Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Promoted
 | This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |  |
Promoted
[edit]- 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)
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 wingto 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
highlydecorated expert pilot (Experten) with 127 killsto his name. Several pilots associated with this unit received honors such as the Knight's Cross of the Iron Crossand 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
CommentsSupport- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- 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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
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)
CommentSupport- "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.
- 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.
- ... On my laptop and this old cluncker that I have to use now, they aren't sandwiched...
- "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.
- Is the para better now? I did a quick run-through...(hope it wasn't too quick...)
- "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)
- 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.
- The reference/in-line citation...?
- 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
- "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".
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..."
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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?
CommentSupport- "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.
- 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.
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)
- Good work, moving closer to support, I have replied on point two above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:09, 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.
- 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)
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.
- "Herodotus VI, 43" - what book?
- 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)
- I shortened the lead. I hope you agree with my version. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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'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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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
- Page numbers for refs 65-68 (or whatever these become)
Fix hyperlinks in the referencesAdd ndashes to references- Sources which play down the significance of Salamis
- Source suggesting supply of the army by sea (?)
- Add other primary sources in 'Sources' section
- 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.
- 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! :)
- 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)
- See the '"Large cruisers" or "battlecruisers"?' section....
- "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)
- Not "See also"! See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices.
- 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...
- Trekphiler went through and removed a lot + I got some, but apparently there are more. :) I'll hunt for them.
- 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)
- Yeah, I thought that too... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 22:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, then. (Too bad they can't be sequential letters.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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'?
— 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)
- The info does not appear further down. :)
- 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
- Will do tommorow..as you said (I think you said, Mr. Typo King), it shouldn't be too hard. :)
- 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.
- Otherwise it look good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support as the article has now been tightened.
CommentsI 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)
- Ask FTC Gerry (talk · contribs), he may be able to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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?
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.
- 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)
- I removed a coyuple of "was". All that is left is a string of facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't understand. Innes has an access date in the sources at the bottom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
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.
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).
- 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
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.
- Our government at work. =) Cheers, the_ed17 03:32, 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)
- She killed her own brethren?!?!? =D Thanks MBK004!!! the_ed17 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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
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)
- Alright then,
- 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.
- '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 makes the following sources reliable?
- 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)
- Thanks! the_ed17 00:55, 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.
- 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]"
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)
- ...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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Where does it say that? Regardless, though, I changed it.
- 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)
- Done. What you think now? --Brad (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. =) Thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 22:37, 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)
- 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)
- The article meets the term {{Quotefarm}} in its present state. --Brad (talk) 01:25, 14 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- It needs some citations in the lead.
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 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)
- Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)
2nd Canadian Division during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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)
- @Anotherclown: Does that address your concerns regarding casualties? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 10 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)
- 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)
- Awesome! Thank you, both. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 3 December 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 haven't come across anything, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- "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)
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)
- 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)
- "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.
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.
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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 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
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Battle of Strasbourg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
Image review
[edit]- 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
[edit]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
[edit]- 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
[edit]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
[edit]- 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.
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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 -
- I made Verdeja 2 H3 and changed the overall H2 header to 'Develope of the tank'.
- Done!
- I cleared it up in the footnote, since it would have been a bit clunky to add it to the text.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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!
- 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).
- 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)
- Thanks! Here is a point by point response/confirmation -
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)
- 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)
- 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.
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)
- As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
- 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.
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:
- 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.
- "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.")
- 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).
- 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."
![[25]](http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://vietnamresearch.com/flame/info/flamethrower-boat.jpg&imgrefurl=http://vietnamresearch.com/flame/info/history1.html&h=298&w=400&sz=14&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=QBnLS_Qn6y2VWM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflamethrower%2Bnavy%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2006-30,GGLR:en%26sa%3DG){kind=link}
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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 '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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (My replies interspersed — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 4 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 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)
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Schierbecker (talk)
Heuschrecke 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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.
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)
- 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.
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 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
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)
Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
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.
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)
- 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;
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.