacks map, they were rendered together)

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate any information on the 166th Armoured Division. If it becomes too much of an eyesore, I'll just remove the link.

It's a rare German panzer division that doesn't have an article; I've just set up the link to the 116th Panzer Division (Germany). Buckshot06(prof) 22:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Don't remove a red link; thats how we get new articles here. I had a red link in USS Wisconsin that existed for more than a year before a kind contributer from the middle east redirect the article to the correct location, so I know that if left alone red links will in time become articles. As for the rest, very well then, I accept it all in stride. The article meets all established A-class criteria, so you have my support. Good luck. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article, definitely meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Once the various copy-edits are done, this should be an excellent article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi

Review extended until 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC) to garner further comments. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination: I hope that this article about an American-trained, Christian medical officer with the Imperial Japanese Army who was killed during the Battle of Attu is ready for A-class review. Because I don't work on biographies very often, I also requested a peer review, which has now been archived. Any comments or feedback are greatly appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question: In the {{blockquote}} in the "Final attack and death" section, are the parenthetical remarks from the sources themselves, or insertions by an editor? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All are from the sources except the statement, "Some versions of the diary's translation do not contain this line". I'll remove that line because it shouldn't be there without it's own citation. Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support A very interesting and unusual article indeed. Tatsuguchi's story, for some reason, reminded me of Letters from Iwo Jima. I'd give the copy a massage before running for FA but otherwise it's fine. Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Roger that the text might need a bit of a copyedit before FAC, but I really can't see any major problems. It meets the MOS as far as I can see, well illustrated, well sourced, looks very good. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I understand that this is an unusual article for military history but I appreciate you giving it a fair review. There aren't very many military history articles with this kind of angle, which is one of the reasons why I was so interested in writing it. The comparison with "Letters from Iwo Jima" is an apt one, because the attitude and motivation of the Allies' Pacific War adversary was so different that it may be disconcerting to try to understand it. It has been so for me in spite of my seven years total of living in Japan. To try to bring to life the story of a soldier stuck between the two sides and having to choose which side to be loyal to is fascinating. Cla68 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unusual but certainly very valid. I've long been interested in the sociology of warfare, the impact of cataclysmic events on people's lives. Good choice of subject, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The sociological differences between Japan and Western countries make it even more interesting. Our dedication to the individual pursuit of liberty and self-determination versus the collective loyalty to a common goal that supercedes any individual reservation or personal belief that existed in Japan at that time to me is one of the most fascinating and unexplored aspects of the Pacific War. Perhaps one more reason why this subject grabbed me like it did. Cla68 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Interesting article ready for A-class in my opinion. As Roger said, it would need some further copyediting before FAR. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Brian Horrocks

This article has just been promoted to GA, and has recently been peer reviewed here. I think it may now be close to, or at, the A-class standard. Leithp 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article is well written and well referenced. The use of pictures and maps is also great. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Nice piece and the content is fine but the prose copy could be crispy/tighter and less wordy/expansive, for which I suggest a vigorous prune. (Easiest and best is to get someone else to do it for you. Tom Welsh, if he's free, is good at this.) Anyhow, a few examples taken from the Early life & First World War section (incidentally "&" > "and": MoS reserves ampersands for established corporate titles.)

• Like many sons of officers, he received his education in a public school in Britain. I'm not sure this adds anything at all.
• He was an unpromising student and might not have received a commission ... Perhaps this paragraph could do with a re-order, perhaps chronologically. ie Educated at Uppingham, applied for Sandhurst, unpromising student and sixth from the bottom. Scraped in thanks to WWI. Do you have the date of his commissioning handy?
• After being given command of a platoon > "In command of a platoon"?
• Do we need to wikilink "bottle"?
• For FAC, you'll need to replace hyphens (-) with en-dashes (–) in the number ranges (ie pp 34-35 > pp 34–35); add full stops at the end of all the refs, and add a hard space (&nbsp;) between the pp and number range in refs.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All my trawling of the London Gazette didn't turn up his original commissioning, and the ODNB doesn't give the precise date either - it merely says "on the outbreak of war". David Underdown (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• flash of inspiration leading to a search on "gentleman cadets" finally tracked down the date of his initial commissioning, 8 August 1914. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think David and I have addressed your comments, with the exception of the proof-reading. Unfortunately the user you mentioned is on a break and hasn't made any edits recently. I had considered sending it to the League of Copyeditors, but their backlog is extremely large. Is there another user who might be willing to proof read? With regard to the "hard spaces", are they applicable only to "pp." references or should I be using them on "p." references? Leithp 15:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• SoLando is good but may be busy with exams. Otherwise, try the Logistics dept/copy-editing. I reckon it's probably a day's work. If you get stuck, I might be able to do it myself but probably can't start until next week.
• Yes, "p." as well as "pp". It applies to letter/number combinations (10 kg, Vol. 2 etc). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not just studies, but a distinctly annoying cold. SoLando (Talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum: I've enough time; whether my revisions, in conjunction with other editors, prove to be satisfactory is another matter entirely. Roger, "good"? Good!? I'm grrrrreat! :-D SoLando (Talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, dude ... AWESOME --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Ahem ;-). SoLando (Talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent and interesting article. Very nice work. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. No objections EXCEPT for a major ref-tag problem on ref # 24 (at least I think it was 24). it's jumbled up the entire footnotes section. That needs some quick fixing. I suspect it's just a glitch or something. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support.If possible, Horrocks' civilian ventures, especially his career in television, would benefit from more exposition. SoLando (Talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Erich Hartmann

The article passed GA-class without any criticism I feel that A-class is possible too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no discussion of the controversy over how Luftwaffe calculated victories that led to such high "scores for this, and other "aces"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Seems fine to me. If there is a controversy over possible inflated scores by Luftwaffe fighter pilots discussed in reliable sources, then that probably should be mentioned in this article. Inflated scores by fighter pilots existed within the US and Japanese aerial forces in the Pacific and could very well have been a problem for all of the World War II air forces. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty good. Support for A-Class. Well done. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not keen on the, in places, gushing prose. This'll need cleaning out before going to FAC, I think. You may too want to dump the "scare quotes". Not really the right tone of voice for an encyclopedia. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of the Kalka River

The article just passed GAC and I think that it is up to A-class level. All comments appreciated. Kyriakos (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Wandalstouring (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article. No objections here. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Comfort (AH-3)

I would like to see if this article is ready for A-class (with an ultimate goal of pursuing FA, as well). The WP:MILHIST Peer review is here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Images all good, lengthy infobox, good per the MOS in terms of dashes, italics around ship names. I removed the italics on the quote per WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS#Quotations. Sandy also moved one of the images to avoid sandwiching the text on lower res screens. So, great article, well done. Woody (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good article, meets all criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HMS Cardiff (D108)

I've acted on the issues raised when it passed it's GA review and I have aspirations for the article to one day make the FA grade. Also can you guys look at all the pics there is on commons, how many should I have in the article? Are they laid out correctly? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not 100% sure this article is ready for A-class, but that may be because this is the first A-class review I've contributed to, plus I have high standards. Below is a list of things I feel need working on between now and a run for FA... I leave it to those more knowledgeable of the A-class process to determine which of these need to be dealt with now as opposed to later.

• The article is not, in my opinion, comprehensive. It is missing large chunks of the ship's history. From my read of the article, the ship did not exist between 1980 and April 1982, late 1982 to late 1990, and for assorted individual years between 1991 and decommissioning in 2005, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that the ship did exactly nothing in those years.
• Photo captions. The two photos of aircraft in the Falklands War section could use a little more context... at first glance it seems out-of-place to have pictures of Argentine aircraft in an article on a British destroyer. Adding a second sentance explaining the photo's relevance to Cardiff would be the way to go (i.e. to the Canberra bomber image add "...2. This aircraft, shot down by Cardiff, was the last Argentine aircraft shot down during the Falklands War.") Overall, use of images is pretty good, no other complaints.
• Some of the sentances could use breaking up, as combined they don't seem very logical, and are sometimes quite awkward. For example, "She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate, her bell has been mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff." to me reads a lot better as She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate. Her bell has been removed and is mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff. (underlined text added by me).
• Needs a good hard copyedit, but what article (up to and beyond FA status) doesn't?
• A piece of advice: Grab the Wikipedia:Manual of style and go through everything you can. This will save you heartache at FA.

Any further questions/comments.. talk to me. -- saberwyn 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It does need further copyediting. Ryan has submitted a request at WP:LoCE (an MHL request should also be considered). I don't know whether the ship's activities in those years you've mentioned were documented by published sources (Google hasn't yielded information of relevance). Articles are representative of the coverage of a subject and the availability of sources. Presently, in my opinion, there does not appear to be major omissions that would seriously undermine the comprehensiveness of the article. In terms of utilising available sources, HMS Cardiff (D108) appears to be more than adequately comprehensive to satisfy A-class criterion. SoLando (Talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have moved the images around to fit WP:MOS#Images. This was primarily because section headers were distorted due to images. I agree that it needs a very good and deep copyedit before any attempt at FA. That being said I agree with Solando, this is comprehensive in it's use of available sources. Woody (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Woody I've had to revert your move on the TC-92 pic, as it looks like this ( File:Cardiff distort.jpg ) on Internet Explorer. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this ( File:Cardiff distort 2.jpg ) now Woody. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was told by TomStar (main contributor to FA class article, USS Wisconsin) that the pics had to be by their relevant sections of text. Otherwise I'd have some much "cooler" pics lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note, use {{wikipedia-screenshot}} as the licence for anymore screenshots). Yes, I know Tom well and he has edited many great articles, not just the Wisconsin and he is correct in saying that, per WP:MOS#Images. As far as I know I have not detached them from the relevant sections. Yet, as it is, the second Sea Dart image is distorting the header for the Gulf War section. I will ask around to get some comments on it. Woody (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the 2nd Sea Dart image can probably go, it's only loosely affiliated to that paragraph due to the "Cardiff fired a total of nine Sea Darts". In fact I'd love some help in picking out appropiate images for the article, have you looked at Commons page? As you can see there's loads of em! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comprehensive article, well documented. But some comments, though:
  • As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
    • Lots of parenthetical comments. Consider whether they are necessary in this article. If they are necessary, they really don't need to be in parentheses; if not necessary, they ought to be removed. Example: "… on the Armilla Patrol (a small group of British warships that spent six months at a time in the Gulf)." If it's key to understanding the duty in this article, set the comment off by commas; otherwise it should go away.
    • There are quite a few terms in in quote marks, but most seem to be standard terms that don't need quotes. Example: "…designed as "anti-aircraft" vessels…" Unless there's a compelling reason, anti-aircraft shouldn't be quoted.
  • Not sure what the final photograph really adds to the article. If it were a close-up of the rusty name or it showed the whole ship as it's laid up it might contribute more to the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support, both of you;

• In regards to the brackets, me and saberwyn are working on merging them into the article (and a copy edit), on his sandbox. All the bracketed information was added by me in an attempt to Exjarg

Good, glad to see it's already being addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to the last pic, there is a pic similar to what you've requested ( ), However I've posted a logic why I chose the "rusted name" pic instead here (number 5)

Cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bellhalla, was this edit meant to create a gap before the "Notes" section? I think it was the {{-}} bit that did it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I added that so that the notes would be the full page width. Sorry if that screwed things up. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, didn't know you could do that, thanks for showing me ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s) I have just now gotten home, and having pulled four continious 18-hour days in a row I am not thinking as clearly as I would if fully rested. Having said that I did see a few things that could do with some adressing:
  • I think we've all ID the need for a thourough copyedit, unfutenetly I do not possess the skills needed to aid with that.
  • As noted above, see about removing the parenthasis and quoate marks from the article body unless there is a good reason for retaining them.
  • Make sure the external links meet MoS requirements, and check to ensure that the notes section is properly formatted (some links appear on the surface to be the same, like #66 & #67; they may need reformatting for proper viewing). SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) can help with this, if you explain the situation she will either handle it her or refer you to someone who can help. *I may add more after I take a nap, so keep an eye out for additional info. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have fixed up the links, stray "|"s were breaking the templates. I have used the {{Londongazette}} templates which are really useful as well. In terms of format, I don't like including news.bbc.co.uk., BBC will suffice. After looking at these refs, some of these are not up to standard. Anything with the word blogspot is generally not reliable, personal self-published webpages are not very good. If you need help regarding these, Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) is good at these. Woody (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Tassafaronga

Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War Guadalcanal Campaign naval battle for A-class consideration. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very good article, crisply written and very close to FA I'd say (though it will need much more copious referencing for FAC). And talking of refs, why not use a shorter form for cites? ie Crenshaw, Tassafaronga, p. 137, Toland, The Rising Sun, p. 419, Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 502, Morison, Struggle for Guadalcanal, p. 295. > "Crenshaw, p. 137, Toland, p. 419, Frank, p. 502, Morison, p. 295."? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never done it that way, but looks fine to me if the MoS supports it. Cla68 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Never caused any problems so far (Hamlet and Emily Dickinson: sorry about the un-military nature of the examples :))) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent work, ready for FA in my opinion if the referencing problems mentioned by Roger will be fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Excellent job! As has been said before, will be ready for FAC once the ref problems are fixed. Also, you may want to think about replacing the links to ships with {{USS}} and {{Sclass}} and any other available templates (Just a suggestion). -MBK₀₀₄ 05:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Early thermal weapons

Self-nom I am submitting this article as part of the process of moving towards FAC. It recently gained GA status, and a reviewer indicated it is not far from FA standard. Having written the article myself, I feel it would benefit from other eyes, particularly those knowledgeable in military history. I hope this review will highlight areas which need working on, and also that by bringing the article to a wider audience it might attract further contributions. I am interested in your comments, and encourage editors to add more to the article as appropriate. Many thanks. Gwinva (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work nothing wrong with it. chris19910 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Objection You are too much centered on powers around the Mediterranean. The article is very stubby and the choice of example could better be justified(for example you talk and length about Congreve rockets and don't mention Indian rocketry). The sources on modern warfare are questionable, for example the Greek fire siphon was not used in land warfare, and the modern flamethrower not in sea warfare, tracing a direct lineage is nonsense. The use of ballistae in WWI needs to be checked, I do know about catapults and onagers, but that is new to me and I have doubts that it was as widespread as the article suggests. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• response:

1. Stubby? What do you mean? I have tried to write concisely, yet also provide a good number of examples so people might build up a picture of what was going on and relate it to various situations. Do you feel the writing style is not worthy of A class? Or needs work for FA? Or do you feel each section is not sufficiently expansive? If I am to improve the article based on your criticism, I need a better idea of your concerns.
2. "centred on mediterranean". I have tried to mix the examples up throughout the main body of the article, taking examples from China, India, Islamic world, Eastern Europe etc as well as the West, and consider it fairly balanced both geographically and across the time span. It is a massive topic and provides a summary of the types of weapons found throughout the world throughout the period (with a few, selected, examples to illustrate), rather than a detailed analysis of every development and every use in every country. However the concluding Later development section is, I admit, a little western-centred, but not exclusively so. In terms of improving this article to FA standard, this section could be made more comprehensive, but I do not consider its current status insufficient for A class recognition. ("A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the [FA]criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article.")
3. There might not be direct lineage between Greek siphons and modern flamethrowers, but the concept of using a device to deliver an inflammable liquid is the same. (I shall look at my wording to ensure this is made clear.) Early devices (such as, but not limited to, the siphon) threw inflammable liquids made from (variously) petrol, oil and naptha. WWI flamethrowers were devices to throw inflammable liquids made from petrol and oil (Haythornthwaite, p. 73) and modern flamethrowers use Napalm, from naptha. Sea or land? Well, the siphon was used at sea, but other devices were used on land. In modern times, flamethrowers are used at sea in close actions (which is the type of action used in early naval warfare). See, for example, [24], [25] and our own Flamethrower article (which also draws parrallels with Greek fire).
4. The use of ballistae and other throwing machines in WWI may not have been widespread but it certainly occurred. The full quote from Nososv (pp. 184-5) is a follows:

   "During World War I, after several centuries of oblivion, various countries effectively used fairly small throwing machines resembling the onager or ballista (true, the torsion-spring was replaced by powerful springs) in trench warfare; they were used for launching high explosive shells and incendiary missiles into enemy trenches."

Nossov includes sketches of these machines, which are certainly onager and ballista forms. I can't show you these, but Commons has the following, different, example (right). Nossov goes on to describe British experiments with antique-style throwing machines in 1940 for throwing incendiary weapons at German tanks. In ref to WWI, Haythornthwaite also makes reference to "a number of ancient catapults and the like used in the early stages of the war" (p. 180). If you are interested in the later use of throwing machines, I am sure a search of texts will yield more examples. Gwinva (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Bonchurch

I have nominated this article, which is largely my own work, for two reasons. Firstly, during the course of the analysis by people deciding whether it should be A-class, I may get presented with suggestions for improvemenets. I want my article to be the best it can be, and thus I would welcome suggestions for improvements. Secondly, I have read the A-class article criteria, and I do believe my article meets what is required.

If a concern is length, I would like to state that I could find no more sources of information for the Battle of Bonchurch. The only other source of information in the world regarding the Battle of Bonchurch that I know of, is a book which is probably 30 years out-of-print. Thus, I believe the nominated article to be the most complete analysis of the Battle of Bonchurch available.

Thank you in advance to whoever reviews the article. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are, I think, two areas which require attention here. Firstly, the sources in the article are not particularly well-chosen:

• "The Last Invasion" is a popular magazine article with no byline; it's not unreliable, per se, but it's not really a very scholarly source.
• "False Propehts" and "Go Bananas" are essentially random websites, and are totally unsuitable as sources for a serious historical article.
• Goodwin isn't necessarily an unacceptable source, but doesn't strike me as a serious historical work either.

An article of this sort should really be written based on the works of published, professional historians, even if those are somewhat more difficult to get one's hands on. Witherby's 1962 Battle of Bonchurch is indeed out of print—it seems to have been a small-scale private printing—but can be obtained at a number of major libraries. Some of the primary sources (Du Bellay, Ogander, etc.) can be reasonably obtained as well; and there are various snippets regarding this topic in other works on the general conflict.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the present organization of the article is the best one. The engagement at Bonchurch can't really be dealt with separately from the other landings (e.g. at Bembridge, etc.); and I doubt that each landing can sustain a full article without simply repeating the same background everywhere. The "Background", "Prelude", and "Aftermath" sections here already take this stance implicitly, talking more about the entire set of landings than about Bonchurch in particular.

I'd make this more explicit by renaming the article to something like French landings on the Isle of Wight (1545) (or the extant stub French invasion of the Isle of Wight (1545), but that's a somewhat overly grandiose name), and then adding in material regarding the other landings as well. This will fill out the article, and also make it easier to reconstruct the narrative by allowing us to discuss the movement of troops between the various landing sites, and the overall course of the attack.

Kirill 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kirill, for your analysis. I accept that some of the sources I have used are not the most suitable for using when trying to write a high-standard article. I shall enquire around a number of libraries to see if I can find more professional literature regarding the Battle of Bonchurch, although I do not have easy access to the types of libraries which I imagine I would find such work, and thus I can imagine the utilisation of high-standard sources for the article will be a long-term aim for me.

As for working on an article regarding the wider invasion (I do believe it is an appropriate word, as it fits in with the Oxford English Dictionary definition and, importantly, the scale of the fighting which occured around the island and the considered idea of retaining the island in French hands does set the campaign on the Isle of Wight apart from a skirmish, or mere landings (the French did succeed in driving a distance from the coast)), I will make that my next project.

