Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2009/Promoted

Promoted

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lebaudy Patrie

Nominator(s): TraceyR (talk)I am nominating this article because it timed out first time round (A-class criteria) TraceyR (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Prior nomination here.

Support: This review should be largely a formality as the article's already passed WP Aviation's A-class criteria. Article meets our standards and author has addressed previous comments, I acknowledge there are a few details to be ironed out if the author wants to go for FA. I also acknowledge my involvement in this article, however I have actually made very few edits. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Sorry, forgot about this one here - agree with Ryan, this passed an Aviation ACR (I reviewed and eventually supported it there as well) so this really should be a formality if we're serious about accepting each other's ACR assessments as we've been discussing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, however, there are many sandwiched images in the Steering and Propulsion section, please move some. – Joe N 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I supported this for A class last time it was nominated and I see no reason not to support now. It has passed an Aviation A class review and seems to meet the Mil hist project criteria too. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Eaton (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another RAAF character known not only for his exploits in the air but for never being afraid to speak his mind, perhaps not unlike fellow Group Captain John Lerew... Any and all comments welcome! Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for an A-class review for a GA review? I don't think the banner has been updated. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Both actually. Generally a MilHist ACR gets attention from reviewers far quicker than a GAN, so some of us list them simultaneously. When you say the banner hasn't been updated, I presume you mean the Aviation one in the article's talk page. That's because I'm using the one ACR, generated from MilHist and transcluded at Aviation, the aim being it gets one ACR instead of a MilHist one and then an Aviation one, per the Aviation talk page where we discussed cross-listing ACRs and both projects accepting the other's A-Class assessment (similar to a long-standing process/agreement between MilHist and the Ships wikiproject). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments – a fantastic article on a highly interesting man, just a few comments:

• Although I can probably quess the answer, is there any further information available on Eaton's early life and service during the First World War?
  • Yes there is more online, but unfortunately not from what I think we can term a reliable source, and the only other reliable source I haven't employed, his record from the NAA, is very light on in the British service dept (understandably).
    • Nothing more from his bio (Farram 2007)? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Heh, with that one, excellent as it is, it's all in the subtitle - it concentrates on his involvement with the Northern Territory (the search-and-rescues 1929-31, Darwin 1939-40, 79WG 1943-44) and skirts over the rest... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• "He resigned from the RAF in July the following year" - It might be an idea to actually clarify the year here, as the last time a year was mentioned was several lines previously.
  • Sounds fair.
• As there was about a five year break in his military service, Eaton's exact years of service should be desplayed in the infobox, I think, rather than the slightly misleading generalised one.
  • That's probably fair as well.
• Is his rank on enlistment in the RAAF known? If not, it should be clarified that he entered as an officer. Also, are any of his ranks while serving with the British Army, RFC or RAF known? Although I presume he was commissioned on gaining his wings, is this information available?
  • See first point, apart from AWM mentioning he was a Lieut. Oops, and Flying Officer in RAAF, forgot that one...
• "Eaton was involved in promotional work" - Would you be able to clarify what this type of work was/what Eaton did in this employment?
  • ADB just says "company promoter".
• The presentation of access dates for the cites are inconsistent.
  • Will check, no doubt due template inconsistencies again...

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tks for review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • All actioned that can be actioned, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Switched to support. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Yet another great article Ian. As usual, I have some comments you may wish to consider:
  • "he transferred to the newly formed Royal Air Force that April" seems unnecessary given that the RFC was redesignated the RAF - writing "he transferred" implies that he did something to move to the new organisation.
    • Agree, how about "was transferred", or did you have other wording in mind?
  • "When Fairbairn died in the Canberra air disaster shortly afterwards, his pilot was Flight Lieutenant Robert Hitchcock, son of Bob Hitchcock of the Kookaburra and also a former member of Eaton's No. 21 Squadron" - I think that this could be cut as it doesn't have anything directly to do with Eaton
    • It's true it's in the "odd coincidence" dept and including it was an afterthought on my part, but since the source highlighted it in this fashion I didn't think it was too out of place.
  • Can any more details on Eaton's transfer from No. 72 Wing be added? - it seems like a serious matter to move such a senior officer from a combat formation he'd raised to a training school
    • ADB, already employed, is my main source for this; Odgers is conspicuously silent.
  • No. 79 Wing also took part in the North Western Area Campaign
    • Okay.
  • The last para in the 'World War II' section may need to be reworked a bit; only one U-boat operated in the area (something the Allies were aware of at the time thanks to code breaking) and its appearance led to the renewal of intensive maritime patrols, which had been largely abandoned in late 1943. I might tweak this a bit using material from David Stevens excellent book on the ASW campaign around Australia. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Be more than happy for you to tweak a bit if you have additional info; I believe the para was a reasonable summation of Odgers but if there are other sources... Tks for review/spt, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - Comments

• Ref #7 (World War II Nominal Roll) needs a publisher.
  • The way I've done it here is the same as other online refs I've used in prev A/FA articles, and the same as ref #3 in this article so I would've thought it was adequate as is...
• Early life and World War I section, "rejoining his squadron in the dying days of the war." "dying days" is an odd phrasing - I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of last days, but could this be put in a more specific way?
• Between the wars section, "who was subsequently discovered safe." Again, odd phrasing. I assume you mean that, when discovered, he was alive and well?
• World War II, "unload ships in Port Darwin during industrial action". Does "industrial action" mean a strike?
• Same section, "Eaton was recommended to be Mentioned in Despatches on 28 October 1944 for his "Gallant and distinguished service" in NWA, promulgated in the London Gazette on 9 March 1945." This sentence jumps directly from the recommendation to the promulgation, with nothing in-between. Perhaps something like "...the recommendation was accepted, and the mention was promulgated..."?
  • All others done.

Just a few comments - overall this is a very nice article. Once these have been taken care of, I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tks for review, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Everything above looks good, so I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ostrach

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets the requirements, and it fills a gap in War of the Second Coalition coverage. It's been through GA. It's had a DYK. As usual, I won't do the funky templates that add a,b,c,d, etc. on the references. It makes me crazy to read those articles, and add to them, so I don't use them myself. Sources are cited in full for the first reference, and after that are listed in abbreviated form. Bibliography and External links include the sources I used. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

First comments:

• No dabs! HOORAY!!!
• Holy Week, add link done
• Lake Constance and Ulm, add links they are linked at first instance, I think....

• now they're linked

• </ref>Cust, p. 166.</ref> fix reference done
• Casualties and losses in the info box, where did you get the numbers from? Smith. cited
• check alt on images, the flag of France needs an unlink or alt text these are decorative and don't require an alt text, right?

• unlinked now

• 4.7 miles (8 km) versus 48 kilometres (30 mi), make it consistent, either miles first or kilometres

• fixed

• later reported in the Times - could you link to the respective article?

More to follow. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Anotherclown

Top effort, a few very minor points:

• Shouldn't 'Austrian Advance Guard' be lowercase? For instance I think it should be Austrian advance guard (3rd para in Prelude); done
• Shouldn't '8th regiment of Chasseurs à Cheval' be capitalised? For instance 8th Regiment of Chasseur à Cheval? done
• Shouldn't '7th company of sappers' be capitalised? As above. yes.done
• Alt text could possibly be improved to be more discriptive. For instance the map is currently given the alt text 'Southwestern Germany, where troops wintered in the east, and troops on the west bank of a wide river; the troops converged at a point in the center.' Maybe include that it is a map? Remember alt text is for the vision impaired. okay now, I hope
• Is the name LeFebvre or Lefebvre - both used in text? done

I hope thise helps. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very much. Thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Well written and comprehensive. Anotherclown (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101

A very good article, although the prose needs quite a bit of work. I have provided the most serious issues below. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• "French forces suffered significant losses" - repetition of "French forces". Try "The French Army" instead. done
• "his men seemed to disappear in a cloud of redcoats," - can we have an actual quote, with a cite, here? see citation 42 I've removed reference from it in the lead.
• "evening of day two," - try "evening of the second day"
• Add a piped link to the Battle of Stockach (1799) in the lead. ummmm....there is...See: Austrian victory
• "who had succeeded Joseph as Emperor a year earlier," - which year are we talking about here? fixed
• I'm not convinced you need to give so much information about the lead up to the War of the First Coalition, particularly when you give absolutely no information about the start of the War of the Second Coalition, of which this was the first battle.
• When the terms "Emperor" and "Archduke" are in reference to a specific person, they should be capitalised (they are proper nouns in this instance)
• "a fourth advanced" - "a fourth column advanced". done
• "By the 11th, the" - on Wikipedia, use the format "By 11 March, the" - this needs to be addressed at several points in the text. Yes, but then I'll have "March twice (or more) in the same sentence, which probably falls under MOS:redundancy. (if there is such a thing).
• "a couple of other points he considered strategic," - Either name them, give a number, or say "several" instead of "a couple" they had just been mentioned above, but I repeated it again.
• "he thought the main" - "Jourdan thought that the main" done
• "center more or less at" - "center approximately at" done
• "General Ferino's men, encountered" - remove the comma done
• "that lasted nearly the day." - "that lasted most of the day." done
• Make sure that all of the towns and villages mentioned have wikilinks - this helps a reader who wants to establish a sense of place more precisely. many have no wikiarticles, but I've tried to identify them with hidden geotags and milage.
• "42 squadrons attacked the French line" - an "and" missing here? yes; fixed.
• "Jourdan wrote that his men disappeared under a cloud of red coats" - can you quote this? It is cited specifically. See cite #42.
• "no one seems quite clear" - "no sources are clear" done
• "the decision could not be argued" - which way? Don't leave us in suspense! suspense removed
• Is source 70 the town's offical website? yes.

Will deal with the rest later tonight or tomorrow. THANKS! Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They should be fixed now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that this article meets A class criteria. I made a couple of minor tweaks myself rather than bring them here as they were very minor. Congratulations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What else needs to happen with this article? Any more comments and suggestions? Auntieruth55 (talk) 04

09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

James Whiteside McCay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another Australian military biography. Who was the most prominent politician on the beach on Anzac Day, 25 April 1915? James Whiteside McCay. A man who could have been great, but wasn't that good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - Comments:

• Citation and cite xxx templates should not be mixed, as their codes don't play well together.
  • They should all be citations. Which one is wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a cite web template in the Gallipoli section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Converted to citation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Education and early life, "John Monash would be dux the following year.". This sentence feels completely out of place and randomly dropped into the article. Would you please either remove it or add a short bit on why this is relevant to an article on McCay? I see that there is more information on the relationship between the two men in the Military section, but it would be nice to have some foreshadowing in this earlier section.
  • That's the idea. It foreshadows a long and important (to the country and the Army) relationship between the two men. I'll see what I can come up with. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Added a few words on Australia's best-known soldier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "daughter of a Roman Catholic Kyneton, Victoria police magistrate." Why does it matter what religion his father-in-law was?
  • Because his family were Ulster protestants. The trouble I have with writing these kind of articles is that I'm talking about my city, my Army, my country, my people really. So I know what it means to go to Scotch College or the University of Melbourne, or to have a Collins Street address, or to know the Baillieu family... I have to try and convey that somehow... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Added a few words and linked to an article on sectarianism in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Military career, "McCay and Monash became close. In 1912, McCay & Thwaites moved into offices at 360 Collins Street, where businesses associated with the Baillieu family were located. Monash moved his offices into the same building, and the two became close friends." The first sentence and the end of the last sentence are repetitive.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Western front, "subjecting them to such a humiliating and severe trail." Is this supposed to be "trial" or "trail"?
  • Trial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "These depots reinforcements arriving from Australia". What?
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "McCay established his headquarters at Tidworth, in the heart of the Salisbury Plain are where most of the Australian camps were located." Again, what?
  • Removed "are" Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just as a curiosity, why did he destroy his papers?
  • Well the conspiracy theory (viz Robin Corfield) is that they contained embarrassing documents. But no one knows... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Another nice article, with just a few issues before I will support for A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to support this article when the remaining issues (those not struck) have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