If anyone else has any ideas for improving the article, please do raise them.

Thank you. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You have a mixed inlince citation style, some of your cites are before periods, some after. I would like to see all citations reconfigured for uniformity, preferably with the citations after the period.
  • Never start a sentance with a numerical number, always spell that number out. Case in point: The second to last sentence of the first paragraph in the Background section reads "30,000 French troops and a fleet of some 400 vessels were assembled.", it should read "Thirty thouasand French troops and a fleet of some 400 vessels were assembled."
  • The third paragraph of the background section and the section titled "did the french win the battle?" are both cited entirely to source 4. If all references in a paragrpah point ot the same source then a single citation at the end of the paragrpah will suffice. This has been the norm on the FA pages for battleships, and the MILHIST MoS supports this methode as well.
  • Unless an enitre quote is cited three dots are needed to note where the omitted text is in the quote, either "...<text>" or "<text>...".
• Otherwise it looks good. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you TomStar81, I appreciate your suggestions. I shall make the improvements in due course. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the improvements suggested by TomStar81. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. My compliants have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Suppports. Tom's suggestion have been address and the article looks good. The only thing I can say is that the lead doesn't need citations as what is said in the lead is mentioned in the rest of the article. Kyriakos (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kyriakos, when you say "lead", do you mean the first three paragraphs of the article, or the infobox? EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By the lead I mean the first three paragraphs of the article. But it is up to you if you want to have cits in your lead. Kyriakos (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Orizaba (ID-1536)

Self-nomination. Has undergone a MILHIST peer review here. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. I added in a couple of nbsp's but couldn't see anything substantive. I do think it might need a copyedit from someone not involved with ships as there are a few nautical terms in there that might not be self-explanatory to a newbie. Also, should it be underwent overhaul or underwent an overhaul? I think the latter flows better... Woody (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've copyedited it; changes were largely nonbreaking spaces and endashes (I think some were endashes, but some weren't, so excuse my blindness in 'fixing' them all). Can you clarify which type of tonnage is given in the infobox? Also, in the footnote 'Williamson, DANFS' the word 'Williamson' shouldn't be italicized; quotes would be more appropriate.

I've generally always italicize DANFS entry titles because that's the way the titles are styled at the NHC website (and they're usually ship names, too). That note and the reference for Orizaba in the references section both use {{cite web}}. Removing the italics would be easy if you think it would be best, but should I use a different template for quotes? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good case for keeping the italics. Let's talk about coming up with a standard cite template to cite DANFS (where it's actually cited, as distinct from the PD disclaimer). Something along the lines of {{Ref Jane's}}, {{JamesAbstract}}, etc, but a bit more complex since some entries have a distinct author. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, clarified that the 6,937 is "gross tons" as from source. I listed it as that because I don't know if that's the same as GRT or not. Tonnage stuff is always so confusing. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A 'gross ton' is a measure of weight, not volume, though. Is it abbreviated in the source? It may be 'gross tonnage'. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It just has "Gross tons..............6,937" in its list of specs. (The source has no 'key' for the data it provides either.) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of issues to consider before FAC:

• There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs, or very short ones, that should be consolidated.

Will do. Done.

• The doublestack images are awfully large for the position that they're in (squished opposite the infobox). Can you shrink them to thumbs?

Image size is one of those tricky things because there are so many variables. What size would you recommend?

I would use the default thumb size of 180px; those two images are of pretty mediocre quality, so they don't look appreciably better or worse at a larger size, and the smaller size will make the text sandwiching less egregious. Maralia (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

All in all, well done, as usual :) Maralia (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

• Support Fine but with a couple of reservations:

• I'd jettison the one-sentence "Awards and honors" section and tag it onto the end of "World War II".

I'd thought about that myself, too. Will do. Done.

• Uncomfortable repetition in "Commander Richard Drace White in command".

Yes, that is clunky, isn't it?

OK, so I tried to rephrase by moving White's name into the following paragraph where he was mentioned already. It's still clunky, but not quite SO clunky. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Any clues why Hart Crane jumped?

I gather from the source that he was (1) was drunk, (2) despondent over his sham marriage, and (3) reportedly embarrassed after a failed, clumsy pick-up attempt of an Orizaba crewman the night before. In a situation like this, how much information is appropriate in this article?

• "U.S." > "US"  Done

I've always used "U.S." myself (vs. "UK", for example), but I'm OK with "US".

• Numbers less than ten are usually given in words, therefore "6 convoy trips" > "six convoy trips;  Done
• Clunky? "the two ships accommodated 306 first-class, 60 second-class, and 64 third-class passengers". Is that each, or between them? Perhaps use berths instead of passengers?

The source doesn't explicitly say. Based on WWI troop capacities, I'm sure it's each, but the wording reflects what's provided in the source.

• "The ship was permanently transferred to Brazil in June 1953 and struck from the U.S. Navy Naval Vessel Register on 20 July 1953." Run onto the end of previous (short) paragraph.

Will do. Done

• Just noticed "transited the Panama Canal". More elegant phrasing?

How about "passed through"? (Done.)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(My replies interspersed — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

No grumbles with them. :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good to me. -Ed! (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good job. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed as Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)

Self-Nomination This article has improved rapidly over the past few months, thanks to the help of many people in the MILHIST project. It is a GA but recently failed a FAC, and has improved substantially since then. -Ed! (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Broadly a well-researched and well-written piece. Before taking this back to FAC, it might be best to introduce more independent sources as it currently relies too heavily on COI material. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good article which easily meets all A-class criteria. Keep up the good work and good luck at the next FAC! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Roger here. You might need a few more third party sources before FAC. Otherwise, excellent article. Woody (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I also agree with Roger, but will offer one other independent piece of advice: before going to FAC, see if you can create some articles to reduce the number of redlinks in the article. Otherwise, its looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

William Stacy

The article received a GA-class rating during August 2007, and subsequently underwent a biography peer review here during October-November 2007. The article was submitted for a biography A-class review here during December 2007, but there seems to be a lack of biography A-class reviewers; the article has only received one review after three months. Thank you in advance for your time and effort in reviewing this article. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I simply don't get a sense of Stacy being especially notable during the Revolution, and I can't tell how he was unique in the Ohio area. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article was rated as "high" on the WikiProject Ohio importance rating scale. Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support well written article, although I would like to know why there are pictures in the bibliography section. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As Tomstar notes, the images in the references and notes sections need to be moved. Also, the large block quote seems a little like overkill, and I'd prefer that there were no sections that ended with quotes. Carom (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment appreciated. Removed images from References and Bibliography sections. De-emphasized second quote to regular size. Thank you, ColWilliam (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support, as it meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Nicely written and referenced. This is a very good example of how an article should be written for a notable yet essentially obscure person. I disagree with Mr. Berkowitz's comment that the article doesn't make clear how Stacy "was unique in the Ohio area"; in fact, I think the one weakness of the article is that it probably overstates Stacy's uniqueness (although he obviously led a colorful life). Historians today, influenced by social history, often emphasize the ways that their subject is a product of their time and place, rather than their "uniqueness", which is more of an old-fashioned "great man" approach to biography. So in fact what the article could use is more historical context, i.e. how Stacy's experience compared to that of his contemporaries and reflected trends of his era, rather than more emphasis on his "uniqueness", because Stacy, not being famous or a subject of frequent historical study, was probably not that different from many of his peers. But that's really the realm of professional history writing and beyond what is required here. —Kevin Myers 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This A-class nomination was successfulBlnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

USS Siboney (ID-2999)

I believe this meets the requirements of an A-class article. Recently promoted to GA (see talk page). Underwent peer review here. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article on the subject that appears to meet the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Indeed, a great article which meets all A-class criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic job on the infobox as well. Mrprada911 (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Armia Krajowa

With recent expansion of the article, and addition of inline refs for missing parts, the article is progressing nicely towards a FA-class. A MILHIST A-class review would be as always highly appreciated. What is missing and what needs to be improved? Do note I am not a native English speaker; GA reviewers noted substandard prose and I have listed the articles with the League of Copyeditors - unfortunately my previous experience shows their waiting list is months long (so if anybody would like to help improve the prose, this would be much appreciated).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also you can try listing it with our inhouse copyedit service at WP:MHL Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about it, I will do so right away.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There's an inordinate amount of whitespace above the table of sabotage activities - perhaps this could be remedied by moving the images around? Carom (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• From my experience tables and images next to it don't go well, but feel free to experiment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A comprehensive, well cited and fairly well written article. I agree that a tidy-up and copy edit is needed before a FAC, but I think that it meets the requirements for an A-class article. The only question I had unanswered about this movement was its inital composition in 1939 - was it formed from members of the Polish military, or did it have a wider membership from the begining? --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  The origins, as noted in the history sections, go to the Służba Zwycięstwu Polski organization founded during the last days of the German invasion of Poland. While it was formed by military officers, I'd think that it quickly expanded to incorporate other volunteers; the goal of the organization was to "create a military command structure for the resistance movement". Certainly this is what took place soon after its creation when in was transformed into Związek Walki Zbrojnej (which 2 years later would become the basis of AK and at that time certainly had much broader membership than just former military personnel).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Nick that the article meets the A-class criteria. I would suggest that, although not necessary, that you consider adding a reference list using the reference templates. Anyay, it's a very complete and informative article. Good work. Cla68 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as it meets all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article successfully passed the A-class review. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne (R21)

I've expanded this article and run it through Milhist Peer Review to get rid of most of the kinks. Although I do admit it could use a copyedit (which is on request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics, and anyway, what article couldn't use a copyedit?) is this article ready for A-class status, or is there anything else that needs fixing? -- saberwyn 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good piece and, unusually, applies the MoS stuff about figures and numbers correctly :) Well done, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been smacked down by WP:MOSNUM so many times I thought it would be more painless to try and fix that stuff before anything else. -- saberwyn 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support An outstanding article --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Really well done. One of the most comprehensive articles I've seen. Carom (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding article! Go ahead and nominate it for FA. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely Support This is 100% the exemplification of an A-class article. Good work. Everyone involved gets a pat on the back. --ExplorerCY 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Just made a couple of minor copyedits but this is one of the best A-Class nominees I've seen - go for FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding work. Go for FA, you can do it! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article no longer meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Heuschrecke 10

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)

Heuschrecke 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Heuschrecke 10/archive1

A-class reappraisal of this article.

I mean no disrespect to the original author but this article is terrible. Most of the content is cited to Achtung Panzer, an enthusiast military history site. Does not pass muster even remotely.

No safe version to revert to. Schierbecker (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delist; when Osprey is one of the higher-quality sources in the article that is a bad sign. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delist Too brief, and many of the references are not reliable. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delist Major issues with sourcing. Zawed (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delist As above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USS Bridgeport (AD-10)

I would like to have this article undergo an A-class review, with an eye on a possible future FA candidacy. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Object, lots of paragraphs are unreferenced, the article is long, but I don't think that it would pass an A-class review for a while, until it has the references, and probably untill it has reached GA-Class, which I do not think it is right now. ~ Dreamy ^§ 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, well done. I will now support this. ~ Dreamy ^§ 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Lose the history header. The entire article is history, so in this case it would be better to make your sub header the primary headers.
    •  Done — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Entire sections of the article have no inline citations, but DANFS and other sources are given in the table. Some of those citations need to be in the article body, otherwise this article will get shot down by FAC Anti-Ariticle guns.
  • Good job on finding images for the article.
  • I doubt it, but do you happen to know if this ship was part of a larger class? I'm guessing no, and I won't hold this against you if you can't find any info, but it would be nice to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know but suspect that SS Brandenburg (1902) of Norddeutscher Lloyd was probably a sister ship. They were about the same gross tonnage, built at the same shipyard, and had more or less the same dimensions (per info gleaned from de:Norddeutscher Lloyd#Passagierschiffe). Also, an image of Brandenburg (here) bears a striking resemblance to Breslau/Bridgeport. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, at the moment. As Dreamafter points out, there is a need for more rigorous citation. I would also suggest that you expand the lead a little, but that's a relatively minor complaint at this point. Carom (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support following improvements. Nice work. Carom (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support the addition of inline citations does much to improve the article. I am happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)

I've recently finished writing this article and I plan to take it to FAC soon. (Without trying to be immodest, I think it's fairly close already.) Roger Davies approved it as a Good Article and suggested I bring it here. So I'm bringing it here. Thanks in advance for your suggestions and feedback. – Scartol • Tok 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The "see also" section should be removed, though. Carom (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Will do. Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why it should be removed?

I don’t actually mind the portal removal but the other two links provide a clear link (ie, highly visible for someone skimming) to broad but very related overall coverage. In fact, their broad nature is what makes them useful and actually befitting of the “See also” format compared most more specific articles that can be worked into the text – ie, the links go higher in generality rather than more specific which is why "see also" doesn't usually work so well. --Merbabu (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)--Merbabu (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they're superfluous. History of East Timor is the very first {{main}} template link, and the Indonesian history page is very quickly found by folks who click links in the article itself. Besides, there's an East Timor history template which deprecates that link in "See Also". (And the Indonesia portal was merely moved up under the East Timor history template.) – Scartol • Tok 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comments...I think it's better to combine footnotes at the end of a sentence instead of having a footnote mid-sentence. Also, I believe the license for the torture photo may be problematic. There needs to be a link in the image file to justification for why it isn't copyrighted. One more thing, did Indonesia do anything good for East Timor during the occupation? Did they improve the infrastructure, build roads or schools, anything at all besides killing and torturing? Does Indonesia claim publicly anywhere that they helped improve the lives of East Timorese during the occupation? A paragraph giving Indonesia's side of the occupation years, if Indonesia has a side, would help the neutrality of the article. Otherwise this is really an excellent article, well-researched and written, and very informative. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. I generally only put citations mid-sentence if it was requested during a review, or cited a particularly contentious fact. If there are specific areas where you think citations need to be trimmed, I'd be happy to take a look. As for the torture photo, it seems to me that it's ineligible for copyright, like the Abu Ghraib photos. Perhaps I should use the PD-IDGov tag? A discussion of Indonesia's positive contributions to East Timor are found in the Demography and economy section. Thanks again for your review! – Scartol • Tok 13:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support This is a good article, but has some POV problems and seems to give undue weight to the role Australia and the US played. I've just removed a very dubious claim that governments around the world failed to pressure Indonesia to accept peacekeepers in 1999 and a quote which suggests that the US opposed intervention. I recall intense lobbying from Australia, Europe and the US to allow peacekeepers in, and INTERFET was the result. The US provided key logistical support for INTERFET and stationed marines and aircraft carriers off East Timor during the first stage of the peacekeeping deployment. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. I've devoted an intense amount of effort to this article, and I've worked very hard to keep it NPOV, while discussing the most important points usually made in my full survey of the English-language literature available on the subject.

• Okay, full disclosure time (so you know how important this is to me): I've been paying very close attention to East Timor since 1995, when I became involved with the East Timor Action Network/US. I was a coordinator for the International Federation for East Timor's Observer Project in 1999. My eyes were glued to the television screen every single day during what the East Timorese call "Black September", and I remember coming close to smashing my set every time a US official took to the podium and talked about how "concerned" they were. I was receiving phone calls and emails from people in East Timor explaining how the paramilitary groups were roaming around on the streets, among dead bodies and burning buildings. I could hear the gunshots in the background. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger was ridiculing the notion of sending in peacekeepers.

• I've provided numerous citations to the discussion of US unwillingness to push for peacekeepers in 1999. Joe Nevins (in his book A Not-So-Distant Horror: Mass Violence in East Timor – one of a handful of books available on the subject) points out on pp. 107–108 that only on the weekend of 11 September (a full week after the paramilitary groups had begun killing civilians, attacking church buildings, and attacking journalists) did the US and Britain push for peacekeepers. This slow response mirrored the reluctance shown by the US throughout 1999, as evidence piled up that the TNI-supported paramilitary groups were intent on making their "sea of fire" prophecy a reality.

• On p. 123, Nevins writes:

Even as violence grew in the immediate aftermath of the vote and in anticipation of the announcement of the results, Core Group members ["an informal body put together by Secretary-General Kofi Annan", p. 116 -scartol] still did not make strong statements that might have pressured the TNI to abide by its obligations. On September 3, for example, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh ruled out the possibility of some sort of international security force entering East Timor in the short term, calling it "not a practical suggestion." Instead, he explained, the United States was "counting on the Indonesian authorities ... to create a situation of peace and security throughout East Timor." Between the date of the ballot and Burleigh's statement (a five-day period), pro-Indonesia forces had killed at least four local U.N. staff members and three civilians, in addition to burning houses throughout the territory, attacking the UNAMET compound, driving most journalists out of the country, and forcing international observers to evacuate from a majority of the areas outside Dili.

• Another relevant paragraph (p. 124):

The New York Times wrote that the Clinton administration had "made the calculation that the U.S. must put its relationship with Indonesia, a mineral-rich nation of more than 200 million people, ahead of its concern over the political fate of East Timor, a tiny,impoverished territory of 800,000 people that is seeking independence."

• If you've got a source for your claim that the US engaged in "intense lobbying" to force Indonesia to accept a peacekeeping force, I'd be happy to have a look. Every source I've seen analyzing the events of September 1999 in close detail have suggested the exact opposite (at least until 11 September).

• With regard to Australia: In his book Reluctant Saviour: Autralia, Indonesia and the independence of East Timor, Clinton Fernandes devotes an entire chapter to "The Jakarta Lobby" which stood by the Indonesian military while it carried out its violent atrocities in East Timor. He also spends a chapter discussing the Howard government and how it "tried to foil any chance of East-Timorese independence". (p. 46.)