All of my comments have been satisfied, and I have added my support. Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Regarding the alt text for File:James mccay.jpg, I wouldn't exactly call McCay a "young man".
  • Changed text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the lead, you need to clarify that this is the First World War.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "which he led in the disastrous Battle of Fromelles" - although it may be the case that the battle was "disastrous", this is a little POV.
  • Hardly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "in Ballynure, County Antrim, Ulster, Ireland" - do we really need four areas/provences?
  • A Scots editor User:Mais oui! put it in back in November 2005. I defer to his superior local knowledge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Deleted "Ulster". The problem was that he was born in Ireland, but that where he was born is not in Ireland today. I have the same problem with a couple of other generals. I decided to delete "Ulster" because it adds little, Ulter and Northern Ireland not being coterminous. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think this is a little over the top; a maximum of three is enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Boyd McCay later continued his theological studies" - is this meant to mean that the was a break in the studies when he moved to Australia, or he continued them in Australia?
  • Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "and brother James" - is James correct? It just seems a little unusual one would name two of their children the same thing ...
  • Ooops. Wrong brother. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "no mean feat for someone who" - "no mean feat" is a little POV.
  • I don't accept that it is POV. But on reflection I thought it was a little PEACOCK-ish. So I have changed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "calling war an "anachronism"" - is that regarding war in general, or just the Second Boer War?
  • Added "in general" but I don't think it sounds as good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "For some reason, McCay preferred that the senior member not be styled the Chief of the General Staff." - this seems a little random, particularly with the "some reason".
  • Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Richard Crouch, another Protectionist, who won convincingly." - this is slightly ambigious, and should be tweaked to fully point out that Crouch won.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Military career" section, I would recommend that a "First World War" or "Great War" level three heading be added, and the "Gallipoli" and "Western Front" headings be changed to level fours.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• It needs to be clarified in the "Gallipoli" section that you are actually talking about the outbreak of the First World War.
  • Done. The Great War is the only one most people kno about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "McCay therefore did not step ashore until about 6:00" - was that morning or evening? Also, when was he supposed to land? There is no previos time given, so the "6:00" means very little.
  • About an hour earlier. 06:00 is in the morning; the evening is 18:00. The colon is some Wikipedia style thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I know 24 hour times. However, without the initial "0" it was slightly ambigious. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Added the leading zero. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• You need to clarify who Hamilton was.
  • I added a bit, but it doesn't really clarify things. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the parapraph on the Second Battle of Krithia, the use of "doomed" and "great courage" is highly POV.
  • Deleted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "All of staff were killed or wounded" - gramma issue there.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "He rejoined him brigade at Anzac" - same here.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "walking with the aid of a walking stick" - the second "walking" is redundant.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "McCay's wife Julia died followed, several weeks later, by his father" - another grammatical issue.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• Are there any further/specific details on his honours at Gallipoli?
  • A bit. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• "the duration of training to twelve weeks" - what was it previously?
  • Hard to say. There appears to have been no national curriculum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More comments to follow when I have the time. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - detailed and well-written/structured/cited/illustrated. I just have a couple of minor comments:

• Intro: I think too many "Anzac"s in first sentence of lead's second para. Maybe drop "was an original Anzac"...
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Great War: I think it's more common to use the term First World War, isn't it? Not really that fussed though as long as it's consistent.
  • Well it's consistent so long as we don't need to mention the War against Fascism and Militarism Second World War. In Australia we always referred to the big one as the Great War. Even, in fact, before it began. Hence many conversations like this with my grandfather:

    Hey, George, when did the red rattlers first start running?

    Just after the war.

    Er, which war was that?

    Great War.

• However I am a bit dubious about the way "Anzac Day" is used, as though it was called that from the moment of the first landings.
  • Pretty much. You have to remember that the only campaign most people have heard of is Gallipoli. Several millions of dollars spent on "Australia remembers" failed to dredge up much about the Second World War, except for Kokoda (the track, not the battle). Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway, great work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Btw, my favourite blue orchids are Rooney and Dale. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: an excellent biography that I believe meets A class criteria. I have one point that I feel needs fixing/explaining, however:
  • The References section appears to be slightly out of order (Ross appears before Pedersen) when it should be P before R if it is to be in alphabetical order. Is there a reason for this, or is it a mistake? Also the McCay pubication appears in bold, should this be like that? Other than that everything seems to be in order. Congratulations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The order in the bibliography was right; the given and surnames were round the wrong way. Corrected this. And McCay's name is emboldened because this is his page. This could be fixed by removing the author link but then you wouldn't be able to cut and paste it into another page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. No major readability problems, good job. – Joe N 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Battle of Bita Paka

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it meets the criteria and covers the topic fairly well. Article underwent a GAR previously and I believe all major issues that arose have now been delt with. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments I found this article engaging and interesting to read. Having spent so much time with Hermann Detzner it was interesting to read about other aspects of the unsuccessful German defense of Kaiser Wilhelmsland in 1914. That said, while you've addressed some of the pov issues I raised during the abortive GA review (if I remember correctly, someone nominated the article before it was ready), there is still some work to be done with balance.

The statement about looting and destruction of civilian property (Hiery cite) and in the last section: Later it was alleged that the heavy losses among the Melanesian troops was the result of the Australians bayoneting all those they had captured, here you cited Hiery and Coulthard-Clark, reasonably, but I think the article would be improved by an expansion of this controversy. The Australian government ultimately conducted a major investigation of these charges, and there are reports available (even online, I think). I suggest that this be given more coverage.

Struggling to find anything on the investigation. I'll have to admit that you seem to know more about it than I do. Any suggestions on where to start? I have ordered a few books but they will take a while to ship from the US. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The initial report in the Melbourne Argus is here. (In Trove (as in Treasure Trove).) The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954 Friday 23 April 1915 ). I thought it warranted coverage. There was a huge invesstigation that eventually wrapped up after the war. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Second, in the assessment category, perhaps Hiery contains some information on the assessment of the German resistance? I'm not sure if he does.

I do think this needs some addition. Certainly the Germans might or might not have learned something from this. But what were their problems in protecting the colony from invasion? I realize it is "unpopular" to think about the German position vis a vis WWI, but if we are going to fair, don't you think we should? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I dug into my notes on Detzner, and the story is this: during and after the war a Judge Murray investigated (in a commission) the allegations of looting etc. of the German, Chinese and Japanese properties, and of the manner in which the natives were treated.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954) November 14, 1919. page 7. Although this particular article deals with the allegations that intertwined with Hermann Detzner, I did stumble on other material relating to Murray's commission that would be useful. All in the Argus. Murray was the Lt. Gov of the territory, and he was appointed in August to investigate the problems of non-British plantation owners. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support for the article. I'm bringing these issues up now, because they will come up at FA if you decide to go that far. The pov needs to be dealt with, not simply relating to the property and allegations against the Australian soldiers and officers (npov for Aftermath), but also vis a vis the assessment. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit in the assessment. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dabs: 1 Dab on bird of paradise Alt text: alt text on first picture, with the soldier marching with the older woman, needs better description. Alt text of 3 officers outside the wireless station is also ambiguous. Really not clear the men are officers, nor is the timing of the picture clear from looking at it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Dabs and alt text done now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support: A well written, illustrated and cited article in my opinion. I have no specific knowledge of the subject, so my review is largely technical. My comments are below:
  • as per above, I found no dabs, external links all worked and alt text is present; (no action required)
  • should the names of German ships (SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau in Prelude section) be italised as the Australian ships are?

Yes, done now.

• • in Footnote 3, is there a page reference/citation for Hiery's suggestion?

More a synopsis of the work in general.

• • per WP:MOS generally values below 10 should be spelled, while 10 and above should use numbers. An example in Prelude section where this is not done "The Bita Paka radio station itself was occupied by 8 Germans and 60 Melanesians...". In the Battle section, "party, consisting of 2 officers and 25 naval reservists was". In the Assessment section, "and one German and ten Melanesians wounded".

Done.

• • the use of 24 hour time might be made clearer for lay readers by adding "hours" after it, or "h" [one might accuse you of leaving an "h" off the parade state, otherwise...:-) ]

Not sure about this. Is there consensus about this format? I'll check the MOS again. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The MOS seems silent on this, so I'd just leave it as you have it already. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• The alt text needs some work. Per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid, phrases like "black and white photo of" should be avoided. Per WP:ALT#Verifiability, everything that the alt text describes should be able to be verified by a non expert looking at the image with no other information given. So, the first image in the Battle section currently has the alt text "German soldiers marching through the jungles of New Britain". A non-expert would probably not be able to tell you these soldiers were German, and they definitely wouldn't be able to tell you they were in New Britain. Several of the images have issues with this second concern. The map of Bita Paka needs some work, as it doesn't really describe what the map is showing. See WP:ALT#Maps for examples. Also, there is something wrong with the formatting in the image in the Aftermath section that is making the alt text show up as the caption. I can't figure out what the problem is, however.

Done now. Alt text is not my strong suit, please have a look. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ref #3 (Deutsch-Neuguinea) needs a publisher and the addition of the fact that it is in German (this can be done using the "language=" parameter). Since I can't read German, could you tell me who publishes this source and what makes it reliable?

Valid concern. Not sure who published it etc. I have included another source to hopefully take care of this. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Since Ref #41 (Australians at Rabaul) is in English, it doesn't need to note the language - this only needs to be done for non-English sources.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lead, first sentence of the second paragraph is a run-on, please split.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lead, first sentene of the third paragraph, too many "and"s.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Background, "now entirely part of Papua New Guinea." "Entirely" is redundant, just say they are "now part of"

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section, "First established in 1884 the main part of the". Need a comma after 1884.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section, "by Kaiser-Wilhelmsland, the north-eastern part New Guinea." Not sure what is trying to be said here.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section, "On 17 May 1885 the". Needs comma after year.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section, "On 1 April 1899 the German". Again, comma after year.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same section, "in the colony, while there was". I think that "and" would work better than "while" here, or splitting it into two sentences would work even better. "While" just doesn't fit properly.

Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am opposing mainly based on prose. In just the lead and Background sections (I stopped after that) I found multiple instances of run-on sentences, redundancy and proper punctuation (mainly commas not being used after full dates). This article needs a thorough look-over for punctuation and prose issues. Also a few issues with alt text and references, but these are minor. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I will have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support this is an excellent article which easily meets the A-class criteria. I have a few comments you may wish to consider:
  • The first sentence is a bit awkward - I'd suggest that you tweak it so that 'Bita Paka' isn't repeated

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Bita Paka Map.JPG is almost certainly replaceable with a free image (for instance, this PD image could be edited to include Bita Paka).
  • The second para in the 'Assessment' section should be removed as it has nothing to do with the topic of the article

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • In regards to the last sentence, I'm surprised that there's any doubt that most Germans would have regarded the skirmishes in the Pacific as a side show; at the time this battle was fought German and French army groups were engaged in intense combat. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

re last sentence: Arguably, just as many Australians felt that "the real war was in Europe", so too may have done many Germans. >Arguably, although certainly there were lessons learned and mistakes made, Australians and Germans considered that "the real war was in Europe". Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 11:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Baker (aviator)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now meets the criteria. I just launched this article on an Australian soldier, aviator and flying ace of the First World War into the mainspace last night after quite a bit of work in my sandbox. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Recently reviewed and passed this for GA, and see no reason for it not to get the nod at A-Class level as well. Structure, prose, detail, referencing and illustration are all up to standard. Dabs, external links and alt text all okay according to checkers. My one very minor caveat is that for this level I'll want to check out another source in the Mitchell that I use for ace bios, on the chance there may be anything further to add, but I expect this'd be more in the nature of detail than anything fundamental. Well done as usual! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian; living in a somewhat regional area kind of prevents access to decent libraries. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Newton's Australian Air Aces (p.20) summarises his score as 7 aircraft and 1 balloon destroyed plus 4 aircraft out of control, with 8 of the victories being over the "formidable" Fokker DVII. That's all he adds to what you have and I don't think it's that vital since you go into some detail with the combats, but FWIW... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support: a well written, cited and illustrated biography which meets A class criteria in my opinion. I only have a couple of comments:
  • the name "Garrison" is spelt differently in the Notes (Citation # 4) and References section;
    • Good spot; fixed. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 11th Royal Australian Engineers? This term seems a little strange to me, could it perhaps be 11th Field Company, Royal Australian Engineers? Does the source specifically state "11th Royal Australian Engineers?"
    • Yes, I thought that was a little unusual too, but that's what the source states. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Australian Imperial Force section, "the Australian's frontline". This sounds like it was the front line of an individual Australian. Perhaps better worded as "the Australian frontline"?
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "Baker was admitted to hospital suffering from an illness". Do we know what illness?
  • His service record is a little confusing, and I'm not completely sure what the illness was, but I do know he did develop a fever. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Australian Flying Corps, "concluded that 37 German aeroplanes alone". I'm not sure what is trying to be said here.
  • I think I wrote that, and I don't know what I was trying to say, except perhaps implying that there was damage to other things as well - removed "alone" for simplicity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that was your tweaked version of my dodgy version, Ian! Lol. Thanks for fixing that. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A very nice article. I would like to see the above comments resolved, but I am still entering my support as I believe this article to currently be of A-class. Dana boomer (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Dana. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wrigley

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating for ACR this article on one of the RAAF's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out why!) Any and all comments welcome... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is another great article, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach the A-class criteria:
  • Did Wrigley play any part in the discussions over whether a female branch of the RAAF should be formed?
    • Most of the info centers on his selection of Director but I can probably mine my WAAAF source book for a bit more on his part in the overall organisation.
      • As foreshadowed above, basically able to flesh out the selection of Director. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What was Wrigley's role as the commander of the RAAF Overseas Headquarters - at present the article says what he couldn't do, but not what his responsibilities were. Do you know if he played any role in the abortive moves to establish an Australian operational headquarters within Bomber Command? (several senior officers were sent over to set up either a wing or a group [I can't remember which]), but nothing came of this).
  • Did Wrigley take part in renegotiating the terms of the Empire Air Training Scheme?
    • He's not really mentioned by name as doing much more than I've said but I should be able to say more about the role's duties from what Williams had to do as the first incumbent.
      • Added more on role, and negotiating as well as signing revisions to EATS. Re. the proposed RAAF Bomber Group, that was back in Williams' time in the role (I mentioned it in his article) and if Wrig was directly involved somewhere there I'm not aware of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't say what Wrigley did between 1946 and 1966.
    • Heh, as ever, if any of the little bios I have said so, I'd report it. Even Who's Who is silent - I guess even great men have to rest...
  • The coverage of his lectures in the 1920s probably best belongs in the "Between the wars" section, as this helps to explain why he was selected for staff-type positions during the war, rather than operational commands. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It might explain it but I don't think any source I have draws a direct link of that nature. Will think about mentioning the lectures earlier but I believe the doctrinal stuff as a whole is best treated in the legacy section at the end. Thanks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed and I think the A class criteria are now fully met. The missing 20 years between 1946 and 1966 may be a problem in a FAC though, even if it is impossible to find sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Tks Nick. Heh, just this minute added a little bit more on formation of the WAAAF - sounds like he had a more realistic view of the need for it than some of his contemporaries. Re. FAC, you've read my mind, I'm not actually planning to take this one beyond A-Class unless a little more info comes my way as I've pretty well exhausted what there is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments – excellent article, just a few minor issues before I can support:

• Is the exact date of Wrigley's enlistment in the AFC known?
  • Done.
• When was he awarded the DFC?
  • Done.
• When was he promoted to captain, and what is meant by the addition of "eventually"? Was the promotion overdue, or some such?
  • Don't know promotion date but fixed wording.
• Is it really necessary to attach "RAF" after Burnett's name?
  • Shorthand indicating that his daughter was not Australian.
    • Fair enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• "negotiating revisions to the terms Empire Air Training Scheme" - I think an "of the" is meant to be in there.
  • Already done.
• It might be an idea to identify the third, and middle, person in File:SUK14422Wrigley1945.jpg, as he really is the vector in the photograph to which one's eyes are drawn, but is basically neglected.
  • Done.
• The abbreviation of "EATS" is not previously spelt out after the mention of the Empire Air Training Scheme.
  • Done.
• There is inconsistency in the spacing of endashes in the succession boxes.
  • I don't think so; month-year date ranges generally take spaces round the dash, year-only ranges don't. If it's a concern I don't mind losing the months in the Laverton date range, I'm not really that big on these things.
    • Perhaps you're right, but it just looks terribly inconsistent with the differences between the two. I think it would be best to drop the months from one, or add them, if possible, to the other. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Out they go...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Both File:UK2063Wrigley1944.jpg and File:MEC1144Wrigley1943.jpg are missing alt text.
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tks for review, Bryce. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I am now satisfied that all of my comments have been addressed so I am switching to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe this one meets the A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Dutch 1913 battleship proposal

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • majestic titan) and Nick-D (talk)

The interesting story of the Dutch's plan for nine, later four, dreadnoughts to defend the Netherlands East Indies. Enjoy! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport: just a quick review at this stage, I'm afraid. There are no dab links, the external links work and the images have alt text. I'm not really able to discuss content as it is not my area of knowledge, although it seems complete to me (although I notice that there was some concerns raised on the talk page). Some other points, but not anything major:
  • should endashes be used in the citations between 1914-1918 in the reference name?
  • there appears to be an inconsistency in capitalisation of the word white (as in European people). In one instance it is capitalised, where in another it is not.
  • should the citations use p. or pp. in front of the page numbers?

That is it so far, unfortunately as I'm pressed for time. Hopefully someone with more knowledge on the topic might stop by. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure re endashes. Nick, what do you think?
      • The book uses a small dash rather than an endash, so no. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed
    • No, I started the article using a version of the Chicago Manual of Style suggested by one of my professors, and Nick continued it. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm currently in the process of expanding this article to include more details on the design which I've found in a new source. As such, it may be best to delay any further votes until these changes are made and the article expanded. I hope to have this finished tomorrow (Australian time!). Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've just expanded the details on the various designs which were proposed. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I just hope van Dijk and Sturton are reliable, because the article seems to be, perhaps overly, dependant on these sources. However, I recognize the difficulty of finding sources on it. – Joe N 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The different sources are in accordance on almost all details, which is a good sign. All the sources are very reliable - Kees van Dijk is a university professor specialising in Dutch rule in Indonesia, Anthonie van Dijk's articles were published in a reputable journal and Conways is a standard reference work. Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but a few niggling points:
  • As far as I know, Koninklijke Marine translates simply as "Royal Navy", not "Royal Netherlands Navy" (which would be something like "Koninklijke Nederlands Marine"). Same goes for Koninklijke Landmacht.
    • Yep, you're right. My bad. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why "tonnes" but "armor"? It's "metric tons" in US English.
  • The proposed ships' armor protection was lighter than that of the Kaiser class, and was similar to the level of protection in contemporary German battlecruisers. - of course I've got to pick on this one: the article could use some specific figures (perhaps in a footnote). The Kaisers had 350mm thick belts and the Derfflingers had 300mm thick belts. You can source that to Erich Gröner's German Warships: 1815–1945, pages 26 and 56, respectively.
  • a powerful fleet of gun-armed ships - What's with the "gun-armed ships?" The bird farms hadn't been invented yet, and why not just say "capital ships" to distinguish them from other "gun-armed ships" like cruisers, destroyers, and gun boats? Same with "gun-armed fleet" later in that section. If you're trying to emphasize Mahanian doctrine over the Jeune Ecole, then that needs to be spelled out, because the average reader doesn't know who Johnny Ecole is.
  • Why not scan in the line drawing from Conway's? That surely falls under fair use, as much as this does.
    • Because I never remembered to scan it in. :P I'll try to do so soon. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Nice work, both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that this article meets all five criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dab link; external links and alt text are present.
    • Fixed
  • What makes all of your web site references reliable? :-/

    Umm, that they have sources and references?

    See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, my friend. "If the site gives its sources, but still seems like a personal site, it should be questioned. Depending on the text that is being sourced, it could be reliable, but all self-published sources must meet WP:SPS." Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    None of them are personal sites. The Russian-language ones are transcriptions of the Statistical Digest of the VVS and the Excel one is a transcription from a book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh. I assumed that the Russian ones were SPS because they were specified as attack sites. My bad. At the other one, perhaps you could cite the book and use the link for convenience? —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

    • • • • • It's not completely cited in the file, just title and author, IIRC. Maybe I can find it through Worldcat, I'll see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Found it, but I'm reluctant to use it as the primary because it lacks a page #. All I know is that it's in Volume I.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • The Russian-language site is reported in Firefox as an attack site, by the way.
      • Ignore the attack warning. It's perfectly safe. And you don't even get the warning if you use Safari or Opera, it's just damn annoying when you try and run it through Google Translate using Firefox.
    • Youtube?
      • Hard to argue with a video that shows that it made a flight display.
  • Need full citations for these: current ref 1 (" MiG-9 (I-210)"), 8 ("Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG-3"), 9 ("Airforce_41.xls"), 23 ("Flypast Magazine, August 2007, Key Publishing Ltd") and 24 ("Mikoyan MiG-3")
    • OK, I'll bite. How do I more fully cite 8, 9, and 24 which are websites and already given title, URL and access date, although they're not all displaying. But I dumped #1 as unnecessary. 23 is a legacy; I don't have the issue.
  • Why do many of the books in the bibliography not appear in the references? E.g. Stapfor or Tessitori.
    • Because I don't have them. They were there before and I left them alone as something people might want to pursue.
  • Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Weak Support

The youtube video definitely isn't a Reliable Source and will need to be removed.

The survivors section has been deleted.

Can you please list how the websites are all reliable sources? Simply saying 'they are' isn't good enough for ACR, and especially not if you want to take it to FAC.

Because they list references as are clearly shown if you access them.

The books in the bibliography that aren't used will need to be removed as unused, but I'm not sure that their not being used makes the article comprehensive, especially the other books by Gordon.

Deleted

They could appear in a "further reading" section... —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The bullet-points need to be converted to prose paragraphs, and should be avoided at all times.

Why? The bullet points are far easier to read and to understand than a bunch of short, choppy sentences would be.

Most wikipedia articles should have prose, not lists per this part of the Manual of Style. Putting the points into prose would, in my opinion, increase clarity and provide better context, and generally just make the whole thing flow much better; it does break up the article rather rudely as it stands. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at that after you made your first comment. But I see it as a 'daughter' of the first paragraph which mentions, but does not discuss the changes. It may well disrupt the flow, which is in the beholder's eye, but it does communicate the information better than does the equivalent paragraph. Gunston has a version in paragraph form in his book and it's not great at communicating the info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-3.jpg has been tagged for copyright problems; please either add appropriate tags or take it to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've copied it over and loaded it as a fair-use image since the Russians seem to have reasserted control over everything after 22 June 1941.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Weak Support: not happy with with the bullet points, but it seems a tad petty to oppose over it. Skinny87 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support

I support this article for A-class in the areas of quality of prose and copyediting. A good read. As has been noted, please sort out image rights and note that regardless of my POV on the matter, a fair use image will cause you a lot of grief in the review process. Dhatfield (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's going to cause me some grief, but there aren't a whole lot of options since the Russians appear to have reasserted copyright retrospectively over the bulk of their photos of World War II. The two other photos on Commons are, apparently, of the replica, which I'm not willing to use since the cockpit area doesn't appear to match the original.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• Please don't start sentences with "But".

• Changed, usually, to however.

• Please remove See Also links that are already linked to in the main body of the article.

• Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, it looks good, good job. – Joe N 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Your introduction seems a little small, can it be expanded any?
    • Probably, but I'm on the road until next week. I'll see what I can do with it in the meantime.
  • Can you see about locating a line drawing for the specifications section? Most of the other aircraft articles have such drawings, and it would be nice to see one in this article.
    • I can probably find a fair-use drawing without too much problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is very good detail-, structure-, and reference-wise; just a few (mainly MOS) things:
  • I did a fair bit of copyediting for punctuation/citation positioning; rule is that citations always come immediately after the punctuation mark (e.g. comma, full stop), not just before as was the case here in a few places. You might want to recheck the whole article, I just did one section.
  • There's a few endashes where I think emdashes are meant, plus emdashes aren't supposed to have any spaces around them.
  • I tend to agree with Skinny about those bullet points. Yes, it makes the info easier to process but it doesn't look that encyclopedic. I won't oppose at ACR on that count since this level is more about content than presentation, but if you go for FAC I think you might have to bite the bullet there...
  • Content-wise, I got the impression from Bill Gunston in Air Power that, in a nutshell, the MiG-3 was extremely fast (Air Power quotes 407mph, as opposed to 398mph in the article) but was less manoeuvrable than the Yaks and the German fighters. Not sure that really comes across in the intro but perhaps your sources strongly emphasise the high/low-altitude thing, which my ref doesn't mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian, you've clarified something that's been bothering me for a while about this article. I need to add a section discussing the MiG-3 in comparison to other fighters where the sort of issues that you mentioned can be dealt with. Unfortunately I'll have to wait until I get back to my library to reference speeds for the other fighters even though I have all of my MiG references on hand. I really don't feel like going through website RS battles or not during FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 23:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Lent

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it meets the A-Class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Two pretty small issues, but make sure your footnotes come after all punctuation, and don't get British and English spelling mixed up. IE armour v. armor. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that I have addressed the issues. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Congratulations on a very nice article. Overall I believe it to be well written, well illustrated and well referenced. I support this article for A class, but would like to make the following points in review:
  • there were no major WP:MOS issues that I could find, I tweaked any minor ones I could find;
  • there are no dab links, alt text is present and external links all work;
  • the images seem to have appropriate licences, but I'm not an image expert;
  • citation # 78 is just a bare url, could this be formatted to hide the url chain with {{cite web}}?

    done

  • could the information in parentheses in the lead go in a Note, such as that which is already contained in Note 1? I think having the information in the prose takes the readers attention away;

    done

  • the first sentence in the Personal life section needs tweaking, as it is missing something, I believe. "All German officers had to obtain official permission to marry, usually this was a bureaucratic formality". Perhaps re-word to: "All German officers were required to obtain official permission to marry, however, this was usually a bureacratic formality" (emphasis added only to indicate suggested change);

    done

  • in the Summary of career section, where it says "Lent received a posthumous promotion to Colonel Oberst", should this be "Lent received a posthumous promotion to Oberst (Colonel)"?

    done

  • you use two spellings of defence (defense and defence), please make them all consistent. You use the British "honour" and "armour" elsewhere, so if you choose to use defense, I suggest you change honour to "honor" to maintain US spellings, or if you choose to use British English make all instances of defense become "defence" and keep honour the way it is.

    done

Anyway, that is it for my review. Well done and thank you for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a comprehensive article, and nicely done. I reviewed it in one of its earlier incarnations and also contributed to the copy-editing of it, so please take bear in mind that I had a small part in its creation (that said, the confusion of English and American spelling might have been me. My bad!). I liked the balance between military, private, and public life in this article, and the delicate way it deals with Lent's controversial private life and religious belief. I appreciated also the attention to detail that MrB brought to the article. Auntieruth55 (talk)

• Support. Excellent and well-written, good job. – Joe N 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