• As for the rest of the article: I suppose we can trim the discussion of foreign powers' support for Indonesia, but I think those details are instructive to explain the nature of the occupation, why it went on for so long, and how extraordinary the willingness of the East Timorese people to resist in a nonviolent manner. I'm dedicated to telling this story because as a human being I am profoundly moved by the will of the East Timorese to peacefully struggle against oppression, and I believe Wikipedia needs to accurately represent the full picture of how the occupation took place. Thanks again for your attention to detail on this article. – Scartol • Tok 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support One question though: is there any way to shorten the article without sacraficing quality? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Carlson's patrol

Respectfully submit this article about an operation during the Guadalcanal campaign for A-class review. I welcome your comments or suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Carom (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support another outstanding article. I might be complaining about too much of a good thing, but the 'background' section seems over-long, and I'd suggest that this be trimmed back to the immediate background to Carson's patrol rather than the current potted history of the entire campaign - this material best belongs in the Guadalcanal campaign article. On the other hand, the background should provide a description of the Marine Raiders unique organisation and tactics as these seem to have been important during this battle. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've just added a para describing the battalion. I hope that it's OK. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for doing that and I'm going to try to cut down the background section. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good .TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Kyriakos (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support One of the better articles that I've read on a seemingly minor battle. I'd also like to commend the excellent usage of numerous maps throughout the article. Cam (complaints) 23:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military of East Timor

I have been working on this article for the last few months and think that it may now be of A class standard. This article has been rated as B-class and has undergone a peer review. Any comments on ways the article can be improved to FA standard would also be appreciated. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: well-written and comprehensive article. I have a quick question about the name. Why Military of East Timor instead of Defence Forces of East Timor (I can guess why you didn't go with Defence Forces of Timor-Leste)? A MOS thing that'll need fixing before FAC: hyphens in numeric ranges (2007-2008, age 18-49, Pages 12-13, Paragraphs 205 - 212 etc) need replacing with unspaced endashes (ALT+0150). The Info Box uses American spelling: "Defense" instead of Australian "Defence". A couple more pictures would improve it immensely. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your vote and comments. The force's correct English-language name is 'Timor Leste Defence Force' and 'F-FDTL' is by far the most common name in English-language publications (which is why I've used it throughout the article). However, as the country is called 'East Timor' in Wikipedia, and all attempts to correct its name to 'Timor Leste' are rejected on the grounds that 'East Timor' remains the more common name, I didn't want to get into an argument by renaming this article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tough luck finding some images online. If you do find something online, you can link it with {{Externalimages}} (Yes, me and Kirill are responsible for this template). And use the most common English name as title. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Is an A-Class article, needs some fixes before FAC though as Roger says. I agree that images will be quite hard to find. Woody (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that it is an A-class article bit it needs some work before FAC. Kyriakos (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Le Paradis massacre

I think this is as much as I can do. It's well-cited with numerous published books, complimented by web references, and is a GA and has had two peer-reviews and other editors going through it. Regards, Mattyness (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

My article is under A class review at the moment so I should not say too much, but it looks good overall. One thing you might consider is amalgamating the references - when you've got [21] [22] [23] next to each other it looks untidy. You could put them all into the same ref /ref box just with a linking 'and' inside the ref. One other thing - you could clarify whether dum dum bullets were routinely issued to the British Expeditionary Force, or whether it was easy to convert 'ordinary' British bullets to dum-dum configuration. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to cover the subject well and meets the MOS criteria. Nice work. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support

This article has come a very long way indeed since its PR and those working on it should feel justifiably proud of themselves. For FAC, these need addressing:

hyphens in numeric ranges – page numbers (eg pp 6-7), year ranges (eg 1933-1945) – need replacing with endashes (ALT+0150);

use pp. instead of p. where multiple pages are cited (ie pp. 6–7 instead of p. 6–7)

for tidiness, as you have so many cites in some places, consider using short form for cites (see Hamlet) and, as Buckshot06 suggests above, joining multiple cites together, example "Jackson, pp 288–289; Schweisfurth; & Wilson, pp 8—9" instead of ^[2][4][16].

Well done! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Support; seems comprehensive. I agree wholeheartedly with Roger's comments regarding pre-FAC edits. Woody (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

51st Army (Soviet Union)

One of the seventy(!) rifle armies the Red Army raised during World War II. Have incorporated virtually all the comments at a recent peer review, and would be looking for either an A-class endorsement or what needs to be fixed for the article to reach A-class. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment Nice work. A few niggles, nearly all stylistic. I'm not sure about the encyclopedicfulness of "the awful Crimean debacle". The quote – Kuznetsov's 'sticking blindly to the prewar plan,' – needs a source. Personally, I prefer notes and sources separated into two sections and consistently presented: it's easier to follow somehow (and makes the article look longer!). Dates are inconsistent; sometimes 6 May, sometimes 6th May. Dates need wikilinking too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)"
• Comment: I think this article needs some images or other supporting materials (such an infobox). There are also few unreferenced paragraphs. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Response from nominator: The Kuznetsov quote was sourced at the end of the paragraph - I've now put in an addition reference. Wikilinked more dates - please tell me about any that have slipped through, and if anyone knows how to link things like 15 - 19 December or suchlike, that would be good. There is actually an infobox at the start and two tables lower down. I do not know of any images specifically showing the 51st Army, as opposed to general Red Army operations. I'll recheck the references. Thanks for the comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Done a couple of missed dates, and pout the rest into consistent month/day format. It's not possible to wikilink date ranges (silly, huh?). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pouting eh? ;) Woody (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the page formats need to be consistent and some of the ref details are not filled in fully, eg raw url only. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support The writing is crisp and clear and it would make a good model for military unit histories. The 'Postwar' section needs a cite for its last two sentances and the references need to be consistently formatted, but those are minor issues which can be easily fixed and this isn't an FA review. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whislt I agree with Blnguyen that those issues need fixing, I don't think it precludes it from A-Class status. Make sure you do those before taking to FAC, ask if you need help or a review. Woody (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Koli Point action

Respectfully submit this article on a Pacific War battle for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Cla68 comes through again with an excellent Pacific War battle article. As I said a short time ago about the Matanikau Offensive article, this article as well represents a good balance between focusing on the US/Allied and Japanese aspects of the conflict, and is written in an objective (NPOV) and professional manner. Keep up the good work. LordAmeth (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I am with his Lordship on this one. Well written, well done. Woody (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nicely done. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Small point: U.S. has points, CAF doesn't. Consistency? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point. It needs to be consistent. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Its all been said. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Another great article. As a comment, I doubt that "U.S. Navy cruisers Helena, San Francisco, and destroyer Sterett bombarded Shōji's positions with cannon fire" - 'artillery fire' would be a better term (unless the ships used their 20mm automatic cannons in which case 'heavy machine gun fire' would possibly be the clearest term). --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

I guess the article title is rather self-explanatory. An article about a couop that failed after Ngo Dinh Diem bluffed and agreed to negotiate and promise reforms, so that he could get extra time for his loyalists to come and rescue him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Lead should consist of at least two paragraphs. SoLando (Talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well done. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice article. Kyriakos (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Krulak Mendenhall mission

A fact-finding mission in 1963 by the Kennedy administration into the war situation in South Vietnam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work, I think that some of the one paragraph sections could be expanded or merged before FA, but I certainly think it is A-Class. Woody (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good job. Cla68 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support A nice article. The 'Background' section needs some citations before the article would pass FA review though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally per WP:SS I wouldn't have thought it necessary since all the daughter articles are fully in-lined. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Matanikau Offensive

Respectfully submit this article for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support an upgrade to A-class status, as it seems to match all the FA criteria. It is very well-written and thoroughly cited. As far as I am aware, not being particularly knowledgeable about the subject, it appears to be comprehensive and factually accurate. Perhaps most importantly, unlike many other Pacific War articles which I've assessed or reviewed, it seems pretty well balanced. The article is not written in a way which implies the Allies to be "good" or "right" and the Axis to be "evil", nor is it written in a way which implies that the outcome was inevitable. Not only that, but it does an excellent job I think of relating events from both points of view, not relating the narrative only from the point of view of one side and the obstacles and enemies they faced. Well done. LordAmeth (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Bukvoed (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Lord Ameth really. Couple of wording issues though: "next expected Japanese offensive" and "until the ending stages " seem awkward to me. Perhaps anticipated offensive, and until the final stages? Up to you. Anyway, well done. Woody (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. More than A-Class material! Congrats, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Cold War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Cold War/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Cold War/archive2

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently de-listed at GAR and it appears to be well below our A-Class standard, and needs quite a bit of work to meet it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist This is months of elbow grease away from A-class. (Full disclosure: I asked Peacemaker67 to start this nom, because I hosed the technical aspect up last time. Tks). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just for clarity, I'm a delist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist, I have skimmed over this, and these are my initial issues, before even going into a detailed prose review:

• The lead is far, far too long. (Even by my own standards.)
• There are too many images, and these often pinch the text.
• There are (by my count) 20 "citation needed" tags, and 7 "citation not found" tags.
• Many of the book references don't provide page numbers.
• There are quite a few basic formatting issues, not least the eighth paragraph of the Third World escalations section.
• While many paragraphs are long, and have a tendency towards over-detail, there are also some single sentence paragraphs.

Overall, this needs a lot of love and attention to get it up to A-class standard. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist, per Harrias. And a number of other issues. 16,000 words! Plus footnotes. Gah! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist - Some citation problems, too many images, use of quotes when prose could be employed, inadequate explanation of events in Africa and things like death of Dag Hammarskjöld go without mention. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist - Where shall I even start? First, those templates about having a too-long lead and the article itself. Second, it looks terribly with its chaotic images are in the wrong places. And as of last like everyone else, this article lacks reliable citations this article doesn't derve to be an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hans-Joachim Marseille

The article passed GA without much problem. I think it can achieve A-class as well soon. Let's see what is missing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I find the excess number of tables begining about 1/2 the way down the article distracting; while I will not oppose for this I am curious to know why the information couldn;r simply be in paragraph form.
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. As Tom points out, the lists and tables at the bottom might give you some trouble if you nominate the article for Featured status. But, I don't have a problem with them. Cla68 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think the "summary" would be better in a table form and not a bulleted list. Is it not covered in the text anyway? I don't like the garish colours as well. I think the memorial would look better as a blockquote, or at least with no colour. The same goes for "The references in the Wehrmachtsbericht" in terms of colour. I don't think it would get through FAC. Woody (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks everyone for the constructive review effort. I feel that I need to comment on why I chose to present some of the information in a color-coded table. Roughly 60% percent of my references are available in German language only (at least to my knowledge), this includes the pictures/copies of the actual German documents as available via the references I state in the article. To present this data, very evident in the section of the Wehrmachtsbericht, I had to translate this information from German to English myself. Some editor may find my wording strange or not inline with future literature available in the English-speaking world. The German quotes in the article are the exact wording of my references. I consider it therefore undisputable. The red coded text is my translation should be subject to improvements by other editors. Now I am hesitant to change this style on the basis of personal preferences by some of the editors alone (which does not mean I will not change this, please point to style guides). I am looking for more guidance on how to convey this message. Thanks again for the great work.MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article is good per overall, but I found some problems with referencing:
  • 1.Marseille's kill rate was slow, and he went from June to August without a victory. He was further frustrated after damage forced him to land on two occasions: once on 14 June and again after he was hit by ground fire over Tobruk and was forced to land blind. - this sentence needs a ref; Done
  • 2.To counter German fighter attacks, the Allied pilots flew "Lufbery circles" (in which each aircraft's tail was covered by the friendly aircraft behind). The tactic was effective and dangerous as a pilot attacking this formation could find himself constantly in the sights of enemy pilots. Marseille often dived at high speed into the middle of these enemy defensive formations from either above or below, executing a tight turn and firing a two-second deflection shot to destroy an enemy aircraft. He attacked under conditions many considered unfavorable, but his marksmanship allowed him to make an approach fast enough to escape the return fire of the two aircraft flying on either flank of the target. Marseille's excellent eyesight made it possible for him to spot the enemy before he was spotted, allowing him to take the appropriate action and manoeuvre himself into position for an attack. - this entire paragraph would certainly need referencing; Done Mike Spick in his book (pages 120 to 124) gives a good (incl. Graphical) description of Marseille’s fighting style. The part pertaining to the article is on page 123.MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 3.Marseille flew four different Bf 109F-4/Trop aircraft: - this would also need a ref; Done
  • 4.Regarding the "Victory claims and notable actions" section, I propose to restructure it and post the source for all those claims (which is Wübbe if I noticed properly) somewhere at the top of the section. Done converted to table as sugested before. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

After this issues will be fixed, I will support the nomination. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just one more thing - Marseille's 151 claims in North Africa included: - this needs a ref. Done However, i'm going to support the nomination, even if I don't think it will pass an FAC in the near future. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Italian War of 1542–1546

My first ever attempt at going through this process, rather than overseeing it. ;-)

I've been working on this article, on and off, for a few months now. As far as the development of the material is concerned, I think it's essentially complete; the only remaining work I foresee is some copyediting. Thus, I think it now meets the requirements for A-Class articles. Comments, of any sort, will be very appreciated! Kirill 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What exactly are the 'low countries'? The map helps, but article links would be preferable
  • The third paragraph in the section "France invaded" contains the line "On 14 July, Henry crossed to Calais and proceeded—carried in a litter—toward Boulogne, where Suffolk was already advancing.[46]" What does "carried in a litter" mean?
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added some links to Low Countries and litter (vehicle); do you think that's sufficient? Kirill 07:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Thats better. I am happy now. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great job. Kyriakos (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. Woody (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Minor, superficial, subjective reservation about one sentence in the section "France invaded" ;-). The sentence "...campaign could not begin, however, until each had resolved the conflicts hanging over them" has an informal tone to it. SoLando (Talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point; I've changed it to "their personal conflicts with their neighbors". Kirill 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent job. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I'd have used a much simpler citation style. ie ^ Knecht (1994: 502) instead of ^ Knecht, Renaissance Warrior, 502. and made more use of the multi-cite template, but this is a matter of personal taste, I suppose. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MLA style versus CMS style. ;-) Kirill 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. By the way, I wasn't going to say how good this article is because it might appear sycophantic. So I won't :)))--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

Respectfully submit this article for A-class review. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Good interesting piece. I mention a few minor points which do not affect my support.

• "several of the officers involved in the incident received additional administrative actions." Officialese? Perhaps "were administratively disciplined"?
• "no fly zone" perhaps hyphenate?
• "added 'friendly helicopter' symbology" and later. Symbology is clunky. Tags?
• "Enroute" two words
• Task Force, and the IFF systems failed. - missed closing quotation mark.
• {{cquote}} is deprecated for mainspace. Consider <blockquote> instead?
• "In response, the U.S. DoD continues to search for ways to reduce or eliminate friendly fire incidents although they continue to occur." Sources? And perhaps more encyclopedic? It sounds like an extract from a DOD press release.
• Footnotes, for FAC (if you go there), the page ranges need en dashes (alt + 0150), not hyphens.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent feedback, thank you, and I'll make the corrections you suggest, although I'm not sure of a better word for "symbology". Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. My problem with it is that it refers to the study of symbols, not the use of them. From my limited knowledge of air traffic control, I presume it refers to an on-screen flag or tag.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is case of the military use of a word being different than the general use of the word. I think "tag" works fine so I'll use that word or just the word "symbol". Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Common habit of the military that. I have no preference over which you use :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another excellent article. My only comments are that it might be a bit too long - the section on the inquiries seems a bit too detailed (though the excellent introduction makes up for this) and there doesn't seem to be anything about the reaction to this accident and the flawed inquiries in the UK and France (yes, I do realise that these comments are a bit contradictory ;-) ) --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• One of the many difficulties with writing this article was trying to decide which details to include and which ones to exclude. I didn't find any information on the UK and French inquiries but I'll do some more Google searching to be sure. Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but I will ask for a point of clarification: Your time demominations have no corralation, are they local Iraqi time or Washington time?

• That's a good point and I'll make that more clear in the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Kyriakos (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Well done! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Kostiuchnówka

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how close this GA-class article is to a MILHIST A-class? I do think I exhausted all the sources available to me when writing it. I found and translated a map for the article, but it got removed as it was not free enough and I could never get a mapmaker to make it into a free one (and I gave up... if you know/are a willing mapmaker, please help :). Currently the map is available as an external link: [26] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• The lead is very short.

• The article itself is short.

• There are a huge amount of redlinks.

• The word 'is considered' should be cited. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply: lead can be expanded, WP:WTA can be applied. But please provide sources for expansion - I run out. Also, red links simply indicate bias/lack in our coverage (most of them refer to Ukrainian villages), and not a problem with the article itself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article being short shouldn't be grounds for an oppose; even in FAC, it's not about length, as opposed to how complete the article is. If there isn't a lot of information, obviously the article will be short. On the other hand, if this was the largest battle Polish forces were in, why are there not more sources? JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply. There are more Polish sources, but not online. See further reading section in the article, as well as those mentions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to get all the books that are available, and looked at the snippet view on google books for the ones that a library near you doesn't have and you aren't able to purchase?

Snippets are worthless. I will look into getting the books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead needs to be expanded a bit, it's a tad anaemic at the moment
• Some MoS problems, mainly with the titles 'The battle' should be 'Battle', and that massive picture in the infobox just stretches everything out
• Seems a tad POV as well - 'The battle is considered the largest and most vicious of those involving the Polish Legions in World War I'. Now, I know this is sourced, but as a lone sentence it seems POV, and could do with some expansion - who considers it that? Who are they and why is their opinion significant?
• Needs more sources on Russian figures; even approximations with a note stating the sources are vague/unknown would be better than what there is at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply. I think the lead is comprehensive, I am not sure what to expand upon in it. I have referenced, qualified and better improved the sentence about importance. The sources I have don't have info on the Russian figures other than those given in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • In the Background section the Brusilov Offensive should be explained a bit more.
  • In the infobox, having question marks is bad. There really should be numbers, or at least something that looks more professional than a question mark, such as "Unknown".
  • The article is riddled with grammatical and stylistic errors. It needs a very thorough copy-edit. Some parts are so error-riddled that the sentences don't make any sense, especially in the Opposing Forces and The Battle sections.

I cannot support it until these and the problems mentioned above are resolved, especially the need for a copy-edit. – Joe Nutter 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Changed ? to unknown and asked for a copyedit. Can you explain why we need more details of the Brusilov offensive there? It has its own article, after all. I have copied a ref sentence from the lead to BO article to give a little more information on it to the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    The infobox and background are better now, although it'd look better if you replaced "The Brusilov Offensive" in the new sentence with a pronoun.– Joe Nutter 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment I'm not very familiar with the ACR process, so I won't support or oppose, but that final paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded upon or merged into another paragraph. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, get more familiar! :D We need more reviewers, if you are willing... Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merged.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Basil W. Duke

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is just about ready for FA, but it's best if an A-class review takes place first.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's kinda short...is that all there is on this guy?
• Dual "See also" sections? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment—references (mostly) satisfy MoS. Nitpick: can we get "pg." to "p.", "pp." or just the plain page #, no p-anything? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • • Hold on...if I'm not mistaken, should you not have different citations for different references...i.e. "<ref>Brown p.27, 28, Christensen p.264</ref>" should be "<ref>Brown p.27, 28</ref><ref>Christensen p.264</ref>"
    • Second...page ranges need an endash, not a comma. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can elaborate on the guy to add length. I fixed the problems you saw.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Still need endashes for the page ranges per MOS:ENDASH.

Also, there are image sandwiches in the article that should be avoided per WP:MOSIMAGE. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • "most noted for his service as a brigade commander in 1863's Morgan's Raid; Duke would later wrote a popular account of this raid." This might be better phrased as "Morgan's Raid, because of Duke's popular account of the raid," or something like that.
  • "On January 7, 1861, after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization," The "after so many" phrase seems awkward, I would advise changing it to "after mostly," "after many" or something. Also, shouldn't Minute Men be linked to "Minutemen (secessionist)" as it is in Minutemen (disambiguation)?
  • "but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." Elected? Isn't this unusual, or did most Confederate Units do this and I just don't know about it? If it's unusual, please explain it.
    • Electing of company- and even field-grade officers (colonel on down) occured in both Confederate and Union armies in the war. I believe the Confederates continued this practice at least into 1863. Kresock (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1902 or 1903 he ceased doing work for the L&N." This is a fairly unusual statement, if the exact date is not known, I would recommend saying so.
  • Is the See Also section really necessary? There's just one link, and last I heard they were discouraged, and since this one doesn't seem too vital it might be better to remove it.
    