James Harold Cannan

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... here we have a man who served as a general in both World Wars, becoming one of the least highly decorated generals of the Second World War, and Australia's last surviving general of the Great War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: there are no dabs, ext links check out and alt text is present. The article is well written and cited. One minor issue: there appears to be different names used within the article for the conflicts that Cannan took part in (for instance World War I, First World War and Great War are all used, while World War II and Second World War are also used). I think it would be best to pick one name for each war and just use that for consistency, whichever name is used. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've adjusted the references to First/Second World War. The problem is that the big one was and is always called the Great War in Australia and never the World War. It was called that in the US and Germany. So phase one, a reviewer comes through and asks for them to be made consistent, which means renaming as I've done. Next thing, another reviewer will come through and say I'm using Americanisms, switch all the spelling to American... Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support with some minor comments:
  • I assume that age was the factor in Cannan taking a rear-echelon QM role rather than an operational command in WWII - is this spelt out anywhere, or where there any other reasons?
    • He was a few months younger than Iven Mackay, so age was not the only factor, at least early on, but there was also the matter of his being on the unattached list since 1925.
  • I assume no mentions of him in the WWII Official History?
    • A couple of mentions that he was QMG, and Long mentions his lack of honours. I've included the one incident, about Reverse Lend Lease, which is covered by both Long and Butler and Schedvin. That's because, as Long put it "...is basically a history of military operations in the field. The administrative and technical achievements of the Australian Army in six years of war are touched on only when they directly affected the fighting man or were a subject of discussion between soldiers and statesmen." Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Mentioned in Despatches should be linked the first time and capitalised consistently with how it appears in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments – en excellent article as usual, though a few issues before I can support:

• It might be an idea to add a snippet of Cannan's life during the inter-war years to the lead, even just stating that he continued his military service in the Militia.
• For Australian Dictionary of Biography references, you can use the specific template of Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography as opposed to cite web.
  • Thanks. I never knew about it. I'll use it from now on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• In regards to the 8th Infantry (Oxley Battalion), is it specifically as stated or is it meant to be 8th Infantry (Oxley) Battalion?
  • (Has a look) No, it's right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, that seems a little unusual. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Did it take the 15th Battalion four months to travel from Australia to arrive at Gallipoli, or were the posted to Eqypt first? If so, this should be clarified.
  • Added some text about the training in Egypt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Due to File:Godley at Quinn's Post.jpg being aligned to the right with the infobox, it creates quite a bit of white space between the second and thrid paragraphs. Even though it is a Gallipoli-based photograph, it might be best if it was moved down into the "Western Front" section.
  • Really? On my screen it sits neatly under the infobox. I moved it but the appearance is unchanged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it was stuck under the infobox. Looks all good now, though. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• If might be worth a mention further up, if who have the information of course, that Cannon's older brother was a major in his battalion.
  • He was a captain. He only made major shortly before Sari Bair. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any further information on Cannon's command of his battalion during the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm?
  • Done. I've read Bean Volume III from cover to cover three times... Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could you please clarify why he was awarded the Croix de guerre? The AWM recommendation is here, if that helps. ;-) Just putting something like "for his sevices "in regaining Belgian territory form the enemy", Cannan was awarded the Belgian Croix de guerre".
  • Done.
• "Cannan commanded the 2/15th Infantry" - I presume that is meant to be a battalion?
  • Sort of. A duplicated infantry regiment. Like Denise Richards says it's complicated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• "On 1 July 1920 he became a substantive colonel and honorary brigadier general on 1 July 1920 when he took over command of the 2nd Infantry Brigade from 1 July 1920 to 30 April 1921." - some date repetition issues there ...
  • Only three time! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Lol! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• It might be an idea to clarify Mackay's rank in the first paragraph of the "Second World War" section.
  • Done.
• Cannan's joining of the 2nd AIF should probably be moved up to the second paragraph of the "Second World War" section.
  • Done.
• "Blamey nominated him for a Knight of the Order of the British Empire" - is that meant to be a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire he was recommended for?
  • Done.
• A few of the page ranges used in citations require an endash.
  • The problem here is that there's a bot that goes round replacing the &ndash; with the Unicode character. Then I can't tell which is which. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, I haven't spotted that bot around yet. It is annoying, though, when you cannot tell which is which and make an edit in vain ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the changes you have made look excellent, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Education and early life, "...firm of hardware merchants" reads rather oddly, and I'm not totally sure what it means. Something like a hardware store?
  • Years of experience have taught me not to dick with the wording in the hair-splitting ADB unless you have the primary source at hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "was the State manager". Why is "state" capitalized?
  • Typo. corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Gallipoli section, "Cannan was evacuated sick". It seems that something is missing here, or maybe "evacuated sick" is military jargon?
  • Yes, it is military jargon for "became sick and was evacuated" except that this wording could be taken to mean he was given an enema, which would have done little for his hernia. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Same section, "sent to 3 London General Hospital". Is this an address?
  • No, it is a unit. Changed to "the 3rd London General Hospital". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Between the wars (and in the lead). What is the unattached list? Please wikilink or explain briefly.
  • I have no sources to create such an article, and cannot add an explanation without them. I can only remove the reference to the unattached list outright. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Second World War, "for every shipping ton procured in Australia saved two in the Atlantic". I'm not really sure what is trying to be said here...
  • Re-worded. Let me know if it makes more sense now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the Notes, the author's name is spelled "Butler", in the References, it is "Butlin".
  • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• References 2, 3, and 16 need publishers added.
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a nice article, and I look forward to supporting when the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Design A-150 battleship

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs)

A Japanese Second World War design that called for a 20-inch(!) main battery. However, the demands of the war, especially after the major loss in the Battle of Midway, forced the ships to be canceled. Thanks for your reviews, everyone. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A1 review for Citation Style. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in Bibliography: Breyer (1973), p. 330 Acted upon 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some cites end in a full stop, some don't. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple authors inconsistent: Bibliography is Author A; Author B. Citation is Author A and Author B. Matter of Style 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Date style inconsistent, mix of D Month YYYY and YYYY-MM-DD "DiGiulian, Tony (9 October 2006). "51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?)". Navweaps. Retrieved 2009-06-08." 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) - added.

(2 and 3) - I've done this style of referencing in six of my eight other FAs...are you sure it is necessary?

(4) - good catch, changed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If (2 and 3) is consistent over your other Battleship FAs, I'll take that as a stylistic choice, and deem it consistent. As long as all your short cites end without a full stop :) ! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. :-) Many thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very solid article, but I think that it might need a little more work:
  • Given that the Yamato class are often cited as either under-achievers or just a bad idea, has this design also received criticism?
    • I couldn't tell you. The ships have very little to no coverage in any English sources I got ahold of. Conway's gives it a passing mention in the Yamato class battleship section, while Garzke and Dulin only give eight paragraphs. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do we know who was in charge of planning these ships? The article attributes various conclusions and a quote to them, but who they were is never specified. Eg, the statement that "the Japanese" were confident about the feasibility of a 20.1" gun is imprecise an who was it that "felt" that the ships were "too large and too expensive"?
    • Nothing is stated. I'd guess Keiji Fukuda and/or Yuzuru Hiraga, as they were the lead people on the Yamatos, but i can't say for sure. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When did work start on planning these ships?
    • Good thought, fixed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As the Japanese government deliberatly destroyed large amounts of records at the end of the war, does your source specifically attribute the loss of the plans to "confusion"?
    • Yes, but I've refactored the statement nonetheless. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • When did the Japanese Government cancel all further work on BBs?
    • "early in 1941". I believe I have addressed this. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what value the see also links add, and no context is provided for including these. A source tying the development of these super-super battleships together would be fantastic
    • I've moved everything into a template. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The full citation details for the Muir reference could be moved to the biography section Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support comments now addressed, great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the length of these guns as expressed in calibers? And a link to the definition of caliber is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • In the intro, the line all work on Design A-150 and the Design B-65 cruisers was halted doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps work on the Design A-150 battleships and the Design B-65 cruisers. Also, it also doesn't explain what the B-65s were; maybe adding a note that tells the reader something about the cruisers so they don't have to read the B-65 article. Alternatively, you could just as easily remove the mention of the cruisers and not lose much from the intro.
  • In a couple places, you've got metric tons and in others, tonnes. They're equivalent, but since this article appears to be written in American English, it's probably best to standardize them as metric tons.
  • It's probably better to spell out what "AA" is in the armament section.
  • For the "See also" section, it might be helpful to add a brief explanation of what each of the four are, and why they're being linked. Especially for the H39 and H44 classes, as someone who isn't already familiar with what they were will probably be confused. See WP:SEEALSO for a better explanation :)
• That's it from me. Nice work on a pretty obscure ship design, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • These should all be fixed. Thanks for the review and complement! It was hard to write this one. Conway's gives it only a passing mention in the section on the Yamatos, and Garzke and Dulin only have eight paragraphs on it. —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  • It's a great article that meets almost all of the criteria, however I do have two issues:
  • "Initial design studies were drawn up after the completion of plans for the Yamato class (1938–39); they focused upon a ship with a displacement nearer to that of the Yamato's." I think "drawn up" needs to be repalced with "undertaken", plans are drawn up but design studies aren't, at least IMO. "upon" can just be replaced with on.
  • There is one question the article doesn't answer: why were they built planned? I think you need a section on development or whatever.--Patton123 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Good first point, but I don't understand the second. The ships were never built! :-) Does the article not make this clear enough? —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Forgive my incopetence! I read the article and realised that but for some reason I still wrote that! Anyway I'm talking about a section such as Montana class battleship#History and Iowa class battleship#History, which details the reasons why they were planned and how they were going to be used.--Patton123 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Haha yeah, what the heck. :P I see what you mean now, but this is the best I can do ("As the Japanese expected that the Americans would be able to obtain the true characteristics of that class (namely the principal armament of 460 mm (18.1 in)), the use of 510 mm guns was vital to keep with Japan's policy of individual ships' superiority over their American counterparts; the A-150s were meant to counter the United States' reply to the Yamatos.") —Ed (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. No major reading errors and appears to be well-cited. Good work on such a little-known subject. – Joe N 01:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Images are lacking the alt text. Is this not required for A-Class? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not required per say, but it's commonly asked for. :-) Added. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: just check your spelling, in one place the word "tonness" appears, I think this should be "tonnes". — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Walter Peeler

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now meets the criteria. I have just significantly expanded this article on an Australian Victoria Cross recipient—yes, another one of those ;-)—from a stub, and have thoughts of eventually taking it to FAC. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I've just reviewed and passed for GA, during which I also performed a copyedit for prose. So for detail, referencing, and prose I'm quite satisfied that this meets A-Class criteria - well done! Other points:

• Seemed to be one or two issues with external links according to the checker. Dabs and alt text were fine.
  • I checked the external links tool when I nominated the article and again now. Despite the tools complaints, the two links work fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Structurally I raised the issue in the GA review about “Early life” and “Interbellum” being just single paragraphs that could be combined with the First and Second World War sections that follow them, though I noted Bryce's rationale about keeping them separate due to the much larger size of the war sections. I also pointed out that anything with “bellum” in it evokes the American Civil War for me and that the tried and tested “Inter-war years” or “Between the wars” are more commonly associated with the time between the world wars and might be better employed, which I'd still suggest.
  • As I said before, I still prefer separate “Early life” and “Interbellum” sections, and the use of “Interbellum” though will consider changing it if there is enough support. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Per Dana's comments below, I have changed it to “Inter-war years”. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• As far as images go, all are PD-Australia, however most are on en:Wiki rather than Commons, so recommend migrating them. Also, particularly for FAC, the PD-1996 template should be added to all at that point to satisfy US PD assertion requirements. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason why most are on en-Wiki is because I did not upload them; that is the same for the missing PD-1996 template. I will go tag them to be moved, and add the template at the same time. Thanks for the review, ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Support

• Victoria Cross section, "which was further exasterbated by". Is this supposed to be "exacerbated"?
  • Yep, sorry I'm a horrible speller. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Interbellum section - I would agree with Ian on this - "bellum" evokes thoughts of the American Civil War, and I would prefer "Inter-war years". This is secondary to the fact that many readers may not understand "Interbellum", and "Inter-war years" is much more likely to be understood.
  • Well, I guess I have to abide by consensus on this one, so changed. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Defence of Java section, "and was believed to have been killed attempting to evade capture." Have thoughts changed in recent years? If not, it should be "is believed" to show that this is still what is thought today.
  • Fixed; still the belief today, although his body was never discovered and he was last seen walking away with some grenades in his hands saying something along the lines of "No surrender for me!" just hours before Singapore fell to the Japanese. Bit of a history lesson, there. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall, this looks like a great article. I am looking forward to supporting soon! Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments, Dana. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added my support for this article, thank you for your speed in responding to my comments. I apologize for not getting back to this more quickly - I was away for the weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent article, which I believe meets A class criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article list for A-Class review because it is well researched and cited and I feel it meets the A-Class criteria. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It's a list. Can you provide more background about what this award meant for German soldiers and when this award was displayed? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be something to address in the article about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross itself? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• I wish that some of the notes could be combined. For example, 3, 4, and 6 seem to be almost exact duplicates except for the names and numbers, and the same with 11, 12, and 13.
• It's not "the XX Month, year", either the the should be removed "he was killed 24 March, 1945", or the ordinal number should be used "the 24th of March." I noticed this several times in footnotes about disputed dates of death.

• I think I fixed all occurances MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, just these issues. – Joe N 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support – an excellent list as usual, that I cannot fault. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm not usually a list visitor, but this is very well done. One questions, should it not read "...Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Swords and Diamonds"? Perhaps a better title would be "List of Waffen-SS recipients of the ..."? A one line description of the Waffen-SS in the introduction may also be helpful. Good job. Dhatfield (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

The article recently completed a thorough GA and as a result, I believe the article is closer to an A, rather than a GA, level. The intent is to improve the article to a FA level; I think the memorials task force could use a couple more. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support – quite a good article, and an interesting one at that, but a little work is required before A-Class:

• Conversion templates are required in the "Topography" section.
• Images require alt text.