    Besides those, however, it looks pretty good. Good job. Joe (Talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I fixed your concerns.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Withhold judgment. At least one statement better be changed; I could have done it, but I didn't have the heart, as it adds a new twist to the English language: When he died, he was one of the few high-ranking Confederate officers still alive. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been vastly improved and I decided to re-nominate it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - does not meet the A-class criteria for referencing...(this version):
  • References needed all over.
    • 2nd para or "Origins"
    • 2nd, 3rd and 4th paras of "Berlin Crisis"
    • Last sentence of "Relocation to Otis"
    • "Conspiracy Link" section
      • First, per MoS, "link" should not be capitalized. Second, look at the para:

Many people who believe in a government conspiracy during the 9/11 attacks claim the government kept the jets from going to New York.[14] Although this is true because of Cold War policies, they claimed that NORAD purposely kept the planes there while the towers were struck. Pilot Daniel Nash said that he couldn't recall being told that the North Tower was hit but he did remember seeing the smoke over 70 miles away.[14] They also believe that using NORAD's calculations, the planes were going at 24% speed.[14] The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occuring near land. The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States.

• • • • Sentences 2, 5, 6, and 7 all seem to be OR!
    • First para, second sentence of "BRAC 2005".
    • 2nd para of "BRAC 2005"
    • Last 3 paras of "New Mission" are uncited and have {{fact}} tags.
    • "Current" section needs refs and the sentence is confusing to me.
    • "Cold War" needs references.
    • Same with "Bases stationed"
  • What is Ref #13 referring too?
  • Ref 14 is a blog...

—Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, on my screen, there are two images that sandwich text in the article. Per WP:MOSIMAGE, this should be addressed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What makes Phillippe Colin a RS. It appears to be a self-styled website. Secondly, it seems undue weight to have all the conspiracy theories in such detail on 9/11 there. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Concerning the last paragraph of the 'Relocation to Otis', I don't understand why I need to reference something that is already referenced. Reference #13 is used in reference to the holding pattern on 9/11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments- put references after punctuation marks. Also, make sure that English and British spellings are consistent. I.E honor and honour. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've done all thats been asked, but I'm not going to touch the spellings because I don't really know where to start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is lacking in references on sentences at the end of paragraphs, and in some cases entire paragraphs themselves, particularly near the end of the article. Also, is the ribbon image really necessary in the infobox, especially at that size? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "Berlin Crisis links to a disambiguation, fix this and check to make sure there aren't any others please.
  • There should be a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, this is not the case at least once.
  • "From 1956 to 1976, the 102d was headed by Brigadier General Charles W. Sweeney, who piloted the B-29 Superfortress, which dropped the Fat Man atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan in 1945.[7]" This should be rephrased as it sounds awkward. Too many commas, I think. Also, Brigadeir General should be linked to the rank, whihc only Charles W. Sweeney should be linked to the article on him.
  • Watch linking terms too many times.
  • "Then Federal Aviation Administration contacted the North American Aerospace Defense Command's Northeast Air Defense Sector at Rome, New York, bypassing standard procedures." This sentence makes no sense. Please rephrase it.
  • "The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occurring near land" Again awkward, please rephrase.
  • "The plans hit a roadblock when it was announced that there were few funds left with which the wing could use to transition into its new mission.[17]" Few funds sounds awkward. Perhaps insert a synonym instead?
  • Please deal with the fact tags by citing them.
  • In the references please deal with the "page number needed" thing.
    
    Besides those, it looks OK, better than it was last time, but I think it might still need a little bit of work.Joe (Talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Jenin

Closed but not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article, and it has since been rated as B-Class. I think it could make an A-Class, and would appreciate some input on how it can be improved. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments—I'm not sure on the specifics of WP:LEAD, but I am a fan of either an entirely unsourced lead or an entirely referenced lead. That way there is no confusing on whether the rest of the lead should also be referenced (the referenced material should just be repeated in the main body of the text). It is a well referenced article on a touchy subject, given the widespread nationalism found on Wikipedia. There are some MoS issues, as outlined below:

Thanks for your comments!

• About the lead: one ref is for a quote, which includes the word "terrorist". It could be problematic per WP:TERRORIST. If you think its important, it could be rephrased. Actually, I'm discussing this lead with another user at the talk page now, so I'll see how that develops.

Update: Following a discussion, the lead was slightly changed. -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Numbers between parenthesis (conversions) should not have the units spelled out.

I've removed the "pounds" conversion.

1. In all instances there should be a   between the number and the unit (whether abbreviated or not).

I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify? It looks like space.

1. If possible, dates should be delinked—this is becoming the preference.

I found one outside the lead, and delinked it.

Overall, however, it looks good. You will probably be asked to get someone to copyedit the article, although I'm not sure if this will be a requirement for the A-class. I would see if anybody is interested, regardless. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agains, thanks a lot! -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there should be conversions, but the units of the converted numbers should be abbreviated. For the second point, apparently the no wiki tags didn't work for that. Basically, the space should be created by a & nbsp ; (all together), instead of a physical space (this way the number and the unit will remain on the same line; otherwise, there's a chance that they will break lines). Hope this is clearer! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to retract my support, due to neutrality issues. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some MoS comments:

First, don't start headings with 'the' or 'an' or any words such as those.

Next, put in-text citations after, not before, punctuation marks. Other than that, looks pretty good. I'll read it through later and leave more in-depth comments. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment-clarify what type of boobytraps under 'Jenin' section. It says it was 113 kg, but what was? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Redmarkviolinist. As it turns out, the article is not quite as stable as I originally thought. There appears to be some dispute over the lead. Therefore, I'd rather wait for it to settle before making minor tweaks. Again, thanks! -- Nudve (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but these issues still need to be fixed before A-class. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've clarified the bombs issue and renamed the section. I agree on the inline citations, but can you specify where you see them? because a search for ">." didn't find anything. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - this article appears to have been subject to several disputes recently, including a copyright violation, and now contains a neutrality tag; it thus fails criteria A2. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd have to oppose because of the neutrality tag alone, that would not even let it pass a GA review, especially with the disputes surrounding the article. I'd recommend working on getting it to GA first then bring it back here for A class review if the article stabilizes. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1964 Gabon coup d'état

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for User:Editorofthewiki. This article recently failed a FAC, although I think it should have passed. This is to prepare it for another FAC (I'm assuming it will go through a FAC again). JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You assumed correctly! I'll deal with all the issues here, as long as they are presented in a constructive manner (We had a problem with that at the last FAC). Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not call a bird a fish. I don't recall seeing any concerns in the last FAC that weren't presented in a constructive manner. In fact, the amount of help you received was way, way, way,way above and beyond the call of duty.. a large table was created to help you check your resources.. an editor sent you sources that you did not have, after spending time researching the topic for you... that same editor corrected nontrivial factual errors in the article... etc.
• I would ask potential MILHIST A-reviewers to wade through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1, looking at all the omissions in the article that were pointed out, and come to an objective assessment about whether they have been addressed. As for cite check—a wholly separate issue!—feel free to edit the "Gabon" section of User:Ling.Nut/keep...
• Above all, the most important point of reference should be the FA's closing rationale
• I won't have time to participate in this A-review. Good luck! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promoted - please nominate only when you have time to respond to issues with the article, ok? :-/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Marion

Just passed a GA. I'd like to go for A and maybe FA soon. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Just a few points I noticed:

• The following require a reference/citation:
  • "The heavily scaled-down Confederate forces consisted of approximately 1,500 men, under the overall command of Major-General John C. Breckinridge and Brigadier-General Basil Duke."
  • "both sides prepared to resume combat the following day."

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Citation 10 and 24 are the same; please combine them.

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Books listed in "References" should have their ISBN number included.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added most of them. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've done three more. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - 1.0x10⁴ times better than when the last ACR happened. (DISCLAIMER: I have done substantial copyediting on this article since early december). Cam ^(Chat) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment You have one dead external link that needs to be located and either removed or replaced. Two disambig links need to located and corrected if possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• References comments (this version)
  • What makes http://www.bencaudill.com/ a reliable source?
  • Refs 9 and 28 can be combined (I think?) using WP:REFNAME.
  • Refs 14 and 21 need periods at the end, to be consistent.
  • You have web references linked just in the "notes" section (i.e. ref#9) and linked in the References with a shortened footnote (i.e. ref#15). Please be consistent - put all the web stuff in the in-line citations as evidenced by Lexington-class battlecruiser, or put it all below like USS Hawaii (CB-3).
  • Otherwise, refs look good and formatted correctly, and Tom got the dead links before me. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• To be honest, it's a good article but it needs to be expanded before it can get to an A article. This is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernstein2291 (talk • contribs)

• Conditional Support

• I've {{fixbunching}}'d some stuff and added a fact tag for you to cite.
• "John C. Breckinridge—former Vice-President of the United States, and also candidate for U.S. President in 1860—the commander..." Rephrase this, maybe something like "John C. Breckinridge, the former Vice-President of the United States and Southern Democratic candidate for President in [[United States Presidential Election, 1860|the 1860 election]]."
• "Most of the companies had been transferred to the Army of Northern Virginia to help in the defense of Richmond.[10]" This is confusing, does it mean most of Breckinridge's command had been transferred?
• "who stopped just so they could fire a volley into the Union cavalry." Why would they stop "just" to shoot at the enemy? That is what is normally done in war, after all.
• "After repelling a final charge," Does this mean another one after the charge just described, or the charge you just mentioned? Please clarify.
• The map of Stoneman's advance and the picture of the hill sandwich on my laptop, please move one of them.
• "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect the troops and to report back with the condition of his troops." Saying troops too many times in a sentence, perhaps "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect and report back on the condition of his troops."

None of these should be difficult to fix, so please do so and it will, in my opinion, meet the criteria. – Joe Nutter 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with few comments

• It would be good if you could get rid of the fact tag placed in the infobox.
• The Union forces consisted of about 4,500 men from a variety of different units, including several units which had participated in smaller-scale raids into Southwest Virginia earlier in the conflict. - this needs a ref.
• On December 14, the Union regiments began to push Duke's cavalry back toward Abingdon, Virginia. The next day, Stoneman and his cavalry went into camp at Glade Spring, Virginia, which was approximately 13 miles (21 km) west of Marion. - needs ref.
• Current ref. number 9 lacks accessdate and other additional information. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - are these concerns going to be addressed? The last time this article was edited was on January 30th... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest that this nomination be closed as unsuccessful, the nominator has not responded in several weeks. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thomas Hines

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One of my favorite characters in the ACW, I think he would make a fascinating FA, especially for my first FA. I know I'll need to improve the map on the article (either once again get the book to take a better pic, or absolutely redo it) but other than that, is it A-class, and if not, what does it need?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good. You need to upgrade the format of your References section (which needs to be renamed from Sources) to conform to WP:REF, including the addition of ISBNs wherever possible. I am not a fan of the multiple adjacent footnote style; consider grouping cites in the same place into a single footnote, separated by semicolons. Can you increase the size of the comparison photo? My default thumb size is 300px and it displays much smaller than that. (Continue to use thumb as the size, but try to increase the source image itself.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Only three of the books had ISBNs, but I redid the References. If I increase the comparison pic, then the Hines part would look bad. As for footnotes, I can, but I will see if anyoen else has a problem with it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use Photoshop to come up with a larger version. It looks fine on my system, but somehow the Wikipedia software is distorting it in an uncomfortable way, so I reverted the effort. I guess it is not too important. Never mind. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. While this article has potential, it still has some issues to work out. Masonic University is a glaring, ugly redlink right in the lead, you might want to start a stub on that. Also, can you get one of the little confederate flags in the infobox, for allegiance? The number of cousins in the Confederate army needs a citation. Also, cite the specifics of Hines' Raid, in the 1863 section. The following sentence makes no sense and has a grammatical error in it: "Hines learned how to capture the riverboats Alice Dean and the John T. McCombs, that enabled Morgan to transport his 2000+ men across the Ohio River." What's the point of learning how, did he ever actually capture them? Also, make sure all citations possible are combined, I noticed a couple from the Horan book, so check the rest to make sure they're combined. Besides those it looks OK, but you should fix all those issues and of course whatever other reviewers bring up before it will be 100% ready for A-class. Borg Sphere (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I took care of you concerns. I didn't see any other flags denoting allegiance in avrious other ACW bios, so I didn't add them. Also, is there really a need for more cites in Hines Raid section; looks like that one should cover it all.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, looks good now. I see what you mean about the other bios, and the Hines raid section is OK. Good job on the article. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good! I would like to see the lead and early life expanded. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've put everything I could find about his early life already in the article. Also, I think the intro is succinct in giving the quick rundown of the article, with no omissions.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Given the size of the article, the lead warrants some expansion.
• On the subject of the lead, is the fact that he resembles Booth really necessary in the lead? It's never mentioned again in the article, and doesn't appear to be terribly important. Mention it somewhere else, but not in the lead. Regards, Cam (Chat) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned again at the end of the "Late War" section. I'll expand the intro tonight.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been lengthened, and the Booth comparison moved to a better spot.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• My main concern is the references (Criterion A1). First, the article has several unattributed quotes (the citation should immediately follow the quoted text, and every quote needs citing). Second, there aren't that many of them. Third, the average density, one citation per paragraph, simply isn't enough for an A-class article.
• It would be good to see the multi-citation (refname=) used to de-duplicate citations.
• Not every article is capable of becoming a FA, simply because the sources don't exist to support it. Is this the case here?
• The prose (Criterion A4) lets itself down in places and it could therefore do with a vigorous copyedit buy a dispassionate copy-editor. For instance, in the "1863" section, there's this one long single-sentence paragraph:

"After wandering around Kentucky for a week, Hines rejoined General Morgan at Brandenburg, Kentucky. Colonel Basil W. Duke made a disparaging comment in his memoirs about how Hines appeared on the Brandenburg riverfront, saying Hines was "apparently the most listless inoffensive youth that was ever imposed upon"; despite being Morgan's second-in-command, Colonel Duke was usually not told of all the espionage Hines was carrying out, causing some to believe that Hines and Duke did not like each other, which was not the case.[8]"

• The disbanding of the Guides is mentioned without any prior introduction. Who were they?
• MoS stuff: The dates probably need delinking (as that's the way the wind is currently blowing)
• Some measurements still need metric conversion. There's a neat template for this: {{convert}}.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Trenton

Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This was recently a FAC but it did not pass so I am going to try for A-Class now.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support w/comments In my opinion, it would be best for you to remove the 300px size insert on the page's images since this has the effect of making the images disproportionatly large on smaller screen sizes. Also, unless you have a pressing reason to keep it, I suggest that you see what you can do to eliminate the see also section and move the links in it up into the article body. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the image sizes, but I am unsure how I can put things such as Trenton order of Battle and New Jersey during the American Revolution in the article.-Red4tribe (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall it seems to be very good, but it is held back by its need for a copy-edit:
  • This string of sentences sounds awkward, they should be rephrased and combined into one: "Another setback also occurred for the Americans.[33] Both General Cadwalader and Ewing were unable to join in the attack due to the weather conditions.[9]"
  • In general it needs a copy-edit. There are many errors throughout, especially in the American Attack section, that make it sound like it was written by someone not fluent in English or is a translation. Also, an error with formatting the second quote on the drunkenness of the Hessian's in the casualties section, the period should be a comma. Also, in the second paragraph of the aftermath section, it would be better not to have a colon, which implies an extended list, for the two famous people wounded; it might be better phrased as something like "Two notable officers were wounded, William Washington, cousin of the General, who was badly wounded in both hands, James Monroe..."
  • Also, the part about their drunkenness seems out of place in the casualties section, you may wish to move it/make it into it's own section. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• good work - i would add:
  • something about the enlistments ending at the new year (hard to overemphasize)
  • british counting on american demise and going into 'winter quarters'
  • was Hamilton in the Artillery? Knox and Greene there?
  • lead into battle of asumpink creek; princeton where british (cornwallis) wanted revenge for this battle Battle of Princeton Second Battle of Trenton in Aftermath
  • i would move the boat talk up to crossing section - Durham boat
  • add something about the marblehead regiment [[27]]14th Continental Regiment
  • 'victory or death' is from cato Joseph Addison
  • i would incorporate the myth in the body as fact with explanation Pohick2 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • i would think about just refering to the painting wiki [[28]]
  • there are other paintings as well [[29]] which are even harder to believe Pohick2 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok

Hits all the criteria, though I suppose someone should check another published source to see if anything was left out. — db48x | Talk 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Relies almost entirely on one source. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As said above there are only two sources and one of those is used almost all the time. Also, none of the references are combined as they should be. There is no infobox, one is needed. The firing upon the Chinese junk needs to be cited. "De-escalation?" Surely there's a better word than that for the section title. Also, you have some works listed in Notes, but you don't have the full information in the Sources section. You should do that and use an abbreviated form, such as you did with the Smithies source. Overall, this article needs some serious work before it can become A-class, and I would recommend putting it through GAN first to get their input as well. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons stated above. Cam (Chat) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)

This article is a quality GA, and it has been suggested several times for an A-class review. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see any source that is not from the US Army. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the date format is not consistent and there are still many hyphens where ndashes are needed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blnguyen. Close, thats to be sure, but not quite there yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and added/changed sources to include many non-us military sources. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still 90% self-sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As said above, the citations still come from biased sources. I looked through the list and saw a few that weren't from military sources, but the vast majority still were, and these have a very high potential for bias. If you replace the vast majority of these with neutral third party sources, then it might just meet the criteria, but not until then. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Closing as not promoted. Woody (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive1

Well I improved the article and i've done what was told of me to do. I think this is of A-Class quality and i'll look forward to what others think about the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the list tag at the top. If it were me, I would incorporate the previous designations, bases, aircraft operated, and major gaining commands lists into the text; they already duplicate to a great degree anyway. This would improve the look of the article greatly. I well understand that this is the standard organisation for USAF unit articles, but it does not really look very nice and as the tag shows, doesn't help it when being considered for a higher classification.