The images all have alt text. Is it that a better description is needed? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed that, but yeah, a better description of the images would be best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

alt text is now significantly expanded. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the "Battle of Vimy Ridge" section, even though it should be obvious, it should actually be clarified in the "For the first time all four Canadian divisions were assembled to participate in a battle together" sentence that the battle actually was Vimy Ridge.

Done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency with the presentation of measurements, with some utilizing the Imperial format and others the Metric variant. One should be consistent throughout.

This one also came up as an issue at GA. The issue at hand is sources do not consistently use imperial or metric. The solution was to list both, with the whatever unit of measure is used in the source listed as the first figure and using the convert template to list the other. The suggested direction came about from MOS(dates and numbers)#Which units to use and how to present them. There is nonetheless conflict between balancing consistency with properly presenting the figure cited within the source. I am OK with the call either way, I just don't want it to become an issue at FAC. Direction would be appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the summary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge goes into a little too much detail. A summary of the battle is required, of course, to give an understanding on the background and significance of the memorial, but I don't think quite so much detail is quite warranted in some areas. This is just my thoughts, and I am open to others' opinions.

Understood. I have a test text in my sandbox, if you wouldn't mind having a look and making a comment. I thought it more appropriate the remove battle text but possibly insert text regarding the influence of the battle. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Migration from sandbox to article completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is a bit of close repetition in the "Selection" section, or beginnings of sentences that are similar to the end of the previous. For example, the decision on a competition.

Edited. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is a little confusing. It states at the start of the "Selection" section that identical memorials would be built on the eight sites, but later the committee debates on where to build the monument and decides on Vimy Ridge.

Additional information inserted to clarify. Please review. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in the application of titles, in that Byng is included with his title of "Sir" but Currie is not.

Removed titles of "Sir". Seemed like the easiest option. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Information on the acquisition of land should be mention before the design competition.

Combined the land acquisition text into the selection section. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the first three paragraphs of the "Memorial construction" section, the delay in the delivery of limestone is mentioned, and in much the same manner. I don't think it really needs to be repeated so many times.

cut down to one mention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The 20 sculptured figures on memorial" - grammatical issue here.

Removed passive text. Changed to: "Sculptors carved the 20 human figures on-site, from large blocks of stone." --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The carvers conducted their work year-round inside temporary studios built around each figure." - this sentence is without a cite.

Citation inserted. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "was not been part of the original design" - grammatical issue here.

Corrected to: "was not part of the original design". --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Interestingly, the ceremony was one of King Edward VIII" - "Interestingly" is redundant.

Agreed. Removed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• "a major $30-million restoration project" - which dollars they were should be clarified, as in were they Canadian or US, etc.

Corrected and presented as directed in MOS:CURRENCY. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "Interpretive centre" is uncited, and probably should be merged with another section as it is so small.

Section deleted content folded into section lead and citation added. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates for cites.

There was inconsistencies in both dates and access dates, both have been corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cites should not be in all capitals (#9).

Corrected --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am staisfied that all of my comments have been adequately addressed, so I'm happy to support. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - About time I started reviewing around here. The article looks pretty good.
• It also serves as the place of commemoration for First World War Canadian soldiers killed, or presumed dead, in France that have no known grave. - not sure I like the flow of this sentence, remove the commas perhaps?

Agreed. remove one comma and moved the placement of the other.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• It was unveiled on 26 July 1936 by King Edward VIII, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun and 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families. - again, comma

Didn't remove comma, did a bit of text reorg. instead. Does this work: The memorial took monument designer Walter Seymour Allward eleven years to build. King Edward VIII unveiled the memorial on 26 July 1936, in the presence of French President Albert Lebrun, 50,000 or more Canadian and French veterans, and their families.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• On 21 May 1916, the German infantry attacked the British lines along a 2,000-yard (1,800 m) front in an effort to eject them from positions along the ridge.[8] - Hmm, could you replace eject with a more appropriate verb? It's not bad, I just think the word choice could be better.

Changed to force. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• The Germans successfully captured several British-controlled tunnels and mine craters before halting their advance and entrenching their positions.[8][Note 1] - redundant... they either captured it or were successful in attempting to capture it.

Addressed. Removed "successfully" --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• By nightfall on 12 April, the Canadian Corps was in firm control of the ridge. - if corps is meant to be plural, then it should be were. I think this is singular, though, correct it if I'm wrong.

A Corps, as in a military formation, is always plural. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• In 1920, the Government of Canada announced that the Imperial War Graves Commission had awarded Canada eight sites, five in France and three in Belgium, on which to erect memorials.[31] - perhaps the five in france clause would be better with an endash?

Inserted ndash before and after "five in France and three in Belgium".--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More later. ceranthor 14:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Turns out there's not really too much with the rest of the article (not surprising, the rest was excellent). If you need any additional help before FAC, feel free to ping me. ceranthor 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Refs shouldn't be all caps (even if the original source was). Refs 67, 68.

Corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note 1 could use a reference.

In fact a number of the notes need references, not just note 1. I'll get right on that. Note work completed. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• The last two sections are really short and make the end of the article quite choppy. Is there any way that these could be incorporated into one of the other sections?

I have folded the interpretive centre section into the site section lead. I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs. If you have improvement suggestions let me know. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Once these things are taken care of, I look forward to supporting the article's A-class promotion. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the responses to my comments above, as well as reading the new battle summary section, I believe this article is ready for A-class. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Scherger

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force as Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, arguably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first (de facto) Chief of the Defence Force and its first Air Chief Marshal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is a very well written article. Just a few quick edits to be made.

• There are quite a few contractions that I noticed that should be expanded per MOS.

• Summary style should be used where there are a series of subpages.

• Not totally necessary, but the references section should be formatted with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} tags for visual appeal.

Otherwise, I give my support. The prose is well written, references are correctly formatted including ISBN numbers, and all the sections contain concise accurate information. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tks for review/support, mate. I agree about reducing the size of the references due to the number of items and have done as you suggested. Re. contractions and summary style, could I trouble you for an example or two of each as I admit nothing leaps out at me there (but I may too close given the length of time I spent on it)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments This article has "Featured article" written all over it. I hope to see it at FAC.

• I'm curious about why you chose the Air Commodore photo instead of the nicer CAS one below for the infobox.
  • "Chose"? "Agonised" more like! Yeah, I spent a lot of time determining the best way to spread the relatively few PD or GNU-free portraits I had through the article and, though I totally agree the CAS one is logical for the infobox, it meant I had nothing to use in the CAS/COSC section of the main body - and the Air Commodore one is a good 'un, even if not representative of his most 'known' period. Our friends at AWM took away a great one of him handing over as COSC to Wilton, which used to be 'copyright clear' but is now 'AWM copyright' and, despite a couple of attempts in writing on my part, they've refused to release it under GNU (which the RAAF was happy to do for the CAS pic - go figure). The pic of him as ACM in Legacy I think needs to be there as it's clearly one taken in retirement, not while he was serving. Of course I'm open to suggestions about rearranging the pics to get a decent spread... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Prior to graduation, he had been selected for an Air Force secondment, which was later made permanent." Are you saying that he did not volunteer to join the RAAF? (It was lucky though; he would never have made lieutenant colonel in the Army by 1939.)
  • Don't believe any source I have actually says "volunteer" so I wasn't going to assume, but will check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Confirming Stephens and service record in personnel file just say he was seconded, not that he volunteered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Any idea what he was awarded the Air Force Cross for? It was his only award for gallantry.
  • Actually you're right, his personnel file did say something (not terribly exciting as I remember it, though) so I should be able to expand a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• The article has plenty of pictures, but if you want one of him on Aitape, there's one at "File:Wurtsmith and Sverdrup at Aitape.jpg"
  • The 10OG/1TAF section could fit another, so I'll check it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Haven't included but might still add it since it's the year before the current 10OG/1TAF shot I have, partly depends on results of copyright status check re. another possible CAS pic, which would allow a rejig of the existing images and perhaps even get the current CAS one back in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "programme" (British spelling) should be "program" (Australian spelling)
  • Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Three squadrons from No. 9 Operational Group were assigned to the Wing as replacements" any idea which ones? The text could be confusing as you say that the Vengeances were withdrawn as inferior, leaving the reader to infer that the replacements were a different type of aircraft.
  • Yep, that could be confusing, should be able to clarify somehow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Annoyingly, Odgers supplies the numbers of two squadrons but not the third, so rather than invite further queries about why I was doing the same, I've just specified the aircraft types they operated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "10OG itself was moved from Nadzab to Cape Gloucester to permit USAAF units with more modern equipment to occupy vital airfields on the Allied front line." That's not true. The need was for longer ranged aircraft, like the P-38 Lightning, which the RAAF did not operate. Whereas the short airstrips at Cape G. were well-suited to the Kittyhawks.
  • Granted that was my interpetation of Odgers from memory after Nick suggested clarification of that point - will go back and re-read/alter as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Scherger became not only the first RAAF officer to attain four-star rank, but also the first Duntroon graduate... his position was further strengthened by the promotion as he now out-ranked the three service heads." He was also the first Chairman COSC to hold four-star rank. Wells was only a three-star. You should make this explicit.
  • Fair enough, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Quickly dissuaded during visits to Britain and the US that weapons existed which could be delivered by the RAAF's Sabre fighters or even its Canberra bombers," That's not true. I've taken the liberty of adding a little text at this point.
  • I think the part about being dissuaded that such weapons existed, etc, is accurate based on Stephens but admittedly I was simplifying for the sake of brevity as the article grew (I could have said more on the F-111/TSR-2 thing as well but wanted to get the damn expansion out there as it's been so long coming). In any case, I like your addition and the further sourcing/perspective from Reynolds is useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked a little but essentially kept your additions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• You might consider splitting the sections about CAS and COSC
  • Could - will see how we go as review progresses. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Many tks for your comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: excellent work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment in the bit about the incident at Laverton just before he went to the UK, it's not entirely clear to me which officer ended up resigning his commission, the "wronged husband" who Scherger knocked down with a poker, or the "adulterer" (surely that was "conudct unbecoming" as well?) David Underdown (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Was just working on that when you looked it over, mate, so hopefully a bit clearer now (though I agree, you'd expect both would've been asked to depart)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 07:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Iven Giffard Mackay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another Australian general. I think I have his bio up to an acceptable standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – primarily MoS:

• The lead requires a serious expansion.
  •  Done.
• I think First World War is preferred over Great War, particularly for the sake of consistency.
  •  Done. (A good example of where consistency leads to inaccuracy...)
• Single, stand-alone sentences should be attached to paragraphs.
  •  Done.
• I think further information is needed on several of his First World War decorations. For example, it is only stated that he received the Distinguished Service Order, Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George and Croix de guerre, but no information is given on why these were awarded. The AWM contains copies of the recommendations of these awards, so just a brief summary even would suffice, I think.
  •  Done. Added the citations for the CMG and Croix de guerre.
    • Good, but would you be able to re-work these citations into prose? As it currently stands, more than half of the "Western Front" section are lengthy quotes, and this kind of over powers the prose, so I think just writing the actions in prose would be best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done.
• In regards to the Croix de guerre, the capitalisation is inconsistent in the article with both "Croix de guerre" and "Croix de Guerre" present. Also, could you please clarify whether it was the French or Belgian variant?
  •  Done. Typo. Should be Croix de guerre. Added text to let readers know it was the French variant.
• Unless attached to a name, ranks should not be capitalised in the prose as they are not proper nouns.
  •  Done. Except, for reasons I don't understand, in the info box.
    • If I may be so bold as to quote another: "A good example of where consistency leads to inaccuracy..." ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Emdashes should be unspaced.
  •  Done.
• Non-breaking spaces are required between the end of a word and an ellipse.
  •  Done How bizarre
    • I know; one of those pesky MoS requirements ... Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• The article looks a little bare image-wise, so would you be able to add a few more photographs and images in please?
  •  Done.
• Is the "See also" section really necessary?
  •  Done. No. Removed.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Bryce has captured most style points, I particularly endorse the lead expansion and See Also redundancy points.
• The Early Life & Career section could safely become two decent-sized paras, which would be in keeping with the general para size in the rest of the article body.
  •  Done.
• I'll try and do a ce and source-check pass in the next couple of days. In the meantime, great to see you back on the Australian Army bios, Hawkeye... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Support

• The Western Front section is extremely choppy to read, because of the way the paragraphs and quotes are broken up. Can the paragraph be combined more to make it flow more smoothly?
• In most places you say he was mentioned in despatches, but at one point in the Western Front section it says he was mentioned in dispatches. Which is correct?
  •  Done. Despatches. "dispatches" is a typo, which my spell checker can't seem to recognise. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• In several places I have made the change from "Physics" to "physics". It is not a proper name, just a subject, and so probably shouldn't be capitalized. If you disagree with me, however, feel free to revert.
  •  Done. No, that's fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Libya section, "The victory at Bardia was followed by successes at Tobruk, Derna and Benghazi." Could these last three be linked, either to the specific battles or just the towns?
  •  Done. All part of [[Operation Compass] until I get around to creating new pages for them.
• It may be because I'm either not a military historian or not an Aussie, but I have no idea what refs 64 and 71 are trying to convey. Could the acronyms be spelled out or more of a context given, please?
  • No. 64 is a reference to a document. NAA=National Archives of Australia ACT=Canberra office A5954=Series A5954 (The Shedden Collection) 266/1=File 266/1 (Higher Army Direction of Operations in New Guinea. General Blamey's Arrival in New Guinea. Lieutenant General Rowell's Return to Australia)
  •  Done. Another admin has handled the second one. Pretty well too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please standardize the spelling to either British or American. There is program (A), but defence (B), and both honor (A) and honour (B).
  •  Done. The article uses Australian spelling, so program, defence, despatches, honour (but honorary). Anything else is a typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

These comments should all be fairly easy to take care of; I look forward to supporting this article's move to A-class in the near future! Dana boomer (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, and I've added my support. The only thing left above would be the choppiness of the Western Front section, and that's not a huge thing, and possibly more of a preference thing on my part. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I have gone over this section again in an attempt to smooth it out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I believe this article meets the A class criteria. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support with few comments:
  • Please avoid sandwiching text between images such as in Between the wars section.
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Consider adding some references in the infobox, especially in the nickname, commands and awards labels.
    • Everything is in the text and I'd prefer not to clutter the info box with references if I can avoid it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref #2: source description should be placed in the Bibliography section while the note should remain as the other, author and page number.
    •  Done. Moved Jeff's bio ref. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On 28 August 1944 Mackay once again assumed command of New Guinea Force. This time, important operations were being undertaken in the Battle of Finschhafen and Mackay's period of command was marred by disagreements with General Douglas MacArthur's staff over the reinforcement of Finschhafen. - such sentences need a reference even if you duplicate the one already existent at the end of the paragraph.
    •  Done Coates' book is the best reference about this incident. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Same for the first paragraph of the Post war section.
    •  Done. I have no idea why that would be controversial though... I hope we have the right sentence! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overall a good article meeting all A-class criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• Perhaps Ottoman would be better to use than Turk.
  • Butting in - technically yes, perhaps, but conventionally they were always known as Turks, I believe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • To me, the Ottomans are the ruling class of Turks, so Ottoman would be inappropriate here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Watch image sandwiching in the Between the Wars section.
  •  Done Removed a photograph to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• The statement about the mistaken obituary is rather out of the blue where it is, both chronologically and topically. Perhaps it can be moved somewhere else?
  •  Done Moved it slightly. It's in the right spot, chronologically at least. Added a little bit more to explain why it was important. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, just some stylistic issues I took care of and those comments above. – Joe N 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Performed a relatively light copyedit but generally this looks very good and sources/citing seem well up to speed. I tend to agree about the image sandwiching but on the other hand I can't see where else these pics could go if we retain them - if this goes to FAC some may recommend dropping them as less-than-vital, and it is a bit unusual to see pics of the subject's children in a WP bio but personally I welcome it since they're available. I'm also not sure we really needed links to each of his papers at the end but since it's done, by all means leave them. All up, another fine addition to your pantheon of Australian generals... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Apart from the fact that they are available, his POW son and son-in-law seem to have influenced Mackay's attitudes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Final comments before support: Support

• The caption for File:6th Division Staff 1940 AWM019443.jpg is presented rather poorly, being unnecessarily spread out with dot points. I changed the caption to a more logical format, but this appears to have been reverted.
  •  Done
• I think the list of stuff relating to Mackay in the AWM's online collections is a little over kill. I can understand the inclusion of some, but some are just highly trivial, such as the whistle and watch, but also a few to many images. For example, a few of the photographic files here are included in the article. I think only the papers are really relevant here, and possibly one or two other things that you think are necessary should be included and the others removed.
  •  Done Reduced to papers and portraits.
• There is some inconsistency with the capitalisation of "Mentioned in Despatches", with some presented in the mentioned format and others as "mentioned in despatches".
  • There's no mixed case ones. In the text it is lower case, in the Infobox, upper; then some editor added headings to the Gazette references, so these are upper case. Let me know how you think it should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry; that was a typo. There are "Mentioned in Despatches" and "mentioned in despatches". It doesn't really bother me either way, just consistency is best. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done. All uppercase now. You might want to avoid looking at the article Mentioned in Despatches though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, Gawd! Burn it ... ! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think all of my comments have now been addressed, and I'm appy to support this excellent article. Well done, Hawkeye, and it's great to see you back at this again. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile)

Nominator(s): Flayer (talk)

I am renominating this article for A-Class review because I think it has a better chance now to receive the A-class status.
Previous discussion: [1] Flayer (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am skeptical about the army-technology website profile, which is used about 45 times for citing. The website is a bit evasive about who runs it and what it is about, and it has a large testimonial page, with endorsements from military industry groups. Is this a website for advertising military hardware? If so, it can't be a reliable source as it would talk up the goods on behalf of its partners. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Reduced the dependency on army-technology website, now almost everywhere it appears with another supporting reliable source. Flayer (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Referecing There is an inconsistency with firstname surname, and surname, firstname in your references YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Flayer (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the quote boxes are needed. I would expect the high brass of the IDF to be trumpeting the quality of the missile at ceremonies and stuff, even if it wasn't good quality, and I think making it so prominent is POV. Also, newspaper titles like JP and Haaretz are supposed to be italicised. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd wish to keep the quote boxes, they represent the attitude that IDF gives to Arrow. Should only JP and Haaretz be italicized? What about Globes, Reuters, Jane's? Should I italicize strictly newspapers? Flayer (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Magazines and book titles and all those as well. Reuters/Penguin Publ BBC etc are companies. Jane's Defence Weekly would be it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Flayer (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could do with a spruce up. The writer is, however, clearly skilled.

User:Poliocretes is clearly skilled, I owe the copy-editing to him. :) Flayer (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it all in summary style? Seems long. Are there opportunities for spinning off one or two daughter articles?

 Done It is. Arrow 3 has some potential for its own article, but not yet. Flayer (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Linking: "United States" and other anglophone country-names are not normally linked (better to a section or a daughter article, if at all ... here, it doesn't seem necessary at all). "Israel" link better to a focused article (Isn't there one on the Israeli def. forces?, and within it a section on equipment? But your got the Min. of Def. linked anyway, a second later, so I'd drop the vague link and save the blue carpet.) "Hebrew" linked twice? Nor is it neceesary to link US$ in the infobox. Nor kg and lb. Ration them links and the readers are more likely to click on them, we say.

 Done Hebrew linked twice because of the template "lang-he", I can't change it. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bolding: well, if you have to link the other names in the middle of the lead, but bolding looks messy like that.

 Done Removed. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "the Elta ...", to be fussy?

 Done Added. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Following the construction and testing of". When there's an "of" to the right put a "the" to the left (usually).

 Done Added. Flayer (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Do you need "currently in existence"? I'd rather "ever to have been developed", but you hardly need that either.

 Done I think yes. "Currently in existence" appears as it is in the source I quote. Flayer (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please audit the ref section. For example, the publisher of "Defense Update" is not listed (it is really British, with US spelling of the title?). A lot of the items seem short on documentation. Can you check the rules? And if an online publication is a regular publication, can you cite the date of publication as well as of retrieval? Mixture of title and sentence case in the ref list. Sentence case much preferred for article/page/chapter titles.

 Done "Defense Update" appears to be British with US spelling of the title. I don't know why. I added the date of publication as well as of retrieval wherever there is any date of publication. Sentence case fixed. Flayer (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• long-ranged (I guess it can't be just "long-range", can it?).

 Done Done. Flayer (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• More link-focussing possibilities: Rabin's name is linked, fine, but PM of Israel (and probably DM of I) will be prominently linked at the top of that article, surely. So just retain the one link. "Chinese" ... not usually linked.

 Done Done. Flayer (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the MoS on en dashes as interrupters in sentences. Not hyphens or spaced em dashes. Also see "Ranges" here: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Percentages.2A.

 Done Flayer (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is the little box for US contribs usual formatting?

Sorry, I didn't understand what do you mean. Flayer (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Successfully intercept"—lose one word?

 Done Should it be "successfully intercepted"? Flayer (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• two-stage

 Done Flayer (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Image placement in "Arrow 2" is a bit messy, and the Feb. image could be larger (image use policy has recently changed so that default thumbnail is no longer a strict norm). Put both on the right, or one further down? The Block-2 images are too small to see important details. Could they possibly be enlarged and arranged vertically? Unsure.

 Done Should look better now. Flayer (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• in order to: drop two words, please.

Where? Which? Sorry for my bad English. Flayer (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Golden Citron": is it a diagram? Maybe. But why not "Stages of ...".

 Done Flayer (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Israel map caption: en dash. Tony (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your comments! Flayer (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• "Also with an eye on the advanced missile programs of Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Fragment.

OK, I moved it up. Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The "Green Pine" reportedly detected and tracked similar launches of Syrian "Scuds" also in 2005[80] and in 2008.[81]" Awkward, rephrase please.

"In 2005 and in 2008 "Green Pine" detected and tracked similar drills of Syrian "Scuds".[80][81]" - is it better now? Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, much, thanks. – Joe N 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Extremely comprehensive and seems to be well-referenced, just a few problems with the readability. – Joe N 00:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Flayer (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • File:Arrow2 96feb.jpg source is a dead link. If source cannot be verified and/or PD established, then the image needs to go.

 Done MDA did some changes on their website. I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Arrow2 96aug.jpg. Same as above.

 Done I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Arrow anti-ballistic missile launch4.jpg (from the trinity picture). Same as above.

 Done I fixed the link. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Arrow system.jpg. Same as above.

 Done

• • File:IsraelOMC.png from File:Arrow coverage.png gives a weblink as a source, but the weblink does not directly connect to the image or identify how to find it at the website given.

1. Please, read carefully the summary of IsraeOMC.png: "This map's source is here, with the uploader's modifications, and the GMT homepage says that the tools are released under the GNU General Public License".
2. Now read the description of the "Online Map Creation" website: "You may create maps interactively at this site. Fill out the form, submit your entries and a page with the desired map will be returned to your browser."
3. Now tell me please, how one can put a direct weblink to an image that is only temporarily available at the website? It was created with this website, it is not kept there. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • If the images are now gone from the MDA website, that doesn't mean that they can't be used. It just needs to explain that in the image file. Cla68 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider your objection now. Flayer (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look again at the image files and see the changes I made to the source descriptions to make it more clear the source of the images and the context in which they are used in the source site. Although it is a pain in the neck to include this much detail in the image file pages, especially since most uploaders don't usually bother to do so, it is important in GA-class articles or above to make it easy for readers to see where the images come from and why they are freely licensed. Your description above as to where the map comes from and why it is freely licensed needs to be included on the image page so that when someone clicks on the link they'll understand exactly why the map does not appear to them. I'll proofread the article text, hopefully later today. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done OK, thanks. Flayer (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Given the alterations made during this review, I believe the article meets milhist's A-Class criteria. If anything it's perhaps over-cited (see WP:CITE and WP:LEADCITE; unless an article comes under WP:BIO, I see no need for extensive citations in the lead). However, it's an excellent, comprehensive article - well done. EyeSerene^talk 09:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much! I hope "Green Pine" and "Arrow 3" will grow to main articles, so the amount of citations here will drop. I also removed extensive citations in the lead as you mentioned. Flayer (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, nice work Flayer. EyeSerene is right about the citations in the lead; as long as it's mentioned and cited in the body of the article, there's no need for citations in the intro. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I removed most of the citations from the intro. Flayer (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Collins class submarine

Nominator(s): -- saberwyn

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets WP:MILHIST's criteria for A-class articles. -- saberwyn 05:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've made the dashes, and referencing consistent. What is happening with the clarification tags though. There is also a succession of one-line sentences (paragraphs I meant) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the en-dashing...I can never get it right. The article could probably get away without the two clarification tags, but I'm hoping to find more specific information for each (a more specific date than a five-year range for the cancellation of boats 7 and 8, and the name of the submarine in the 2003 wargame). I'll attempt to merge a few of the short sentances together over the next few days. -- saberwyn 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also tried to roll a few sentance paragraphs into groups. However, some of them are there to be fleshed out in the future (for example, the "One major upgrade" line in "Sensors and systems" will be expanded to describe that upgrade when it happens, or the "only sub in 2009", which will gain multiple lines when the number of subs goes back up again, or a specific incident occurs which is attributed to the lack of Collins class subs running around.) while others (like the line in "Maintenance" about the cost thereof) I'm not sure how to 'paragraphise' because they don't appear to mesh well with the surrounding paragraphs. -- saberwyn 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - are you sure the RAN uses 'SSG' pendant numbers? Otherwise it's extremely good, and I will probably vote support after this point is addressed. Buckshot06(prof) 09:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes they do - see the list of ships on the RAN's website Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• CommentSupport: there is one dab link (Sven), but I think in this case it is okay as it is just a link to the name (?). The external links all work according to the link checker tool and the images all have alt text. No errors found with refs having the same content. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My intention there was to link to the disambig page, as the introductory paragraphs on that page indicate the Norse/Swedish origin of the name. If the link is believed to be problematic, it can be removed. -- saberwyn 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wobbly. I had a look at the lead. These glitches suggest that an independent copy-edit would be helpful in meeting the Class-A standard for writing.