I've done a couple of minor edits in the opening paragraph and re-paragraphed the 'Origins' section. Buckshot06(prof) 12:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yeah. This is probably not something to ask me. I'm the one who goes into a page and hacks out a list from very few bits of information. I'm actually extremely stickler about the lists existing. This is also the first USAF article to be nominated for A-Class that I know of so I'm thinking that we might as well keep them because it's something unique to the pages. If it might cross anyone's mind, the lists should not be split from the page. I also would have a hard time doing so because it would end up sticking out like a sore thumb because of the way I would end up writing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Response Hey Kevin. Agree with you on disambiguators; disagree totally with you on this one. Please examine other A-class unit articles - like 51st Army (Soviet Union), (note I'm biased here) which do not incorporate extensive annexes. I well understand this is USAF and AFHRA style to have these long lists, but it does not look like a featured article. Put simply, these lists is USAF house style, not WP FA house style, and we are, sorry to put it so bluntly, not writing the AFREG on USAF history for internal USAF use. That's the basis of my argument. I would propose that we leave the lists alone until they come up for promotion consideration, then reformat them for WP:FA standards, so that they have a chance of further promotion. Bear you no malice on this one, but we do need to consider this issue. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: I don't actually know what a 'bush breaker' is, but can figure out what 'crash trucks' are. Is it possible to get more descriptive names that are more accessible for non-New Englanders to understand for these two? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that that was there. Those trucks are actually part of the Massachusetts Military Reservation. I guess that instead they should also be called a brush, not bush breaker. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you spelt brush wrong. I think that the name is pretty self-explanatory but what do I know. I can't really think of any other name for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are they trucks that pull down trees and clear smaller bushes, with scoops etc? Thus could they be described as 'forestry clearance vehicles?' Am I right? Buckshot06(prof) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. A good visual is a hummer with a big metal bar welded to the front that pushes down brush. I'm not sure what they drive but those vehicles are popular in the northeast. I think your name sounds a little politically correct but I was able to link the trucks to their respective article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note People, please don't be afraid to voice your opinions. This doesn't need to stall out again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now

• There are a few bits of emotive language in here: "the 102nd is a source of pride among Cape Codders not only for its decorated past," What has that got to do with an encyclopedia entry?
• Dates need to be consistent, some are linked, some aren't. It looks messy and some FAC regulars will oppose over it. Either link them all, or don't link them at all.
• Maybe it's because I'm a Brit, but "inactivated" just sounds wrong to me.
• "Air units" should not be capitalised
• "Veterans of the 101st..." Could this not be expanded a little bit. It sounds odd. By veterans, do you mean veterans of the conflict, or do you mean service personnel who have retired and then helped to reorganise it? (It currently reads like the latter)
• Could you link the aircraft within the text on first use. It would be useful.
• "Although this is completely true,..." Is that a Freudian slip?
• I have to say that, for me, the "Bases stationed" and "Aircraft operated" need to be integrated within the text. I don't believe they are neccessary.
• "The BRAC decision affected the wing very little,..." This seems to be a random sentence to me. It needs context, what BRAC decision. This shows why these would be much better integrated into the text to remove duplication.
• You shouldn't put the references in section headers, move it into the leading sentence.
• As it is, it won't pass FAC with those sections at the bottom, and as such, under the new ACR criteria, shouldn't be promoted to A-Class. Woody (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Several paragraphs lack sources. For example, under Berlin Crisis the second and fourth paragraphs aren't sourced. Under Conspiracy Link the following sentence probably needs a source - The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States. Further down there are even more unreferenced statements, and I believe these need to be referenced - you can never have too many. JonCatalán (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see citation needed tags in the article, which means that information that should already be sourced is not sourced. I also see a paragraph in the BRAC 2005 section that has no sources, and that needs to be fixed before I would support upping the class to A. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment First, thank you for commenting everyone! The citation issues always appear and some of them I know that they are factual but i'm unsure of where they might be backed up. I'll try to improve it though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of the Trench

Closed: No consensus for promtion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is close to A class status. Thus please check it and help us to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - some of the sources are unreliable. The one by the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat is most definitely not reliable. Another is quite old, by an author who died in 1914. What type of organisation is "Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband" in Uttar Pradesh? Is it an academic publisher? The vast majority of the sources are written from a religious focus. Are there any sources that are more historical? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify which sources do you mean? Who is the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat? Unfortunately I couldn't find the old source? Religious sources can be historical too. Let's review them one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Maududi? If yes, how does his modern political thought impact his historical one. I agree is not a netural source on Islamism and Pakistani politics.

Secondly the battle has religious significance. All sources (every single one) will one way or another trace their roots to Muslim traditions. The best source (accoriding to watt et. al.) is the Qur'an itself. It is also the least detailed source. These next best sources comprise of the hadith or the sira both bearing significance in the Islamic faith.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maududi is a religious scholar too and we consider him as a reliable source in Islamic issues.

Quran and Hadith are primary sources, thus we need to use secondary ones. But we haven't used them in the article except one quotation.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Banu Qurayza is a separate battle and I think it should be omitted from the template. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Encyclopedia of Islam has also separated these two issues. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the New Encyclopedia does mention the Qurayza at the end. The thing is that I haven't seen any author talk of the "the battle of Qurayzah". If you want we could remove the Qurayza casualties from the template; however, their strength remains as during the battle Muhammad had to sent a contingent of 200-300 men to protect Medina from the Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The BQ incident should be mentioned in short, there is a comprehensive article on this in existence. Whether the BQ should be included in the template (figures, place) is another question. I tend to think they shouldn't. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets understand the different situations: the Qurayza were considered a threat by the Muslims(as they had entered into negotiations) whilst the Meccan army was still camped outside Medina. That is why the prophet, who was outnumbered on the trench, still sent 200+ men to defend Medina from a possible Qurayza attack. This is clearly within the scope of this article.

The Qurayza were besieged after the Meccan army left. Whether this belongs is up in debate.

Thus, the strength of the Qurayza belongs in the template. As for the number of them killed, it is to be discussed.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article has it the other way, restricting itself to the Battle of the Trench proper, in which the BQ were not actively involved. Hence they do not belong in the template. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. The Qurayza were involved in negotiations. Why is that important? Well according to Watt, and other sources, the Muslims defeated the enemy primarily through diplomacy. If you look at the casualties, the 10,000 strong invading army suffered only 3, indicating that there was little physical battle involved. As far as troop amassment is concerned, the Muslim did amass there troops in the direction to which the Qurayza were. See Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_response.

Whether we should include the siege of the Qurayza is up for debate. I think we should as it was a direct consequence of the Battle of the Trench. Infact, the prophet fought the Qurayza in the same armor he had worn while at the trench. The Muslim army didn't even rest in between the two.Bless sins (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - some MOS and referencing issues:

Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).

 Done

Current note no. 4 - lacks any reference information, page number, etc.

The title of the book doesn't need to be mentioned in every note, so please format them (for example, Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and statesman, p. 96. -> Watt 1961, p. 96).

 Done

Same for current ref numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 30.

 Done

Current ref. number 19 needs a page number and the book should be added with all the appropiate information in the references section.

Current ref. number 25 - These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister, p. 94.. I could find no book by Kister in the references section.

I removed it, duo to lack of any information about it on the web.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide ISBN codes for books in the references section. This can easily be done through Google Books.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the ISBN of the two Arabic references.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please link dates in the lead and infobox, as well as throughout the article. For example, 31 March 627 -> March 31 627.

 Done

Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.

 Done

Otherwise the article looks good. After this issues will be fixed, I will probably support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

The article is in overall need of a copyedit (primarily for flow). I can do bits of this if you wish. My suggestion would be to request a coypedit at the Logistics Department.

Given the size of the article, I think the lead warrants some expansion.

"The Confederates" section reads quite choppy, as there are about a half-dozen small paragraphs of very short length. Would it be possible to combine these somehow?

That's all I have time for now. I'll take a look tomorrow (after I get some sleep). Cam (Chat) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To explain my edits:

• References should be given in an accesible manner. Every first reference of a book or article should give the author and the book title, every further reference only the author and page numbers. If one author has more than one book, titles should be given each time. Years are not needed and are no proper way of making references accessible - it has been a common problem that some editor adds a "author (year)" without caring about whether anyone knows what that book is. Also, various book have appeared in different editions in different years. Readers can more easily work with titles.
• Of course, each and every book used in the notes should also appear in the literature section.
• Authors should be named by their real name and link directly to their article. To see "Watt, Montgomery" (or Even "Watt, M Montgomery") pop up again is saddening. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed Eurocopter's suggestions but you reverted them.[30]--Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert anything. I made my edits without any reference to any previous version. I explained them above. Please reply to that, if you will. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

These are not my proposals and I ask Eurocopter to discuss with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter's proposal:

• Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
• Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).
• Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said "your proposals".

• Using "pp." is unnecessary and dated. Everyone sees that there is more than one page by the numbers given. Additionally, it should not be "p. 36. 37." but "p. 36-37" or "p. 36f."
• I don't care either way about the dashes if the one inserting the formatted dashed does so consistently. But it is much easier to include the normal hyphens and I actually never saw the advantage of using formatted dashes. But as I said, I don't care either way. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a look over some FAs and see what type of referencing they use. See also WP:DASH. Consider Battle of Albuera as a referencing style model. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I prefer my proposal, the Albuera style would work (as would a simple Author-year style) if it weren't for the tendency of some editors to simply drop new factlets without any regard for the bibliographical information, i.e. they add something and reference it by "Someone (1977)" even if there is no book by "Someone" from the year 1977 in the literature section, thereby forcing others to clean up the mess. And then 1977 is revealed to be a different edition of a book already included under a different publication date. The book's title is the most essential thing and therefore should be included! Common sense should prevail over rigid models defined somewhere by God-knows-who.

Ah, and "pp" is really dated and unneccessary. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe "pp" is still standard whenever "p" is used. A footnote like "p. 272–274" is strictly amateur hour; it should read "pp. 272–74". What's optional, at least in the Chicago Manual of Style and perhaps other systems, is using "p" or "pp" at all when it is understood that the numbers refer to pages.

But you're right that a citation like "Someone (1977)" is not ideal. There's no strong reason to use an author-date reference in a footnote—that's a confused mixing of citation styles. But that horse has long left the barn. Citations on Wikipedia are thrown together from various parts like Frankenstein's monster. But as long as the needed information is there, people seem to be okay with the monster. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Well this just passed the GA review. I was told before it even achieved this status that it should go to A-Class review after this because of the quality. I also think that it has potential because I think that it meets the criteria. So here it is, ready for review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but this article needs a fair bit of work to reach A-class. It provides a good overview of its topic, but it isn't yet an example of Wikipedia's best work. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:
  • The article is currently focused on the highlights of the wing's history. Surely there are some lowlights as well? (eg, poor leaders, poor aircraft, maintainence problems, recruitment/retention difficulties, etc).
  • The lead is rather short, and should be at least two paras
  • The prose is choppy and doesn't read well. Some of the text is unclear (for instance, "In Massachusetts, the Archie Club, composed of former Army Air Service pilots, lobbied for the formation of an air unit for the Massachusetts National Guard. The state had been allotted the entire 26th Guard Division") and there are too many two sentance paragraphs.
  • Material like "The 101st's planes were marked with green stripes on their vertical stabilizers, the 131st with red stripes, and the 138th with yellow stripes" seems to be trivia to me, and should probably be removed unless there's some broader significance.
  • What's meant by saying that the wing was "federally recognized"? - this term probably isn't understood outside of the US.
  • Is this quote really needed: "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there". I don't understand what it means, and it detracts from the section on the Wing's role on September 11.
  • Over what time period were "More than 600 wing members were mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle"? Were 600 mobilized at all times, or was this over several months/years?
  • A citation is needed to support the statement that "Locals argued that this would leave a huge gap in the national air defenses." and it may be appropriate to discuss whether there were any different views.
  • I also don't understand what "The wing shared the last months with the F-15 with the 101st Air Refueling Wing, the 103d Fighter Wing, and the 104th Fighter Wing." means. Did these units share aircraft or were they co-located?
  • "On January 24, 2008, the 102nd Fighter Wing officially flew its last patrol mission. " is a bit vague - unless there were any unofficial patrol missions after this date 'officially' should be omitted.
  • "As soon as it was announced that the wing would be kept alive and Otis Air National Guard Base would remain open, people began thinking of the future for the 102nd. There was talk that the wing could transition to an intelligence mission so that it could help support the growing War On Terror. " - this is also vague. Which people were thinking about the unit's future, and who was doing the talking?
  • It would be helpful to explain what's involved with the wing changing from a fighter wing equipped with F-15s to a non-flying intelligence wing. Are the ground crew, etc, being retrained for the new role, or have they been replaced?
  • I note that the section on the unit's current composition states that it is "speculative because accurate data is not out there concerning the units assigned to the wing". This material should be removed unless sources can be provided per WP:PROVEIT and WP:CRYSTAL. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I addressed all the issues that he put down except for number two. It is something that I am a bit unsure of how to do although I have requested help for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support
  • You need citations in the Cold War section, saying that they were neglected.
  • See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories? Eh. If you're going to say that, you need to explain more in the section about what the scrambled planes have to do with conspiracy theories.
  • Perhaps the section title "Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi freedom" is a bit misleading since the unit actually wasn't involved in either of those Operations.

Since you've fixed the problems Nick pointed out, if you fix those and the intro, it'll be better, but in the meantime I am willing to support it only hesitantly. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Now that you've fixed these I like it. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Late Roman army

Prior nomination is here. We went through the issues raised during the previous nomination. We could deal with most of them. The images have been checked for complaince with other material and the captions say clearly what they intent to show. However, there are no guidelines on how drawings of ancient warriors or formations should be checked. Instead of bickering here and not in many other articles, guidelines need to be established. The article is focused on the topic, so length shouldn't be a problem. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I went through this article and was astonished that this article was still listed at B-Class. This is most definitely not a B-Class article. Aside from some minor typos, I can find no reason why this article should not be at GA, A or FA level. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support There are 14 references to centuries in the introduction - stylistically, this is not good. I would recommend converting as many of these as possible to recognisable periods. There are still a painful number of qualifiers - a comment / edit of the prior review. For example: "In the comitatus, there is consensus that vexillationes were ca. 500 and legiones ca. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. The evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either ca. 500 or ca. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between. If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish auxilia from legiones, which is the strongest argument in favour of ca. 500." contains no fewer than five abbreviations of circa - itself not a common abbreviation. This may be A-class copy, but not FA. Dhatfield (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to list such stylistic issues. We will reword it. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The prior comments apply to the whole of the article. I have a number of problems with using the century as a unit of time measurement:

1. It's a blunt instrument. History does not fall into convenient chunks of 100 years. As a result, their use here leads to (at least implied) contradictions. The introduction uses 285 as the start point, but shortly thereafter there are references to 'the 3rd and 4th centuries' and the information does not mesh well.
2. Interspersing numbers into text breaks the flow like nothing else.
3. I may be slow, but I find centuries, in that they refer to the preceeding century, to be an arcane and inherently confusing method of denoting time.
4. In summary, please use anything, anything at all, as a proxy for the incessant references to century X throughout the article.

• I'm having trouble coming up with a more elegant way to express time in the article. Replacing 'the 3nd century' with 'the 200s' not only sounds even more awkward, but also would lead to many more usages of 'circa,' which you objected to earlier. I'm sure the author would welcome suggestions on how to change that, but it is irrelevant now, unless you really feel that the use of centuries disqualifies an article from 'A' status. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In line with recent changes to the A criteria, quality of prose and style can, technically, prohibit A-class promotion. I was pushing the issue too hard, see comments below and change of vote. My suggestion would be "Principate period", "Army of the Principate", "Late period"... Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The Principate" is even more of a blunt instrument than a century, since it covers 300 years rather than 100. The only viable alternative to using centuries to describe periods of time is to use the names of Roman dynasties i.e. the Julio-Claudian period for the early/mid 1st c. , Flavians for the late 1st c. and Five Good Emperors for the 2nd c. But as I'm sure you'll agree, "the army of the Five Good Emperors" is hardly more elegant than the "2nd century army" and much less intelligible to the average reader. Also there are no durable dynasties to describe the 3rd century. As it happens, centuries coincide well with phases of the Roman imperial army. The period covered in the article, 284-395, is a close fit with the 4th c. The 3rd c. is when most of the changes to the army took place. And the 2nd c. is the period we have the best epigraphic evidence for the army, which is the reason for the frequent comparisons with the army of that period. EraNavigator (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• If I could think of another solution, I would suggest it, but ultimately that's not my role here; my role is to point out a stylistic weakness. Thereafter solutions are more useful than justifications. Dhatfield (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to limit the TOC length, maybe by limiting it to the 1st TOC level.
• "The army of the Principate underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century." Chaotic is too little information. Saying that it is covered in a later section is not enough - chaotic is just vague.

• I don't see much of a problem with this. While it is somewhat vague, it's not relevant. The article is about the organization of the army, not all the aspects of the condition of Rome in the era. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right - it's not a major issue, but vague in introductions is not good practice. It's an ideal link candidate. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is representative of a broader issue: assuming the reader knows more than they can be assumed to know. Another symptom of this is that there is insufficient linking. Firstly, I know that the MoS states that one link per topic/person is sufficient, I believe that if knowledge of a particularly link is important for understanding a given section, it should be linked. Secondly, there are lots of concepts that would benefit from being linked. Cavalry, auxiliary, emperors, buffer zones, ... The list in the introduction alone is long.
• 'Barbarian' is bandied about a lot without upfront clarification that this translates as 'foreigner'.
• "The evidence is that comitatenses regiments were considered of higher quality than limitanei. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the limitanei were a part-time militia of local farmers, of poor combat capability. This view is rejected by many modern scholars. In reality, limitanei were full-time professionals. Indeed, it was forbidden by law for them to work in the fields or herd animals. The limitanei were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem. It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity. Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the comitatus. Limitanei regiments often joined the comitatus for specific campaigns, sometimes remaining long-term with the title of pseudocomitatenses, implying adequate combat capability.". Sentences should not start with 'But'. More to the point, if you're going to write prose like this - short, unnecessarily disjointed sentences - why not just cut the pretence and make a list of facts. It isn't just that this lacks style: This. Isn't. Prose.
• Best of luck. Dhatfield (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield, this article in your opinion is good enough for A-Class. That is the purpose of this review. Everything else is moot until FAC. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the A-class vs. FA criteria are a little vague and I normally focus on style, but the technical quality & referencing put this into A despite weaknesses in other areas. Vote changed. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Any semantic errors are easily fixed, and shouldn't detract from enjoying this article's excellent coverage of its subject matter. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. References are not properly formatted. I see no isbns or publishers (with the exception of one book). Why don't you use Template:cite book?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Withdrawn on author request Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I

I started working on this article in early 2007 and took it up through the GA Review process, where it passed. I've decided to continue working on it, and eliminated a paragraph in the history section which had less to do with the tank and more to do with the invasion of France in general. I will work through all the MOS requirements I've learned so far, but I'd like to get some feedback before I put it through FAC and at the same time try to get it to A-class. I think that if it can get to A-class, the FAC will not be such a rigorous process. JonCatalán (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this article could benefit from the same layout as the Polish pl:Panzer I article (rated as a good article by Polish Wikipedia standards), where the history, statistics, users and combat performance of the A and B variants are listed separately. The C/D and F versions have their own articles as "niche" versions. Contact User:Spike78, ask nicely and maybe he will do some new 3D models for you like (Panzer IC, Panzer ID, Panzer IF etc). Mieciu K (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the source material that I have there is not enough information to warrant a new article for the Ausf. C and Ausf. F, and no offense to our Polish colleagues, but the quality seems a lot lower in regards to their article. The page is not close to the 50kB limit and seems to lose length as I change everything to follow the MoS guidelines (with some minor gains at some points). I don't know, but the current layout seems efficient enough (with the variants listed separately, as they currently are). JonCatalán (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "by Polish Wikipedia standards", I only wrote that I liked the Polish article's layout more. Mieciu K (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. You used a lot of books for information for the article. Any chance any of those books might have photos of the tank in action in Spain, Poland, France, or Russia that you could scan and upload? Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have quite a few photographs of Spanish Panzer Is used during the civil war, but none are owned by the U.S. government - they are all from the military archives in Spain or belong to Steven Zaloga's private collection (or at least they are attributed to him). And, strangely enough, I have not seen a free picture of the Panzer I on the Eastern Front, but I'll continue looking. I'm sure that the national archives have photographs of both, but I just have to find them. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've read trhough this and I quite like the structure. It wuld help to make the pics a little bigger though, they're tiny so you ca't see much detail without clicking on them.--Serviam (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll make them bigger for the review. But, I can't stop editors from reverting them back to thumbs during the inevitable FAC - apparently, larger images are against image MoS. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've done a line-by-line copyedit of the article, so I don't think I can fairly vote, but it looks comprehensive and excellently referenced and cited (as always) Jon. A few minor comments (mostly fixed in the copyedit):

1. Please avoid your slight and understandable pro-Spanish bias.
2. Avoid or explain the term 'tank surrogate', I don't think it's too well known - I certainly have never seen it before.
3. The combat action section is possibly still a little long. It wanders a bit from the role of the Panzer I in combat to theatre details, eg. number of Polish casualties.
4. I don't think it is made very clear that the Pz I was a dismal failure in combat in almost every action it ever saw. This is a natural bias, but let's be brutally honest - it was blown to pieces by BT-10s :) If there's one thing the Wehrmacht learned from the Condor Legion's involvement in Spain...
5. Needs an illustration - am I showing my bias? I'll get on it ASAP, but as you know that may be a while.

I think this will be a FA very soon. Dhatfield (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Some responses and questions -

1. 1. Does this refer to the amount of space the Spanish Civil War receives in the article or to the attention the Panzer I's career in the Spanish Army after WWII gets? If so, it's a matter of sources (although it may be a bias) and lack of information on the Panzer I's career in the Chinese Civil War (as an example).
   2. Tank surrogate once had a stub article that I made, but it may have been deleted. I'll have to change that term to tank variant.
   3. I'll work on the combat part of the article a.s.a.p., taking out a few sentences and re-writing others.
   4. Well, in the article it does mention how the Panzer I couldn't penetrate the armor of a T-26 and couldn't stop a 45mm round. In Poland, well, I don't think there was much tank on tank action to speak of and I don't have any in depth reports of Panzer I formations engaging Polish tank formations. Perhaps there is information for the French campaign, as the Somua was obviously superior, but I think the role of the Panzer III and Panzer IV overshadow that of the light tanks in regards to the invasion of France and the Low Countries. It's difficult to work it in, but I think I'll make some comparisons between tanks in the text. Thanks!
   5. Wow! We'll your images are always worth the wait! Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Can I have this review closed? I am apparently going to Fort Irwin tomorrow, for a week (have to get full discharge papers), so I won't be around to finish the review. Sorry - I will reopen when I come back. JonCatalán (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

not promoted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana in the American Civil War

I feel this article is easily a future Featured Article, but should go through the A-class review that only WP MILHIST can provide. Let the examination begin.--Bedford ^Pray 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead seems a little short, and more importantly, very abrupt. During the American Civil War Indiana played a critical role seems a little biased and without explanation until the next paragraph, which makes reading difficult. I would suggest combining these smaller sections into several larger paragraphs, and expanding on the first sentence of the lead.
• Indiana contributed roughly 210,000 soldiers to the Union and millions of dollars to equip and supply them - I think 'approximately' would be better than 'roughly' and a more precise figure for the money expended would be nice. It doesn't have to be exact, but more than just 'millions' - 'over one hundred million' if that is the figure, for example.
• The infobox seems to be in an odd place, and seems a bit threadbare - is there no infobox for this type of article that can be used?
• The next day two mass meetings where held in the state where the state's position was decided: Indiana would remain in the Union and would immediately contribute men to suppress the rebellion. - A citation is definately needed, and an expansion as well - who decided, and when exactly? Were there any dissenters?
• Before the war ended Indiana would contribute a total of 208,367 men (about 15% of the state's total population) to fight in and serve in the war.- The brackets seem a tad unwieldy
• The Indiana Regiments Picture needs to be shifted right, its breaking the page in Firefox
• Really, one of the main problems I have is the number of small, fragmentary paragraphs which could either be combined into larger paragraphs, or be expanded upon in more detail.
• Being across the Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky, the Indiana cities of Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Port Fulton saw increased activity - Not being an ACW historian, this seems confusing and in need of elaboration. Why the activity?
• The prose needs a bit of polishing as well. Take this example - The Sentinel ran anti-war articles like one entitled "Let Them Go In Peace". - This could become The Sentinel ran anti-war articles, with the headline of one such article reading "Let Them Go In Peace". And here: Chaired by Thomas Hendricks, the convention stated that they supported the integrity of the Union and the war effort, but they were opposed to the abolition of slavery.[24] - Surely it should be 'convention members'?
• Spelling could do with a work over as well. When the war ended, the state's Democrats where still seething over their treatment during the war - This has a spelling error, as well as weasel words.

All in all, it's an interesting article that could become A-Class, but it needs a good copyedit and expanding the stby-like paragraphs.

• Not an expert, but the references seem like they need to be sorted out into 'Notes' and 'References', and 'p.' or 'pp.' added before the page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 July 2008

I fixed some of the problems you saw: those that were easier to rectify. I'll deal with the numerous subsections soon.--Bedford ^Pray 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Air Combat Group RAAF

Pre work version: 1; B-class version: 2; current version: 3; comparison from pre-work to current version: 4

I believe this article fully meets the criteria and the difference is clear. Also see the comments here. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned about the majority reliance of the article of RAAF/Defence Department sources, which are not third party. Secondly, the refs are not formatted in a complete manner, with the publisher details (DoD is written at the bottom of some of them) and "English" needs to be removed because English is the assumed default. The other minor stylistic things is that you appear to have chosen to not wikilink the geographical places, and where you have used a "main" link to subarticles, it is not necessary to link the topic again as the first word of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I think... Please let me know if there is more. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is in much better shape than most RAAF articles, but it's not A-class and still needs a bit of work to get there. My concerns are:
  • I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
    • Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The first part has been fixed. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The socond has been fixed as well, and I will try to find another reference for it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Air Combat Group (ACG) is the group which commands the RAAF's fighter and bomber aircraft" - yes and no. From my understanding, the group is responsible for administering the RAAF's combat aircraft and ensuring that they're combat ready, but they pass from ACG's command when deployed on operations/major exercises. The RAN and RAAF's force element groups do not form part of the command chain for military operations, and commands like Air Command actually 'command' the jets during operations.
    •  Done
  • "In a break with tradition within the RAAF" Why is this a break with tradition? The RAAF has had a very fluid command structure throughout its existence.
    • I agree, so  Done.
  • The various air bases, towns, squadrons, etc should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article.
    • I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
      • Looks goood now
  • Why does the 'Operations' section only include the deployment to Deigo Garcia, and not the more significant deployment to participate in the invasion of Iraq or the deployments to protect CHOGM or the Commonwealth Games?
    • I am working on this, so it should be done soon.
  • It's not correct to say that "it was deployed" to protect CHOGM, as only a squadron (or less) was used for this task. The relevant Defence annual report should say how many aircraft were used.
    • Trying to find this.
  • The article's sections should be combined - single para sections are much too short.
    •  Done I think...
  • Topics which are linked in the body of the text shouldn't be 'see also's at the top of the section.
    •  Done
  • Why do you say that the wings are "currently headquartered" at various bases? Are there plans to move them? - I believe that these wings have been located at these bases for several decades now.
    •  Done
  • The Forward Air Control Development Unit is a training outfit, and doesn't "strike designated targets" or "conduct reconnaissance", except in emergencies (some FACDU aircraft were apparently prepared to deploy to East Timor in 1999, but would only have been used in a combat zone if things got very desperate). I believe that it's role is train RAAF and Army forward air controllers.
  • why "traditional single-seat design"? Double-seat training variants of combat aircraft are nothing new.
    •  Done
  • The Australian F/A-18s are not "carrier-capable" and it should be mentioned that they're currently being upgraded.
    •  Done
  • The impending retirement of the F-111s and introduction of F/A-18Fs also needs to be mentioned.
    •  Done
  • The F-111Cs are not "the "recce" or reconnaissance version of the F-111" - they're the Australian variant of the F-111 bomber. Four F-111Cs were converted to RF-111Cs, but are still capable of serving as bombers.
    •  Done
  • All the F-111Gs have now been retired, and they were only ever used as training aircraft in Australian service. It should be mentioned that No. 6 Squadron is the F-111 operational conversion unit, and not really a combat formation per-se.
    •  Done
  • I agree with Blnguyen's concerns about the lack of third-party references. The Australian National Audit Office released a report on the readiness of ACG's aircraft a couple of years ago which would make a good ref as this is an independant assessment of how well ACG is filling its main role. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Leopard 2E

Review extended until 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC) to garner further comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going through a peer review, but I think it would be faster if it goes through a peer review and an A-class review simultaneously. This morning, this article passed a Good Article Review. As with other articles, I'm ultimately shooting for FAC. Thanks for taking the time to look at it and express your opinions on it! JonCatalan (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It might be better to get the peer review (where the text is described as a "rough draft") more or less out of the way before requesting an ACR. This review is really geared to being the last port of call prior to FAC and the article content will be more stable after the PR is complete. There is, coincidentally, a discussion on this at the moment among the coordinators and comments there would be appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but since I have the time to make changes very quickly, I almost rather do this and close the peer review. I'm on virtual vacation at this point, so while in my opinion the ACR gives me the same feedback, it also has the capability of 'killing two birds with one stone.. JonCatalan (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this comment, please. I'm trying to make the red link on the talk page into a blue link, since it won't recognize the existence of this page. JonCatalan (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall, a good article. However, there are a few things that should probably be addressed.
  • One of your sources in the "footnotes" section has a "retrieved on" bit on the end, which is traditionally used for web-resources. If this is a web-resource, would you be able to add the link to the resource?
  • "The Spanish Army replaced its M60 Patton tanks and AMX-30s with the Leopard 2," Did this occur all at once, or was it gradual? Either way, would you happen to have a date/time period for it?
  • The opening sentence of the lead is a bit awkward. Might I suggest "The Leopard 2E is Spain's main battle tank, forming part of the Spanish armament modernization program Programa Coraza, or Program Armor"
  • In the "comparison to other Spanish tanks" section, you go off on a bit of a tangent talking about the fate of the previous battletanks in other countries. To maintain the focus of the article, I'd just talk about the fate of the particular tanks in Spain.
  • As for the wikilink on Programa Coraza. I noticed that it turned up a redlink when I put it in. I noticed that you linked it to later in the article. I'd just replace it with the redlink, which will lead to an article being made on the subject independent of this one.
  • Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Cam (Chat) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I linked to Santa Bárbara Sistemas' page for the footnote in question. I added 'between 1995 and 2008' after 'The Spanish Army replaced its M60 Patton tanks...'. In regards to the lead, someone copyedited it for me! As for the comparison, I took out that last sentence. Finally, I red linked Programa Coraza. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think you've addressed all of my concerns with the article very well. All the best, Cam (Chat) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd say it is a very good article! Perhaps somewhat more exact data could be given of the production and the replacement of tanks, using Spain's official entries into the UN Register of Conventional Arms: http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.NSF ? --MWAK (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am looking for (in stores) the second part of the book La Brunete, because I'm not sure when exactly Spain's AMX-30s were taken out of service. My sources don't 'go that far' and were written when the vehicle was still in service. If I recall correctly, Spain's AMX-30EM1s were retired and scrapped fairly early - probably soon after the entrance of the M60A3, but I can't verify; the Spanish Army was no longer interested in maintaning a number of tanks in accordance with the limits of the CFE. The UNRCA says that in 1998 the Spanish Army had 618 tanks (244 M60A3TTS', 108 Leopard 2A4s = 362 - Spain never had 374 AMX-30Es). In 1999 the number goes up to 633. UNRCA says that in 1992 92 M60s (of no specific type) were delivered, and in 1993 another 214 (310) - this seems to be correct, although as far as I know M60A1s were never put into service and instead there were plans to convert them into engineering vehicles and bridge lanching vehicles. It's hard to keep track though, since they don't mention anything between 1995 and 1998. It seems that the UNRCA believes that Spain has retained its M47s and M48s in service (the only explenation, although technically then Spain would have over 1,000 MBTs). The amount of Leopard 2Es delivered by Krauss-Maffei adds up, however (30), and I was looking for a good source to verify the production of 30 Leopard 2Es in Germany, so thank you! (Should we be surprised that no Spanish source verifies this?!) I added that 30 were produced by Germany, but I didn't break down production by year. Again, thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greco–Persian Wars

• Initial nomination

Assessing the article for WP:GREECE I saw a paradox. The article passed in 2006 an A-Class review, but then (in the same month!) failed GA review! I think that it should be reassessed by the project, in order to see whether this paradox (a WP:MILHIST projet A-Class article to have failed GA review) should remain or not.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments -

1. The lead seems short, and should probably be expanded to at least two paragraphs (apart from the guideline to have one sentence per section).
2. A few of the footnotes should be grouped.
3. I don't like the tables in the forces section, and I think the forces should be written out. Perhaps provide a table (laid out horizontally to save scrolling and huge white spaces) for a visual reference.
4. Under the Peace of Callias, I think the treaty terms should be provided in paragraph form. It seems unprofessional to me, but I may be wrong.
5. The article probably needs a thorough copy edit, but I'm not the best person to judge!

These are some things I saw. I will give it a more thorough look over later or tomorrow. JonCatalan (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment eliminate all unsourced material that was inserted since the A-class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with the above comments. Some paragraphs don't have citations and the lead seems to be too short. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nguyen Van Nhung

Review extended until 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) to garner further comment. Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! My first visit for almost five months. This is probably pushing it a bit, but at 5.5k of prose (Tent pegging is 4.3k), it is all that exists on the subject. Captain Nguyen Van Nhung was the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who deposed President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in a military coup. Nhung's notability is solely derived from his actions as Minh's bodyguard - this amounts to executing Diem, his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces head and deputy, Colonel Le Quang Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu. All four executions are described to the maximum available extent, as is the assassination of Nhung himself. So, this is an exhaustive account of Nhung's activities, the other parts of his life and military career are not known at all, from my search of 15+ books of the Diem downfall. I guess this is a test case to see if things like this are too short. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments (on request)

• "he known for his role" - missing word?

'Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• No photo of Nguyen Van Nhung I take it?

No. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "a coup led by a group of ARVN generals" - what's ARVN?

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Tung shouted "Remember who gave you your stars!"[3][2][4]" - put the refs in numerical order (some FAC guys are picky on this).

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "into a jeep and driven to edge of the air base" - perhaps "and drove them over the edge..." (check the sentence as a whole)

Copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are some sections where it really talks about Nhung very little... more about the overall operation or the actions of others (eg. Minh).

Yes, to give background on the assassinations, and to be frank, a bit of padding wouldn't really hurt in such an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as it seems to meet all criteria. giggy _(:O) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Is there any background information on the subject's life before becoming a military officer? If not, I can't see any real reservations about the article, although I might expand the lead a little. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no information apart from the four shootings that he did, and the shooting of himself. I'm not really sure what I can do in the lead...unless I should describe some of the gory details? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scraped out a few more generalities for the lead. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Even if it's a very short article, it meets all criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Appomattox Station (2)

Previous nomination

Fixed many of the issues in the previous nomination, and I'll try to fix more that come up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• The text still needs a copyedit.
• The battle needs placing into context: there is none.
• The questions raised about the reliability of the web sources have not been addressed. Repeated here from previous nomination:

• "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.

• Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?

• Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?

• "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?

• Schroeder, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.

• Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?

• "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.

• The published sources are not particularly current. With the mass of published scholarship, is there nothing more recent?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs a Level-4 copyedit (contact Logistics Dept., you should be able to get help there). At that point, it should be fine (I would, however, consider increasing the citation density of the whole article, just as an afterthought). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral the concerns raised about the material used for referencing concern me, I would like to know if you can find anything more recent before I decided one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kaunas Fortress

Article is GA, undergone further improvements. I hope you will give me a feedback that should be improved further. M.K. (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. very promising but this needs work to get to A-Class quality.

• Copy: I've done some light copy-editing but this needs a good work-over. Too many awkwardnesses and occasional longwindednesses.
• World War II: this section seems a bit scrappy and should really be expanded.
• Post WWII: Separate section? Visitor center, restoration etc.
• References: these are a bit light. It should be possible to find more stuff (particularly on WWII as there are many holocaust related archives around). Have you tried JSTOR? If not ask at the WP:MHL#JSTOR.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Answers to concerns:

• Will ask for additional copy edit. (would be great if you could point the worst effected areas)
• During WWII there wasn't much development apart Ninth fort, which is already mentioned in the article. Will look for additional suitable info, though. Will add some info about Red army garrison during pot-war, as well.
• Bad idea, those sections will look very small then, as restoration projects are not launched yet. Will add additional info about development of museum, but this may be overlap with Ninth fort article.
• And the biggest problems are refs, there are simply no much comprehensive works on this subject. Newest publication (which is cited in article) is Arvydas Pociūnas. Kauno tvirtovės ginyba 1915 metais. 2008; also notes lack of research in general. And available data deals with fortress "life" till its fall, rather till present days (which info article needs the most now). Will expand issues with summary why fortress fell rather quickly.M.K. (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy: it just needs a general snip and tweak.

Size: Why not merge Ninth Fort into this? It is, I notice, completely unreferenced.

WWII: I'm sure sources are available. There are several here, for example, dealing with the holocaust in Lithuania/Latvia as well as this listing a bibliography for the Kovno (Kaunas) ghetto and the Holocaust.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Regarding, merge - I think that separate article for Ninth fort should be preserved (due to its notoriety and general awareness). Of cource this article can be improved.

Regarding WWII sources, I did not said that there are no sources about holocaust in Lithuania or about K. ghetto, I just saying that I have trouble for finding comprehensive sources directly linked to fortress, apart that is already in article. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source that directly concerns Kaunas fortress. It provides material about the fourth, seventh and ninth forts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, will search additional material for fourth, seventh (ninth is already in article). BTW, maybe you know comprehensive and good WP article about this time frame fortifications as I would like to investigate some technical issues. M.K. (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kenneth Dewar

The article is GA, but failed its FAC. The request for copyedit has yielded no takers so I'd like another review via WP:MILHIST A-class. Cheers, Harlsbottom (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The dates in the refs need to have consistent date formatting per WP:MOSNUM. Currently you have some with partial links, some with both dates linked, some in different formats. Consistency is key here.
• There is no need for the comma in the dates; the parser makes [[1 March]], [[1900]] show up as 1 March, 1900 anyway.
• There are still prose issues: "Promoted Acting Sub-Lieutenant," just doesn't flow. I think the prose is A-Class, just not FA class yet. I would continue to try and find a good copy-editor (I know it is nigh-on impossible to do), preferably one without a naval background.
• Why link only the "C" in C class cruiser?
• "and harmonious relationship between the two was to be expected out of necessity." Seems very disjointed. I think it needs rephrasing.
• So; fix the dates and the little issues and I will support it for A, though until you can find one of those elusive copy-editors, I wouldn't support it at FAC. All the best. Woody (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HMS Ark Royal (91)

I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as contributor. I believe that the concerns of the first A-class review have been adressed: namely that a significant copyedit of the prose and formatting was required. In regards to the featured article criteria, the article either meets the points given, or is within easy reach. It should be noted that my opinion may be biased, as I've done a lot of copy-editing on this article. -- saberwyn 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support The Commonwealth English throws me a bit but everything looks to be in order and the article has certainly been through the wringer enough to work out the problems. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - great work! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know that uboat.net is acceptable for sourcing, but you might want to have a response for that ready when you take the article to FAC, because I am sure that it will come up. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very good article, but I'm uncomfortable with the number of rough patches at present.
  • I would strongly suggest a comprehensive copy-edit of the early part of this article. Some of the text in the early sections is vauge or inconsistent and I think that the wording could be improved. The Service history and following sections are excellent, however.
  • "Designed to carry a maximum number of aircraft" - this is vauge - do you mean "designed to carry a large number of aircraft"?
    • That's that basic meaning. Changed.
  • "Her sinking was critically investigated, as the carrier was lost despite significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar." - this is a bit awkward and slightly missleading given that RN practice was to investigate the losses of all major ships - perhaps something like "The causes of her loss were investigated, and the ship's captain was found to have acted negligently" would be clearer?
    • I think it would be a mistake to mention the charges brought against Maund here, as I think it would tend to imply that he was in some way responsible for the sinking. Recent investigation has shown that the fate of the ship was probably out of Maund's hands the moment the torpedo struck. Better to leave this for the appropriate section where this is discussed in more detail. I've altered it to 'Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries, with the investigators keen to know how the carrier was lost, given that there were significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar.' Which I think conveys the basic thrust of the various inquiries.
  • "They found" -> "The investigation also found"
    • Changed to 'The inquiries found' (the Board of Inquiry, the Bucknill Committee and the court-martial all analysed the various aspects of the sinking to varying degrees.)
  • If the ship was laid down in September 1935 and launched in April 1937 she didn't spend "two years in the builder's yard before being launched".
    • Changed to 'nearly two years'
  • Notes b, c and d are trivia and should probably be removed. Notes a and e look suitable to be integrated into the body of the article.
  • I'm a bit confused about the para which states that "The carrier was to be deployed to the Far East" but then says that it was decided not to do this on the basis of "recent events" which include two crises which occured before she was commissioned. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that there was an intention to use her in the Far East when she was ordered, but this changed due to world events while she was under construction? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've clarified this. Benea (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Appomattox Station (1)

I will fix any comments that you have. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs an extensive copyedit. Please ask one of the other editors actively involved in civil war articles to copyedit if for you. If you can't find anyone, please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Citations need page numbers. None of them have! I'm concerned that this article has put together entirely from web sources when there are so many paper sources available for ACW. Which of the web sources are reliable sources and why? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Finished, added book sources, page numbers. --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good :) Now could you please (1) tidy up the multiply-cited stuff using "ref name = " style refs (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to); (2) alphabeticise the ref list; (3) Done cite Mr Burke Davis correctly; {4) lose the extra bracket in some cites; and (5) Done add p. or pp as necessary to page numbers? It's not necessary to say (in English) either, that's assumed.