• "... Collins; the other ...". So much nicer without the "with" connector.
• I've had my head sliced by nautical people for using "boat". And for a submarine?
• "conventionally-powered submarines"—please see the MoS on hyphens.
• "prompting widespread improvements in Australian industry"—err ... vague (which industry, what improvements?) and I hope it's referenced further down.
• Remove comma after "1980s" to avoid temporary ambiguity in the grammar ("as" is such a problem word).
• "throughout the various phases of their life"—various and throughout ...
• "foul play"—do you mean "conflict of interest"? A bit cryptic.
• "These" back-refers to ... "problems"? There are several plural nouns in the previous sentence.
• "Negative press resulting from this has led to poor public perception of the Collins class." Watch those back-references: what does "this" refer to? Perhaps "The related negative press has led to the poor ...".
• at which ... for which. Tony (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• ROKS image: tiny. This and a couple of others could do with a boost to 240 or 250px, or whatever you judge is best. Please note the recent change to policy at WP:IUP and at the MoS on image size, which no longer imply that default sizes are the norm. Tony (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • An independant copyedit would be beneficial. I have listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics.
  • I think I've dealt with the one in the lead, but in a different way.
  • And submariners will shoot you if you refer to their vessels as "ships". "Boats" is acceptable, because the original definition of a submarine was "a boat which may go under the water".
  • Removed.
  • From "Construction": The project prompted major increases in quality control standards across Australian industries: in 1980, only 35 Australian companies possessed the appropriate quality control certifications for Defence projects, but by 1998 this had increased to over 1,500. I can't pull a citation for exactly what industries, but would assume construction, manufacturing, electronics, and software/programming off the top of my head. Specific companies are mentioned at the relevant points in the article.
  • Rewrote that sentance.
  • "Foul play" was the term used by the source, so I stuck with it. Examples of the relevant incidents during the selection process are detailed in paragraph 3 of "Funded studies": I don't think "conflict of interest" would be appropriate to describe any of these.
  • Yes. Altered to "These problems..."
  • Changed to "The resulting negative press has led..."
  • Now reads "It is expected that the Collins class will remain in service until the 2020s. Planning for a replacement submarine class commenced in 2007."
  • Considering all the problems and arguments relating to image sizes, user defaults, accessibility, etc., I would prefer to leave all images (bar the infobox, which by convention is set at 300px) standardised at default size until fixing them at non-default sizes becomes the norm. If an individual user needs more detail, they can adjust their default settings (registered users), or click on the image to access the preview or full resolution view (all users/readers).
• Feel free to intersperse your comments with my own. -- saberwyn 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - One dab, external links look fine, alt text is present, couple comments on sources:
  • FAC people might protest at the "&"s in the refs, but that is your call. The relevant page is MOS:&.
  • A lot of citations to The Collins Class Submarine Story, though I can understand becuase that focuses on this class. Just a comment, no action necessary.
  • I don't believe that it is normal to have |format=Google Books and |accessdate= in references? I know that you used Google Books instead of buying/renting the book, but I have never seen it cited that way. The most I've ever seen is a link to the relevant GB page. Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I was taught to cite sources using APA style at university (which I've tweaked slightly for my Wikipedia citing needs), which uses the ampersand (&) in citations when more than one author is involved. There are no ampersands in the prose of the article, which is what that section of the MOS seems to be worried about.
    • I'd like a little more diversity in the sources too, but The Collins Class Submarine Story is the only detailed and comprehensive work on the class published to date. I have tried to use other sources where possible.
    • I figured that if you can provide an external link to text of the the source, this makes it more accessible to readers seeking more information or verification (Very few libraries/bookstores outside Australia are going to stock this book). If an external link is used as part of a citation, it should have the date accessed. -- saberwyn 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying you shouldn't provide a link to the GB page, but I am saying that you do not need (Google Books) because it is a convenience link, and you do not need an access date becuase the URL is stable. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair point. Removed. -- saberwyn 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I can confirm that The Collins Class Submarine Story is the only detailed account of the development of the subs, and it's a very well regarded book, so it's an excellent source. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Spot-check in the middle:

• "The age of the design was a concern"—could it be more explicit (do you have access to ref. 13?). Being foreign to the topic, I'm wondering now about use-by dates for such designs, and why.
• "The proposed design"—they're all proposed, at that stage, aren't they?
• "despite there being no accepted definition of"—noun plus -ing a bit clumsy ... "despite the absence of an accepted ..."? Do we need "also" there? Heck, sounds like a botched tendering process.
• I see "also" and closely repeated [22]. "On 9 May, the Australian Cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies.[22] They also decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, and that all would be constructed in Australia.[22]" Why not: "On 9 May, the Australian cabinet approved the selections for the funded studies and decided that six submarines would be built, with the option for two more, all in Australia.[22]"
• "if the submarine project cost increased too much"—last two words are vague; did the report give an idea of what too much was?
• "started with a 4"—many readers won't have a clue. I'm guessing Beazley meant [A$4 billion], which could be inserted in square brackets if my hunch is correct. Tony (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Farncomb image drifts between sections. Not a great pic in quality terms, but a few of the others could still do with enlarging; the taller pics are fine—the untall ones need to sort of match them in area.

• • Now reads "The age of the early 1970s design...". The Sauro class had been designed in the early 1970s, and only major change offered in the 1983 tender was to increase the hull size and number of internal decks. My speculation is that the RAN were trying to replace a late 50s-early 60s submarine, so wanted something a lot closer to the cutting edge than the Italian proposal.
  • Changed
  • Changed. Botched? This was the first in a long string of issues with the combat system... it got so bad that the CS was abandoned and restarted from scratch.
  • Changed
  • No idea, because I have not read the report itself. The source I used didn't give a numerical value, but also states that Dibb recommended this despite specific instructions from Beazley that the submarine project was "off limits" for costcutting. My guess is that the working would be vague, to give both parties some breathing room.
  • Yes, AU$4 billion. Would that go inside or outside the quote marks?
  • I've shifted that image up a little, but I want to keep it in close proximity to the final paragraph of the "Operational history", which is what it relates to. The Operational histroy section will expand over the next 15+ years, so in a few years that section should be nicely walled in with text.
• Again, feel free to intersperse any replies. -- saberwyn 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. I don't know enough about it to offer useful comments on the content, but it appears to be well-referenced and written. However, I noticed several citation, verification, and clarification needed tags over the several days I spent reading it, so please fix those before it reaches A-Class. – Joe N 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated in reply to Yellowmonkey, the two {{clarification needed}} tags were used because, while the content currently in the article is cited and verified, more specific information not in the source was desired. I have replaced these tags with hidden notes in the body of the text.
  • The {{verification needed}} tag was because I was unable to access a particular web-based source to verify the statement at the time the tag was placed. That source has come back up (and has been replaced by a slightly more reliable link), so the tag has been removed.
  • There are no {{citation needed}} tags in the article. -- saberwyn 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I could have sworn I saw some. Oh well, it's good now. – Joe N 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a very detailed and comprehensive article which easily meets the A class criteria. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 08:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

USS Chesapeake (1799)

This should be the last original frigate ACR for at least a few months. The article passed GA a couple of months ago and since then I've managed to find more information to add. The DANFS article on this ship was recently overhauled and posted on 12 September requiring that I make some adjustments and updates. There has always been some debate over the gun rating for this ship; either 36 or 38 but I have a majority of sources that rate her at 38 and only one (Beach) that claimed 36. The DANFS article previously claimed 36 but the refreshed article goes with 38. Majority rules in this case. I'm sure that the article needs a good copy edit but I'm becoming cross-eyed over 19th century period ship descriptions. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very good article, but needs a little bit more work. My suggestions are:
  • Some of the text is written in the passive tense (eg, "A sailing contest with her sister ship President during this cruise would result in Chesapeake being soundly defeated", "Captain Alexander Murray would keep Constellation far offshore", "Chesapeake would sail for home on 6 April", "Morris would remain in the Mediterranean until being recalled", etc) and should be changed to active tense.
  • Should there be apostrophes in '36's were re-rated as 38's'?
  • How did Thomas Truxton enforce Stoddert's directives?
  • "Barron found Chesapeake in much disarray from her several year period of inactivity and he left Master Commandant Charles Gordon in charge of the preparations" does this mean that Barron avoided his responsibility to fix the ship?
  • "Some sailors from Constitution joined Chesapeake and together they filled the crew with sailors of all nations" seems an overstatement - 'several nations' perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out what you found. That was the slap I needed to find the poor prose and I have gone over the entire article. Hopefully it should read better.

As for Truxton, his actions were nothing more than to sit around and act important. His assignment to the yard by Stoddert was nothing more than to appease Truxton's ego. There was no ship available for Truxton at that particular time and with a war going on and Truxton threatening to resign over the silliest things, Stoddert did whatever it took to keep experienced Captain's in the service. Stoddert sent him to Gosport to act as "though you were the commander in chief of the Navy." to get some ships completed. What he actually did while there is a mystery but when he found out that Stoddert wouldn't give him a Flag Captain, he resigned. Stoddert was tired of Truxton's crap and called his bluff by not appeasing him again.

As for Barron, yes, he apparently was only aboard the ship twice before she sailed to her doom with Leopard. I had thought that his ensuing suspension from the navy was enough to explain the overall negligence on his part. --Brad (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support above comments now addressed; great work. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: alt text is present, all refs have been consolidated and there are no dab links. There was, however, one external link that would not connect according to the Featured article tools. It is the pdf of Gordon Calhoun work. Sorry, could you please investigate? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The link has loaded fine for me. It does link directly to a PDF so I'm not sure if that could foil the link tool or not. The PDF is large and takes a while to load. --Brad (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've cleaned up the text a bit, but it looks good. Just wondering, are you planning for a FT on the six frigates and Six Original Frigates of the United States Navy? – Joe N 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes; featured topic is a goal for these articles. One is already FA from last year and I've this one and two others that should be FA by years end. That leaves three more articles to work up. I estimate featured topic by early 2011. --Brad (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...this was an important war in the long conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism in the old German territories, it had long term repercussions not only on religious practice, but on the constitution of authority and the early modern state. It was the first test of ecclesiastical reservation in the Holy Roman Empire, and it represented the first significant incursion of outsiders in HRE affairs. The article has been through a variety of reviews, maps have been made (and are continuing to be made). Battle stubs are being filled in, although there were few real "battles" in the modern parlance, thee were more like sieges and plundering raids... I think it meets the A class requirements. I appreciate your critique of the article. THANKS! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Comments:
• This article needs some serious referencing improvements before promotion to A-Class. First of all, there are numerous paragraphs and sections with insufficient citations:
  • The introduction in the Background section is completely unreferenced.

Yes, it is. The background section is very long, and this paragraph serves as a lead to the background. I could add a citation of every source I used at the end of that paragraph, if you prefer?

• • The first paragraph in the Religious divisions in the Empire currently contains only one citation at the end. Sentences such as The idea of religious pluralism, in which individuals could adhere to a faith dictated by conscience, is a modern invention. Prior to the 16th century, there was one faith in a European Christian land, and that was the Catholic, or universal, faith. should be cited even though you duplicate the ref existent at the end of the para. Same for the last para of the section.

why should the cite be duplicated throughout a single paragraph? Holborn is a standard, although elderly, text, and widely available.

• • The issue raised above is present in most of the article, so I'll add cite tags in every place where citation is needed.

You and I have distinctly different ideas about salting an article with citations. Over use of the notes section requires that the reader jump around, moving from cite to cite at the end of every sentence. I prefer to put them at the end of the paragraph, where possible, and as suggested

• • Please consider separating citation and notes and remove details unneeded in citations (ex:current ref #14 - N.M. Sutherland, Origins of the Thirty Years War and the Structure of European Politics. The English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 424 (Jul., 1992), pp. 587–625, p. 606. → Sutherland, p. 606). Please see here for an elegant referencing system.

Do you have a source on that? Elegance is in the mind of the beholder. I find that system very cumbersome to write, read and understand. See WP:MILMOS#CITESTYLE for examples of discursive footnotes as a legitimate way to document an article. In this article, the first time I cited a source, I used the full citation, and after that an abbreviation. This is consistent unless I'm using the source in a discursive footnote, such as #39, to explain the origins of/or disagreement on some fact or other (such as the number of casualties).

• • Current refs 1, 18, 21, 28, 29 and 47 lack a page number.

Legitimate. I will take care of this in the next couple of days.\.

• • Citations such as #35 should split and each reference should have its own citation placed in the text where appropiate.

(This is now #39). I disagree with this also. Standards in historiographical reference combine citations all the time. In many cases, the source used in a secondary work is duplicated among other secondary works. For example, the story of the "salted" soldiers appeared in every account of Schenck's incursion into Werl. Would you have me put a half dozen separate citations after this? How cumbersome! All of those sources say the same thing, so it is appropriate to use a discursive footnote. The destructive power of this war was incredible, although there were few battles. The last sentence (which is uncited), just states that I am choosing 2 incidents as indicative of the war, rather than recounting the entire war: one army marches here, burns a village, plunders a convent, rapes the nuns. Another army marches there, does the same thing. It's a repetitive story. This method of dealing with the minutiae of the war was actually suggested by Magic♪piano, who did the GA review.