Can you also please address my reliable sources question? Thanks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The NPS Battle summary is reliable for sure. How do you want me to alphabetize the references? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Finished all except alphabetizing. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Observations

This version is not really what I was anticipating :) There are, for example, no page numbers and it's unnecessary to completely duplicate the citations (notes) and the references. Perhaps use short forms for the cites, including page numbers where appropriate, like this:

1. ^^{a b c d} Swain.
2. Davis (1959), p 76.
3. Davis (1980), pp 17–23.

(You can also cite "Davis (1959), p 76." as "Davis (1959, 76)." if you think it's neater or clearer.)

Why do you say (English) after references? This is an English-language encyclopedia, you only need specify the language if it's not in English.

Please list the references in alphabetical order. It makes it easier for the reader to cross-reference them to the cites.

Turning now to the web sources (and this is something that will come under scrutiny if you take this the next step, to FAC), what makes you think these are reliable sources?

• "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.

• Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?

• Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?

• "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?

• Schroeder, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.

• Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?

• "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.

• Fitz, Deborah. "Appomattox Town & Park Eye Forgotten Battle Land". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Broken link.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I just can't seem to source it correctly. If anyone else cand do it, please do.ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken ref, and also converted the long form cites into short form ones.

This review is due to be closed today but under the new rules the nominator can ask for an extension of up to three days to fix ongoing issues. Would this help? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (3)

Previous nomination

Fixed all of the previous concerns. If you have any comments, I will fix them. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. I would suggest, though, that you add to the background section a brief description of what Stoneman did after completing the raid. Did he return to Tennessee? If so, when? Did he continue the raid into another area or go directly into the Battle of Saltville? By the way, the link to the Battle of Saltville 2 in the campaignbox goes to a disambiguation page. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed disambig. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks quite good, but before I'll put my support, it would need some minor improvements. References are needed on Strength and Casualties in the infobox, while the lead should be expanded a bit. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Promising piece but too many small issues, I'm afraid.

• References:

• These need considerable cleaning up. For books, typical order is author (year of publication), title, place of publication, publisher, ISBN (where appropriate).
• Citations: These could be tidied up along the lines of the Battle of Appomattox Station model. Use of the multi-cite template, in particular, reduces clutter.
• Separate Notes & References sections is neatest (IMO) though not compulsory.
• Minor point: the <ref> tags needs to go immediately after punctuation (ie no space).

• Reliability of sources.

• Is the spartacus schoolnet a reliable source for an A-Class encyclopedia article?
• Can we have more and better dead-tree sources (these seem limited)?

• Copy issues:

• Military titles are used for first mention only; thereafter surname only: thus "General Basil Duke", then "Duke" (not "General Duke".)
• "The Union army that was positioned at the covered bridge" and in the next paragraph "The Union soldiers that had taken positions at the covered bridge" - a bit clunky. Can shorthand be used for this?
• Expand the lead a little?
• Is use of "colored" for troops in the narrative text okay? I know it's in the regimental titles but I'm wondering if it's appropriate elsewhere.

• Other

• A map of the battle would be good but is probably wishful thinking.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you'd like extra time to fix these, just ask for an extension. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Army (Soviet Army)

This article went through a WPMILHIST peer review some months ago, and I've implemented virtually all the suggestions made there. It's currently rated B. Looking for either an endorsement of A-class status or pointers on what I need to fix to get it upgraded. Many thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Comment I'm a bit confused by this article and am hoping that you can clarify it for me. What is its purpose? Is it a list of Soviet armies or is an explication of what "army" means in Soviet terms? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most of the Western armies, many, many Soviet armies do not have individual pages. This page provides a bit of information and explains the differences with Western field armies. I've added that to the first paragraph. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps changing the article title to something more specific - like Soviet armies (1918–????) - might help? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Soviet armies 1918-1991? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

H.C. Berkowitz

CommentI also put these on the discussion page. Yes, I agree the purpose is a little unclear, although you do mention that a Soviet (and for that matter Japanese) were smaller than Western ones. In elaborating on that, a worthwhile aside is that Soviet ranks went from colonel to major general.

As they missed out Brigadier General and inserted Colonel General, only the names changed, and so I don't think that's relevant. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Might clarify that Guards designation neither changed the organization of the unit, nor was assigned temporarily.

Will clarify once I have confirmation; at division level 'Guards' did mean a bigger TOE. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, if that [what? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)] is the case, the date of these designations. It's confusing to see a redesignation when an Army was reassigned to GSFG, considering that the later name is more likely to be known.

Can you explain what you mean? I don't fully understand. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reflist should be 2-column.

How do I do that? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist|2}}

Done ! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus

Comment. I usually go for GA status before the A status, GA reviewers offer some useful input. Lead is way to short and should be expanded.

Done. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are too few inline cites (many paragraphs have no refs).

That's true for the text, and I'm current looking for references, but for the list of armies, to do that exhaustively, there are two main sources - Feskov 2004 and Bonn 2005. I would have repeated, endless cites to one or other of those two works, which are already cited repeatedly and are in the bibliography at the bottom. Is it the consensus view that I should do that - what do other people think? (I'll quite happily insert them, if slowly, if the majority so feels). Buckshot06 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Soviet Armies in the Civil War should have individual armies ilinked, like the following List of Soviet Armies in World War II has (same hold true for other lists - ilink all armies, they were all notable, don't be afraid of red links). Lists of armies of the interwar and postwar series should be added.

Fixed by changing dates - it seems the Sovs worked in two period, Civil War and since.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. While this does not concern this article, {{Armies of the Soviet Army}} should be added to all subarticles about individual armies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

Self-nominator: I believe this article exemplifies the great work of WP. Although it did not pass FAC, it did fairly well (see the archive). I believe that there are no gaping holes, only minor adjustments, to bring this article to FA status. Codharris (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Promising article but this really needs a close copy-edit by an uninvolved editor.

Examples:

• "from flying subchasers" What does this mean?
  • Meaning exactly that.. flying aircraft specifically designed to chase submarines during World War II. I think this is explained clearly throughout. Codharris (talk)

• I don't. Which is I raised it. "operating as subchasers" might be clearer. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "U.S." > "US" throughout please.
  • While I don't think either is more correct, uniformity is desirable Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, as I look through the article, they all say "U.S.". If you think "US" is more appropriate, look at the footer on all WP articles... it uses U.S., so this is obviously an accepted abbreviation. Codharris (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• None of the other abbreviations you use (CTWG, CAP, NIMS, ICS, FEMA, LISP, DOS, GO, FM, DO, SE, HQ, AFROTC, CATO etc) uses points. Thus, US for consistency because, as you say, uniformity is desirable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Numbers under ten are usually given as words. ("2" > "two" etc)
  • I've checked for these before, but I'm bound to miss some... I'll check again. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Many of the spotted and attacked U-boats that were not sunk retreated" Recast more elegantly?
  • Something like "Those U-boats that remained after the attacks began to retreat"?

• Or even "the surviving U-boats began to retreat" .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the color of the Civil Air Patrol" > "the livery of"?
  • While more elegant, red and yellow were the actual colors of the CAP, not just the airplane scheme. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• !?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "After the war, the U.S. government officially recognized CAP as a civilian agency that would not participate in combat, such as the submarine chasing and occasional battles that had taken place during the second World War, giving the organization its first governmental connections." Convoluted?
  • Yes... and yet miraculously it is grammatically correct. This sentence's content fell under dispute during GAR and FAC, so it has received many changes and appendages. If you see a better way to state it, feel free. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "After the Second World War, the US government officially recognized CAP, for the first time, as a non-combatant civilian agency."? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also:

• The second paragraph of the lead is all peacock stuff. Anything more encyclopedic you could put in?
  • The first paragraph is a summary of the history, the second paragraph is a summary of significant accomplishments and demonstration of notability per WP:Notable. I see no peacockiness. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not merely summarize the content, section by section? This avoids the POV inherent in listing accomplishments. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry but I really dislike the over-printing on the Air Patrol logo. Official badge or not, it's messy.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

20th Engineer Brigade (United States)

Closed as Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-Nomination The article is a good GA, and has improved substantially over the past few months. -Ed! (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment looks promising but relies almost entirely on government/military sites as sources. Talking about the "enemy" (as in "destroyed over 6000 enemy bunkers") is POV. It also has many niggly little copy problems and needs a close copy edit.

• Use of (Combat)(Airborne) with no intervening space looks strange.
• Various day/month dates need wikilinking.
• Copy edit for punctuation (apostrophes; hyphens "7,700 soldier force" > "7,700-soldier force"; abbreviations: "U.S." > "US"; etc
• Not all units of measurement are converted: these need doing, including "one million tons of munitions".

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About the (Combat)(Airborne) thing, the problem is that that is the unit's official name, with both designations in seperate parenthises.There really isn't any other way to put it; that's what the unit is formally called. -Ed! (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment 'Unit' should be 'formation' throughout. Did you run this through a MILHIST peer review? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was under the impression that the A-class review would come with enough advice on its own. -Ed! (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. An A-class review will be much more cursory. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Is the information cited int he intro paragraph presented in the article body? If so, I would recommend removing the citation from the intro and citing the corrosponding info in the article body.
  • In the intro you have the following lines: "The brigade supported American forces for several years and a dozen campaigns of the Vietnam War, but was deactivated shortly after American forces withdrew from the country. Reactivated in 1967..." If memory serves, we (by which I mean the US) were still in Vietnam in 1967. This needs to be clarified.
  • Decide on a date format. You have an interchanging DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY format in the article, which according to MoS guidelines in unacceptable; it needs to be all the former style or all the latter. Additionaly, all dates formatted in this manner should be linked.
  • If you are citing an entire paragraph to a single source, consider putting only one cite at the end of the paragraph.
• Its a good start, but it still needs work; nonetheless I commend you for getting this far. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (2)

Prior nomination can be found here

This article has been up once before. I will have more time to listen to comments and suggestions, so feel free to post any. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved this A-Class review per naming conventions. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• The big neutrality tag at the top needs to be resolved.

The neutrality tag at the top was listed because there were not enough Union sources. I do not agree with this tag, because there are about 2 more CSA references over Union references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are outstanding "Citation needed" tags.
• There are bare references. They need formatting per Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• The WP:LEAD needs expansion I think.
• I would put the Campaignbox below the infobox. It looks better to me.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The images are sandwiched between text which is not allowed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other."
• Reference 15: www.wytheville.org/ Can't verify the text.
• All in all I would suggest a thorough peer review first. What is the current status on the neutrality issue? It seems to be unresolved given the lack of edits since the talkpage post. It cannot be passed as A without that issue being resolved. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a peer review, it did not say anything that was stated above. I'll work some of this out, though. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Here are a few comments. I agree with the comments above, although I do not understand the one regarding images and text; the suggested link does not point to information about that subject.

1. The infobox should include strength figures. You should provide citations for the casualty figures. The notation at the top should be "Part of the American Civil War".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I found the background section to be unusual because it divided everything between Union and Confederate. It is much more typical in Wikipedia battle articles to describe the organization separately, but the sequence of events leading to the battle in a common place.

1. What is the point of the notation (Local Time) in two instances?

This was suggested in the previous Assessment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the confusion that someone might think the Confederate army was working on Greenwich Mean Time. In the 2000+ ACW articles I know about, this is probably the only one that uses this convention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. You have four External Links labeled with the same title.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In Wikipedia Civil War articles, we do not use superscripts for unit names (which you use inconsistently).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia date formatting requirements do not allow referring to a date as "the 14th".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. We usually minimize the use of the title General when referring to officers. The first time we refer to them we use their specific title, such as Maj. Gen. George Stoneman, but subsequent references are to Stoneman, not General Stoneman.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Your links to both Confederate and Union do not go to the correct articles.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Try to avoid conditional verb forms, such as "the salt works would be destroyed". Past tense is fine for history article.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Avoid overutilizing the term Rebels (vs. Confederates).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In your Aftermath/Outcome section, I believe you are including campaign casualties, not simply this battle.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In my opinion, passages such as "Both armies yet again raised their battle cries" are colorful, but not usually found in encyclopedic writing. (There are some battles in which the Rebel Yell played a role in affecting Union morale, but I don't believe this is one of them.)

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In my personal style, which you are free to ignore if you do not wish your articles to look like mine, I list publications that are referred to by a number of citations in a References section and then use relatively abbreviated footnotes that consist only of the author and relevant page numbers, rather than repeating all of the publication information in each footnote. This does not apply to websites that are cited only once. In a related comment, I do not think I've ever seen a style of citation in which the name of the author came second.

Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will try and fix these, also. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Certainly, this article can't be promoted until that neutrality tag is removed. In my opinion, the lead should be expanded a bit and the current "Location" section should be a subsection of the "Background" section. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I talked about this above. The neutrality tag is only there because there are two more CSA sources than there are Union. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am editing this archive now as the above statement is untrue and I did not have an opportunity to address it until now. It has nothing to do with absolute number of sources, it is more a matter of the quality. POV tag will be going back up. Red Harvest (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed as out of scope - Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregory R. Ball

I submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a WP:Peer Review from WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST, and was recently promoted to GA-class by one of the most careful reviewers. I think that having other editors involved in the A-class portion of the review process will add critical feedback and make it even better. Mrprada911 (talk) MrPrada (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was not promoted. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

5th Army (Soviet Union)

Following a peer review (thanks, user:Carom) I think this article is ready for A-class consideration. Please tell me whether it's ready for A-class status, and if not, what I need to do to fix it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. (changed from support). The references need to be formatted correctly. Not a requirement for A class from me: I would suggest that if available the total number of troops in the army when it was formed and subsequent iterations be detailed and the approximate enlisted to officer ratio. Also, you might should peruse through, although you've probably done this already, images in the Commons and elsewhere to see if you can find some pictures of 5th Army troops in action. If not, you might include some maps from the battles the 5th Army participated in so that the article will have more illustrations. All, in all, good work. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments I gave it a fairly thorough copyedit and added a fair amount of interwiki links. Some remaining issues:

• In the infobox, is it standard to use commas between the engagements? It seems unnecessary since there are line breaks anyway.
• For 'Size' in the infobox, can you come up with some sort of summary? I understand it was variable over time, but there are at least two dates in the article where explicit composition is listed.
• I don't think Lelyushenko and Govarov should be mentioned in the lead, but if they are, use their full names and link them, please.
• "the Operation of Rzhev-Vyazma" should not be capitalized unless it's a named operation.
• The inline external link for Klin-Solnechogorsk offensive operation could use improvement. Surely a stub could be made?
• Section headers should be in sentence case - I don't think 'Battle of the Frontiers' and 'On the Offensive' qualify for caps.
• The long parenthetical lists of rifle divisions should be standardized in format; perhaps introduce RD as an abbreviation and stick with it throughout.
• Footnote formatting needs some work - they seem to indiscriminately switch from short format to long format. Either should be fine since the references are listed separately; just be consistent.

They're all written out in full at first reference, then switch to short form. I should have fixed the exceptions now.

• The References section needs work too: book names need italics; ISBNs would be helpful; and the 'further reading' link belongs in an External links section.
• Be careful when using 'however'. It's one of those stylistic habits that people fall into, but it often doesn't really add to the prose, and sometimes the word leans a sentence toward presenting a POV.

Thanks for an interesting read! I think it's ready for A once the style issues are addressed. Maralia (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

*Nominator's Note: Please can this be withdrawn from consideration for A-class; the issues raised will take a fair amount of time to work through. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (1)

I've been working on this article for quite a while, and I think that it could become an A-class article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • You mention that General Stoneman had his plan approved by his supior officers, but I do not see those officers mentioned anywhere in the article.
    •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider placing your inline citations after your punctuation marks rather than before them, IM(H)O this tends to make articles look better.
    •  Done - I actually used an automated script to correct them, and I haven't checked it, but I have faith in the script. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we have articles here for any of the officers or forces in the "preperations" section?
    •  DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the section "preperations" you make mention of 3:00 AM. I assume that was the local time, but it would probably be a good idea to put such a mention in the article.
    •  DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. One of my favorite battles. I will try and get you an Order of Battle to use for the article. However, I think the citations need to be properly formatted before I can support for A-class. Shouldn't take that long. MrPrada (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Really needs a copyedit for tone. You might also find that a more varied layout of images (perhaps some on the left?) adds to the visual appeal of the article. I would also see if a little more could be squeezed out of the lead. Carom (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also suggest adding the next-level above campaignbox that includes Stoneman's Raid campaign as one of its subcampaigs, if there is one. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. The graphics and such are nice, and the article has a good start with appropriate format. But there are still many issues:
  • The article appears to have been created from primarily CSA sources. Stoneman's O.R. report and other Union or neutral sources should be examined and cited where appropriate.
    •  Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) One of my main sources was primarily Union, but there are more.
      • This is not by any means "done"! The tone of the article is POV'ish and needs a rewrite that matches reality more closely. While I don't believe the POV is intentional, it is one sided in its present form. I've refrained from tagging it as such so far, but it is beginning to appear necessary. Red Harvest (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Stoneman's claimed accomplishments as result of the raid should probably be given some weight. Marvel states that the lead mines weren't back in service for six months. The salt operations were out of commission for at least a month and the railroads, depots, and locomotives of the region were destroyed so that salt couldn't be transported even if it could be made.
  • The sources that claim many Union charges and great carnage in their repulse fail to explain the low casualties. The intensity clearly wasn't there for such a long battle. Makes for a great romantic battle story, but the butcher's bill doesn't support it.
  • I'm also wary of the article's claim that the expressed primary motive for the raid was the massacre. The leadmines, iron works, and saltworks and associated rail transportation were all primary infrastructure targets. Some sort of primary sources/quotations should be added to support the assertion.
  • Since the Saltville battles are only a stub and there is no campaign article, the Marion article is serving for the whole raid. As such the events leading to the battle probably require more description to explain the paths coherently. (I've cleaned up many of the incorrect location listings already.)
  • The arrow on the map box does not represent the direction of the raid. Stoneman left from Knoxville, not West Virginia.
    •  Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Better, but the arrow is now coming from Arkansas and entering Kentucky, so it will need another revision. Red Harvest (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Troop counts of combatants at key points should be mentioned. Red Harvest (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Posada

Even if it's a quite short article, I think it could meet the requirements in my opinion. However, suggestions and comments would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks decent, with a few potential tweaks. If only for visual appeal, it should not be one block of text. I'd end the introduction with "For Wallachia, the victory meant the continual survival of the young state". Logically, then, the first point is the background of alliances, enmities, events, etc. before the battle. "In 1324, Wallachia was a vassal of Hungary, and Robert referred to Basarab as "our Transalpine Voivode."[3] That might start with "The war started with encouragement from the Voivode of Transylvania[5] and a certain Dionisie, who later bore the title Ban of Severin.[3] In 1330, Robert captured the Wallachian citadel of Severin and handled it to the Transylvanian Voivode."

The location needs to move down, perhaps to a heading Preliminaries and Battle.[5] Basarab sent envoys that asked for the hostilities to cease, and in return offered to pay 7,000 marks in silver, submit the fortress of Severin to Robert, and send his own son as hostage.[5] According to the Viennese Illuminated Chronicle, a contemporary account, Robert would have said about Basarab: He is the shepherd of my sheep, and I will take him out of his mountains, dragging him off his beard. Another account writes that Robert said that he will drag the Voivode from his cottage, as would any driver his oxen or shepherd his sheep.[5]

Even a brief Aftermath and significance section would help. You might restate the victory from the introduction. Add, minimally, the last sentence, and perhaps a bit more about the balance of regional power afterwards. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Length is not generally a problem, but as Howard points out, it should still really be divided into sections - he suggests "Background," "Battle" and "Aftermath," and that seems logical to me. The image that currently appears at the top left corner should probably be moved, as well. Carom (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to extend the lead somewhat? Carom (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit and think it covers now all the sections. Would there be anything else? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Remove the images of the commanders from the infobox. Wikify the use of bold text. Give the sources and dates of all images in their descriptions. Is this battle just such a short affair without any scholars researching the battle dispositions? And the numbers should be based on a historians work(with a reference!) since 30,000 Medieval soldiers being all killed by 10,000 shepherds without military training sounds like a fairytale. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agincourt was against trained soldiers(widely regarded as the elite of medieval archers, plus the infantry fought in a morast that hindered movement of the heavier armed French troops and thus allowed archers and billmen to kill them with swift attacks), not a levy of untrained shepherds and peasants (these were also unlikely to attack with swords, a weapon that does require a lot of training). Where is the source about how many were not professional soldiers and what were the arms of these professionals? I can read that it was an ambush, but still killing 30,000 with 10,000 is rather difficult. If there is a large contingent of archers(light infantry can be used with minimal training in formations as long as they have plenty of experience in aiming with their distance weapon) it could work(for example shepherds using the bow and shooting from above, that gives the arrow enough power to penetrate a gambeson), but that is the only weapon in medieval warfare that could do this. So all in all, it would be desireable if you found more sources on how exactly the troops were composed. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, read the article carefully before making such comments. Basarab's army was not formed of a "levy of untrained shepherds". As stated in the article, Basarab's army numbered less than 10,000 men and comprised of cavalry, pedestrian archers and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds. And, the source is mentioned. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can READ. You just mentioned that 70-80%("about 70-80% were sheperds") of his force were the levy. Where is THAT sourced? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And to make this article finally achieve A class you should try to find out how the Hungarian army was composed. I know that they were composed of lots of crossbow archers and heavy cavalry when facing the Mongols, but I don't know how it was at Posada. Furthermore the levy requires some more information whether in Wallachia the peasants and shepherds were allowed to hunt and use weapons(in many medieval European states these were restricted). Another point is the amarment of the Wallachian archers. On the contemporary images it looks like they wield recurve bows. Is that correct? A big question is how the entrapping was achieved. I think that small contingents of heavily armed warriors were needed to trap the Hungarians in the pass, but that's only guesswork. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong when I stated that the Wallachian army was composed of 70% shepherds. Djuvara says the Hungarian army is actually the main Hungarian army, excepting a contingent which was sent in Poland. I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article or not. The shepherds were recruited by Basarab on his way to the location of the battle, so were automatically allowed to carry weapons. However, in the XIV century Wallachia was a poor organized young state, so of course anyone was allowed to hunt and use weapons. Regarding the other details, i'll have a look over the sources, but I doubt such fine details are available. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine.

1.It would greatly benefit the article if you found out how many professional soldiers Basarab I had. I'm sure there are some estimates since we do know how much money he was willing to offer. A short note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry arms and that the country wasn't very organized would help to give the reader a better picture of the situation.

2. How did this defeat affect Hungary. Did the army composition or total number of troops change afterwards(and what was it during the battle)? Did they become more peaceful towards their neighbours? Did the king rule without much opposition because many nobles were dead? Was the king the only one to make good his escape?

3. What kind of weapons did the Wallachians wield(bows, polearms, long knifes, some swords)? They are depicted with recurve bows. Were these small or large recurve bows(could the same bows be used on horseback or not?Wandalstouring (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1.The only information we have is already mentioned in the article, "Basarab's army was formed of pedestrian archers, cavalry and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds". Sincerelly, a note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry weapons would be absurd in our case and not at all appropiate. We already mentioned in the article that Wallachia was a young country, and however, details about XIV century Wallachia can be found in the Wallachia main article.

2.Of course this battle didn't represent such a big disaster for Hungary, which was one of the most powerfull kingdoms in Europe at that time. Of course the Romanian source which I cited (Djuvara) doesn't give many details regarding the aftermath of the Hungarian side. Also I see no connection of King's rule after the battle with this article, as eventual internal problems resulting from this battle would have nothing to do with this article (as it would not necessary represent the aftermath).

3.Information available states that Wallachian pedestrian used bows. Actually, there was some controversies that the Wallachian warriors would have used lances, but this was later denied by Djuvara stating that this was imposible because the lance can be used only once, in close combat. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

3. That a lance can only be used once in close combat is new to me. It depends on where the enemy is hit(ribcage is the area were lances and other pointy weapons are sometimes trapped).

1,2&3. OK, your source dosn't mention all that. So try to get more sources, what you present is rather meagre regarding research.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop bickering. If this article was good someone would already have given support for its promotion. The issue with the bows is just minor, but good research could provide the answer. I don't think it is fit for A-class, but I try to help you. However, if researching the issue is too difficult, I can try that too, but this will take me some time because I have to finish other wikiwork. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources:

Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.

Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.

I think they probably discuss the location, but could contain useful info.

Bertényi Iván: Magyarország az Anjouk korában, Gondolat – 1987, ISBN 9633817761

Képes Krónika (Hasonmás kiadás), Helikon – 1987

I'm sure there are more recent Hungarian works.

The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz does also contain a section on the battle. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1324 there was an encounter between Basarab and Charles in which the Wallachian forces were defeated. That should be part of the background because it was also a dispute centered around Severin.

In 1337 Charles was in alliance with Poland against the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg. After such a crushing defeat it is worth mentioning.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the Hungarian successor the struggle continued, plus Wallachia was still officially under the Hungarian suzeranity. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Rezachevici is cited 9 times in Djuvara's book, and Johann de Thurocz also. Unfortunately, i'm unable to speak hungarian. However, Djuvara also gathered the most important Hungarian sources and chronicals. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try for example to quote directly what the primary sources say (look at Jean d'Arc for example). The Romanian wiki is full of quotes, perhaps there is something that can be used. Also the battles before and after this event should be mentioned as suggested and the legal status against the de facto status of Wallachia. I found a source on the arms in Eastern Europe during this time, however, it is not available in a library on the continent, so it will take some time to add info. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Objection and a to do list:

• Background: Mention Wallachian defeat in 1324 and the resulting suzeranity of Hungaria. Plus that this conflict was already about Severin.

• Battle: The narrative of the battle doesn't make sense. How can Wallachian warriors attack with swords when they are above the Hungarians, shooting arrows and throwing stones? Please check your sources whether there is any mention of one or two small contingents blocking the escape routes. Theory of the attack with lances should be briefly discussed(how did it originate and why is it dismissed).

The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz depicts a cavalry battle. Please check this source whether there is a description of cavalry encounters(entrace and exit?).

• Aftermath: Mention that Hungaria is in 1337 again at war, this time with the Holy Roman Empire, thus has rebuilt its army(short note about the immense financial power possible). Mention the de facto independence and the de jure suzeranity of the Hungarian king until the diplomatic dispute is solved (1340?).

Mention that under Charles's (died 1342) successor the military conflict with the Hungarian king would continue.

• Location of the battle: Create new section after the aftermath and mention the four theories where the battle possibly took place.

Check these sources for information and check the literature your sources used:

1. Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
2. Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.

• Armament: I found a source on the topic and thus possibly a section can be provided, however, a minor issue.

• Legal status of the peasants and shepherds: Whether or not they were allowed to carry arms has nothing to do how young a nation is. If they were allowed to have arms in contrast to other European subjects, than provide this with a source.
  • Unfortunately no such source exist. Since they were fighting, of course they could carry arms. Just tell me a XIV century state, in which the use of arms was prohibited (sourced).
• Citations: provide some appropriate citations from the primary sources (example: Jean d'Arc).

If you have done all demanded in this to do list (except the armament) then I have no more objections against promoting it to A class.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sincerelly, we shouldn't mention those four theories regarding the location of the battle because at least two of them are completely wrong (Djuvara concluded that the locations of Prahova and Argeş should be excluded).--Eurocopter (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As long as these theories exists we have to mention them, especially since other historians made them. If your source proves it wrong, we have to show how this sources proves the mistake. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with this, introducing false information in the article may disinform. So, i'd rather let this article fail this review rather than continue with this false. Just think, why would an army coming from Visegrád (going to Curtea de Argeş) choose a 600km-longer route through Valea Prahovei? Let's be serious.. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we include in this article all possible errors and misinformations made by historians through the time. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I assume that the source for Djuvara, Neagu. is actually Thocomerius - Negru Voda. Un voivod de origine cumana la inceputurile Tarii Romanesti (Bucharest: Humanitas. ISBN 978-973-50-1731-6) as this doesn't appear to be available in English. As this article is heavily reliant on this source, can you please make sure it complies with WP:RSUE? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it complies with WP:RSUE, as Djuvara is widely regarded as one of the best Romanian contemporany historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not the point as you'd see if you read the link :) It's about providing original text and translations for key material. This is easy enough to do using a second set of footnotes. This isn't a whim on my part by the way, it's policy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean ... that's always the case with cites though, trying to provide pointers for controversial stuff. It's a very hit and miss business, no matter what language :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. On the infobox title it says Slaughter of Posada when the article's name is Battle of Posada, it would be good if you changed it. Also in the lead it says Carol Robert. Does this refer to Charles Robert and if so it would be good if you could change it to keep consistancy. Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Heuschrecke 10

Prior nomination here and here.

I have done a lot of fixing and expanding of the article in question, and I believe that it meets the criteria fully now. See these two previous versions: One and Two. The current version is this one. ~ Dreamy ^§ 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There are repeated instances of stand alone metric measurements in the article, is there any chance we could get standard measurements for those of us who are metrically challanged?
  • In the first paragraph in the section "development" you have the phrase "on the chassis." Is there some particular reason why the word "on" is in italics?
  • Is there some particular reason why the specification chart is in the middle of the article?
  • There are no citations in the cancellation section. Were you unable to find any? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As TomStar notes, the "cancellation" section is in need of some references. The "description" section could also use some citations. You may also want to consider expanding the lead some, but it's not really a major complaint at the moment. Carom (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Object lack of refs, and the "Fortune City" Source is not RS at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Michael the Brave

I worked quite a lot at this article and think it is ready now for promotion. However, there might be few minor issues to be fixed (copyediting, etc), but i'm ready to take care of them. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article does indeed need a bit of copyediting; I made some very minor changes to the introduction, but left the rest alone. I'd be happy to do the copyediting if you'd like, but I thought you might prefer to not have other hands dabbling in your work. Anyway, yeah, there are a few things here and there, like in the Early Life section, where it says "Michael's political career was quite spectacular, he became the Ban of Mehedinţi..." It sounds piddling, but I think that comma after "spectacular" really needs to be a period or a semicolon, since "Michael's political career was quite spectacular" is a full sentence unto itself, both grammatically and in meaning. There's a point somewhere later where it says "allied" instead of "allies"; a simple typo I'm sure. ... Clean these things up, and the few other tiny mistakes scattered through the article, tighten up the phrasing here and there, and I'll definitely give my vote to Support the upgrade. Excellent work, my friend. LordAmeth (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed a bit the sentence mentioned by you, but i'm not really sure if it's ok now. As for that "allied" point, I couldn't find it, can you still see it? Or perhaps it was corrected until now...? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Found it and fixed it. LordAmeth (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers, would there be anything else? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Could you request that someone copyedit it for you? I did a little, but it looks like it's going to need a thorough going-over by someone perhaps a little familiar with the topic. Also, although eight references are listed, only one of them is really used for the article. Are the other references unavailable, or don't contain much useful information? Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I asked several editors to help me with this article, but unfortunately I didn't receive any help. See - 1, 2 and 3. Regarding the refs, actually 7 of them are used in the article. Giurescu is the most widely used because it's the best one. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would really appreciate some more comments in this review... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

United States Army

The article is extensive, has a large number of images and references, and is well sourced. It also has many blue links and very few red ones. -Ed! (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for now. I don't think there are enough references. The structure section is uncited as is the history section for the most part. That being said, the prose seems good and it seems comprehensive to me. I don't like the famous soldiers section, it is very subjective and not really neccessary in this article. Is there not a category? Woody (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This should be peer reviewed instead. The "See Also" section can be eliminated by integrating the links into the main body. Entire sections, as Woody observes, are completely unreferenced. The existing references need to be formatted per WP:CITE. SoLando (Talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the whole section about the Barbary Wars in the 1800s is out of place since only the navy and the marines did play any role in this conflict. An earlier invasion of the Algerian pirates in the US was solved without bloodshed by paycheck diplomacy, so all in all no reason for including this in an article about the army. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead should be expanded, and the article is quite unreferenced - we have entire sections unreferenced. I would also propose a peer review for it. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As Eurocopter said, needs peer review first and many more citations. Famous soldiers also should go to their own article or category. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I am finding silly errors or style errors in it (It lists the HQ of US Army North as being Houston, Texas? Is that right?). It does use a few odd phrases (It states the US army as having sent millions of men to the front in WW1 and being instrumental in the final push. Many US troops never even got to the front by the crucial phase of the war, milling about in rear assembly areas for training. The references are pretty darn poor as well. Could do with alot more inline considering how many qualifiers are in the text. Talking about future warrior like it will happen is almost comical as well. Apart from that though, on the whole it is well written and not /too/ far off. Narson (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, and Fifth Army/ARNORTH is indeed there. But all your other concern are valid. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Object not enough refs and the list of famous people who were also in the army needs to be removed. Especially anyone in the their 20s in the 1940s would very likely have served and then you would end up with a massive list of Americans born between 1915 and 1920 roughly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous editors. It needs a hard-nosed peer review. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Demoted

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

La Grande Armée

Closed as Demoted - Cam ^(Chat) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.

Prior nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/La Grande Armée/archive1

Older promotion, needs re-assessment. DrKiernan (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Demote; the article has absolutely no referencing, and it was demoted from Good Article status. The prose is not very good, and the organization of the article is poor (a lot of it is composed of lists and such). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps major editors should be warned? JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Demote - I initially thought this was actually up for promotion, and I was shocked; there are entire sections missing citations, and if it can't even keep a GA nomination, then it surely isn't A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Demote - Massively lacking in citations and referencing. Prose is also a concern. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group

Reappraisal review: this review has been restarted because the article may no longer meet the A-class criteria and no consensus was reached at the previous reappraisal discussion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers: Please say whether Milhist should Keep or Demote this article. Reviewers should satisfy themselves that the article fails on at least one A-class criterion before recommending Demote and should explain their reasons when commenting.

Demote At least A1 not met. Also, instead of opening again a review which, to be realistic, will have the same result, we should take care of the other articles in our showcase currently not meeting the criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, and only in this instance, it was re-opened so because several people believe there was no consensus to demote. If the end result is the same as before, but with consensus, all that has been wasted is a few minutes' time in commenting and we have gained by having an outcome that is beyond criticism. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Demote The article is not cited in many places, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria for A4 either (not the prose itself, but the style that it's presented). JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Demote per Jon & Euro. Cam ^(Chat) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group

Reappraisal review restarted, per consensus at WT:MHCOORD --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Demoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was promoted to A-class in October 2006. However, presently it no longer meets A-class criteria A1 and A5, so I would suggest demotion. Inputs are welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• As the author of the previous A-Class article, I'm just curious as to why an article of this length, with as mant footnotes as it has (70+), was demoted to a start-class article. What, no B? Sorry that some of the images (which were given attributions as U.S. Government produced) have been deleted by whoever (or whatever) gets off on that kind of thing. As to the annotations, nothing I can (or will) do about that. That's just the way they taught me in grad school.RM Gillespie (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It was automatically assessed as start class when I opened the A-class review. However, I think it meets all B-class criteria so I'll reassess it. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tent pegging

Previous nomination

This article is rated A-class since September 2006. However, it does not meet the A-class criteria anymore and it might even not fall within our scope. Opinions whether this article should be demoted or not would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the first time we've done this. Easiest I think is if we simply approach this as a second run for A-Class, with reviewers indicating Keep for confirmation at A-Class or Demote for demotion to Start. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I agree. It has a poor lead and the paragraphs seem more organised on the lines of a listed facts. For example, the three 'paragraphs' in the Essential Rules section are just three run-on sentences. I think that some of the references are misplaced, for example reference 5 - shouldn't it be at the end of the paragraph, to note that it all comes from that source? Even then, some statements are completely unsourced and that is certainly not up to A-class or even Good Article standards. In fact, B-class articles require complete referencing, if I'm not mistaken (according to the WP:MilHist standards). I do think, however, that this falls without our scope since it seems to have been practiced by military cavalrymen. It should, however, probably have a section which specializes on that topic. In any case, it seems as if the article was given a A-class status without a review, and that itself should mean that it was never an A-class article to begin with. It was not even given a Good Article review; it went straight to FAC and did not get promoted. JonCatalan (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It went through a Previous nomination here which was very loose, as were most at the time. It certainly doesn't have to go through GA, which at that time, was not held in high regard, nor was it that active. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote: Doesn't really cut the mustard. Barely adequate prose and not exactly comprehensive. Of only tangential relevance to Milhist. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote Too many short paragraphs, not great prose wise, has large gaps in the topic e.g. cavalry history etc. Woody (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Demote As per Woody. The article has a great many gaps, far too few citations, and the lead is a mess. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Demote --Eurocopter (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.