• I have some doubts regarding the prose of this article as well, but as I'm not a copy-editing expert I expect other reviewers to raise such issues. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter, thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I'm sure we can reach some agreement about how to resolve these issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources issues have been addressed. See the revisions, and comments below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, per other comments posted I have withdrawn my oppose and leave comments above as recommandations. Excuse me for the late response, I wasn't able to contribute during the last week. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eurocopter, this is very gracious of you. As you can see, I have incorporated many of your comments, and added several citations in places where you asked. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is in much better form now, I'm ready to support its promotion. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Per Wikipedia:Cite#How_to_present_citations, editors have considerable freedom in deciding how to organise their references and whether to place an in-line citation after each sentence, or just add a single reference at the end of a paragraph, if the whole paragraph is based on the same source. These things are personal preferences and should not affect article rating. JN466 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayen466. If a paragraph of information comes from the one source, then it is sufficient to have a single cite at the end of the paragraph. Placing the cite after basically every sentence in a paragraph is overkill, redundant and just looks poor presentation wise. I think many of these cite needed tags are just not needed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment First impression of this article is very good. I'll read through it in detail over the coming days and will comment below:
  1. "Convened in 1555 by Charles brother, Ferdinand, the king had the authority to "act and settle" disputes of territory, religion, and local power.[7]" Can we rewrite this sentence? My understanding is that Ferdinand was the brother of Charles, the king, who had authorised Ferdinand to negotiate the accord on his behalf. Also, it is grammatically not clear what was convened. JN466 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
     • Actually, the "king" would be Ferdinand, who was technically "King of the Germans," and Charles would have been "emperor", although in German Kaiser is Kaiser. But I rewrote the sentence, and I hope it is clearer now. Thanks for catching that! Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
       • Oops, indeed. :) But much clearer now, thank you. --JN466 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. I find the following sentence a little difficult to follow: "Firstly, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) marked the end of organized military action between Protestants and Catholics, but its limitations did not address the emerging trend toward religious pluralism throughout the German-speaking lands of the Holy Roman Empire." The word I am having problem with is "limitations". In what sense did limitations not address the trend? Are we saying that the scope of the Peace of Augsburg was limited, and therefore it did not address the emerging trend? In other words, one of its limitations was that it did not address ...? --JN466 13:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this now.

• 1. "The Schmalkaldic League called its own ecumenical council in 1537, and set forward several precepts of faith; Luther did not attend, but Philipp Melanchthon wrote a scathing condemnation of the papal authority in which he labeled the pope as the anti-Christ.[5]" Could you check into this? I read that Luther did attend in 1537 but was prevented from participating much because he was suffering from an acute bout of kidney stones. It was Luther himself who said the pope was "the true anti-Christ or Endchrist" in the 1537 Smalcald Articles (to which a tractatus by Melanchthon was added). It seems Melanchthon did not fully concur with Luther and favoured a more conciliatory attitude towards the pope, saying he should be treated "as though" he were the anti-Christ as long as things did not change. [2][3][4] --JN466 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this now. In the interest of clarity, I summarized two councils into one paragraph, making it unclear.

• 1. "First, Ferdinand had pushed ecclesiastical reservation through debate, and his ad hoc Declaratio Ferdinandei was not debated in plenary session at all; these failings came back to haunt the Empire in subsequent decades" Could we prettify this sentence? I am not sure what is meant by "Ferdinand had pushed ecclesiastical reservation through debate" ("had pushed it through against the resistance of others"?), and given that we describe two failings, perhaps we should say "First, ...; second, ...: both these failings ..." --JN466 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He didn't wait for great debate, they spent most of the time debating cuious/ejus, and had no time left over for the other issues. See if it's clearer now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support. I am halfway through proofreading and copy-editing; I've found only a few minor things, on the whole it is beautifully written. I'll continue going through but don't expect to find anything that would prevent me from supporting when I am done. --JN466 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you check the page references in footnote 39 in the paragraph starting "The mere possibility of Gebhard's conversion"? I don't think they are right. I think it's pp. 294ff. in Ennen, perhaps pp. 25–32 in Hennes?
  • Also in this paragraph, we say, "On 19 December 1582, from the pulpit of the Cathedral in Cologne, he announced his conversion, from, as he phrased it, the "darkness of the papacy to the Light" of the Word of God". Page 32 in Hennes, which this quote is taken form, says he had a declaration published on his behalf on that date; page 297 in Ennen agrees. --JN466 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, this is right. I changed the date, but not the place. I fixed it. Thanks for spotting it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Just a little thing: the paragraph beginning "Pope Gregory XIII excommunicated him ..." explains, in more detail than necessary I believe, who Ernst of Bavaria is. We've already introduced him to the reader above. Obviously, the Wittelsbach reference must remain,  Done; we've already said that. --JN466 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the Cathedral feud section, we explain once more that Ernst of Bavaria became archbishop in Gebhard's stead. I think some of the other info in that para is redundant too. --JN466 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 57 in this version seems to be wrong: it says p. 67 in Hennes, but I cannot find that information on that page.
• Ref. 59 is a 30-page range (pp. 60–90); this really should be a tighter page range. The information sourced to it is "In the summer of 1583, Gebhard and Agnes took refuge, first at Vest in Vest Recklinghausen, a fief of the Electorate, and then at the fortress of Werl in the Duchy of Westphalia. From there, Gebhard set in motion as much of the Reformation as he could, which included a burst of iconoclasm from his troops that alienated much of the population." It should be possible to poinpoint this to a more precise location in the book.
• Generally, I think it would be worthwhile to check through the page numbers given in the citations. I know that is a royal pain, but in the spot checks I am making there are too many cases where looking up the relevant page does not yield the advertised information. --JN466 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just the Hennes cites. I was originally using a different version, and switched to the online version, since it is most readily available. I think they are right now. Several of them I just switched to another source. Most of these sources are repetitive, and largely based on Max Lossen's work, which is not all that easily found, esp the second volume, so I didn't use it. (Plus it is fraktur, which makes it even less accessible.) Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support I'm not an expert on this period of history, so I'm reviewing more from the perpective of presentation. I note Eurocopter's comments above and, while we are justifiably tough in the sourcing department in MilHist ACR, I don't think we need citations everywhere they've been requested, however I agree there's still some work to be done in this department. Generally, if an entire paragraph employs the same source, one citation to that source at the end of the paragraph should suffice, and this has been acceptable in my experience right up to and including FA-level. In fact there have been lively discussions at the FAC talk page about overly dense or unnecessary citing so my advice would be to make it a minimum of one citation per para, but of course more granular if there are multiple sources for the para or for individual statements within the para. On the other hand, it does look like some of the page ranges employed in the citations are too broad. To take some examples:
  • Background I don't see why the opening sentence, Two events of the 1550s influenced the emergence of conflict in Cologne thirty years later, needs a citation when the rest of the para explains what those two events were and includes a citation at the end—so long as the entire para was in fact sourced from the same place, which I'll accept IGF if Ruth tells me it's the case. However, a citation to Holborn, pp. 152–246 doesn't help me much in pinpointing where Holborn asserts this; I'd expect a much more narrow range of pages than this, or a few narrower ranges, e.g. Holborn, pp. 152–165, 238–246.
  • Religious divisions in the Empire The same points apply to the first paragraph here. The only other consideration is that I know some reviewers, at least at FAC, will request an inline citation for the direct quote, even if it's the same source as the rest of the paragraph that's cited at the end.
  • Course of the war In the first para, I agree with Eurocopter that the last sentence needs a citation. Even though other parts of the para are cited, we need to finish each para with a citation as well to cover ourselves.
  • Spanish intervention I realise the last sentence of this para is a general one leading into the next section, nevertheless it goes against the standard of concluding each para with a citation and there may be better ways of wording it if in fact none of the sources put things quite this way.

The last thing I'll say here is that I don't think there's a requirement to separate citations and explantory footnotes. Some do it, some don't, and I've seen both at A- and FA-Class level. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ian, for your comments. I'll see what I can do about the Holborn citation. Basically, that paragraph is a summary of almost 100 pages in Holborn--which I thought was quite a feat, considering the complexity. I will see if I can narrow it down further, although to be fair to Holborn, and the thoroughness of his presentation, I'm not sure. On the Religious divisions, I took out the "quote". It really isn't a quote exactly, it's a general phrase that Charles supposedly used to describe the dispute, and which has been translated, retranslated, etc. So I just took out the quote marks. In the course of the war section, I will simply remove the unsourced sentence. the choice of those two battles was my judgment call, not the statement of anyone else, to set up the next two sections. The same with the following comment. Again, thanks for your help. I'll get to this in the next couple of days. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tks for addressing the items above; I'm also satisfied enough with the prose. Couple of other points:

• There are quite a few instances of italics for emphasis. Ruth, I'd suggest reviewing these and perhaps cutting down a little because having that many tends to dissipate the effect.
• In Implications of Conversion you have Ernst was a clever choice: he had been the losing candidate in 1578, when Gebhard had won the election by two votes; thus insuring the involvement of the powerful House of Wittelsbach in the contest. Firstly, "clever" sounds a bit opinionated so if the source says that I think I'd prefer it spelled out or quoted; secondly, I think "ensured" is preferable, assuming we mean "made sure of"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• thanks Ian. I removed only 2 instances of italics -- the rest are foreign words, so should be italicized. If you find others, let me know. But I don't see them. I reworded one sentence, removed the clever part.  :) It was actually more of a diabolical choice, considering the consequences. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just two more things from me: last sentence of third para of Religious divisions in the Empire should have a citation, even if the same as the first citation in the next para;  Done

Horror at Neuss sounds emotive, unless the term is commonly used in connection with the event - if not then I think Destruction of Neuss is more suitable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ummmmm.....well, what else can we call something that included a 36 hour cannonade, the killing of the entire garrison, hanging of men from windows over the market square, a fire that burned nearly the whole city (8 buildings left), and a general storming of the city by 10,000 troops? With some 3000 dead, not only the military types. A friend suggested Armageddon. Possibly too strong. Raizing of Neuss? I thought I wasn't supposed to use the names of articles in the subheaders. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The enormity of the event isn't in question, just whether the phrase is commonly applied in this case. In terms of obviating that, I wasn't aware of any restriction re. article names in subheader titles, but if such exists then "Razing" works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Done

Tks Ruth, unqualified support now for a great (and patient!) effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support

• "The position of elector-archbishop was usually held by a scion of nobility, although not necessarily a priest, and a broad practice of medieval and early modern Europe, not simply in the Holy roman Empire." Eh? Rephrase please, and check your capitalization.

• The position of elector-archbishop was usually held by a scion of nobility, although not necessarily a priest; this widespread practice allowed younger sons of noble houses to find prestigious and financially secure positions.

• Good.

• It needs a copy-edit. There are a variety of gramattical and usage errors throughout.

• will do. Done

• Perhaps you could include all the various people and nations who intervened in the infobox.

• all of them? oooookay. Done

• Why have you linked succumbed to "Bonn (1583)"?

• that is a juicy redlink that can be converted into an article at some point.

• Perhaps "Sack of Bonn (1583)" or "Fall of Bonn (1583)" would be better than just a city name and year?

• added. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• "City of Werl, which Cloedt and Schenck captured Werl through a "salty" strategem." Erm...?

• he covered his soldiers in salt. Salted soldiers. A salty strategem. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but the sentence is a fragment and doesn't make sense to a reader.

• expanded, made into real sentences.

• There are places where the article seems to summarize itself, go into deep detail on an event, and then recap the last section.

This is rather confusing and another thing to do be dealt with in a copy-edit.

• yes. I periodically summarize material, and then go into the next section.  ? Basically a response to other comments.

shortened. Done

• I question the need for a link to bombing of Cologne in World War II in the See Also section.

• If you search on "Cologne War" in most search engines, including Wikipedia's, you mostly get links ( or got) links to WWI in Cologne.

• I'm not sure that's a valid reason for including in See Also as the link is so tenuous. Generally See Also items have a stronger content link to the article in which they appear. I'd say the same for Cologne War of 1114 unless it had a significant bearing on this conflict (and if it did, you'd no doubt have mentioned it in the Background section). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of the "See Also" Section. Put the history of cologne link into the relevant paragraph, and removed the other two altogether.  :)  Done Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

These, and the problems noted above, need to be worked out before it's ready for A-Class. – Joe N 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks! – Joe N 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for reading. I will run another copy edit and see if I can catch some of these issues. Done Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• CommentSupport: there are no dab links and the external links all work according to the link checker. One of the images, however, lacks alt text according to the Altviewer, although all the others have it. It is the image of Gebhard von Waldburg-Trauchburg. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• fixed, thanks! Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

added that alt text for Gebhard's portrait, plus alt text on coats of arms per request of another reviewer.Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done

• Question: File:Godesburg 1583.jpg- Where is this image from, before it was uploaded to the German Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

according to the German wikipedia, it was File:Inname van Godesberg - Capture and destruction of Godesburg in 1583 (Frans Hogenberg).jpg|Version from www.ge-heugenvannederland.nl Frans Hogenberg was a Flemish engraver and painter, who was in Cologne during the wars. He died in 1590. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you plan on nominating this article for Featured consideration, from what I've observed the reviewers there are really strict about sourcing information for images. They require that the sourcing info be very clear so that it can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt that the image is public domain. I tested that link and it appears to be dead. Is it possible to find another source for that image? Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I've just checked in the commons page for the image information and it looks good. All the links seem to work, and the original is held in some museum in the Netherlands. If Adewait or Eubildes, or another image maven object, I'll deal with it then. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary This review is getting long (and long in the tooth). I think I've covered everything that people have raised. Is there anything else I need to do here? So far there is support from Australian Rupert, JoeN, Eurocopter, IanRose, and "leading toward support" from JN (who I think is otherwise occupied with the Inner German Border and real life). Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

With three supports it can be closed by any uninvolved coordinator. I've supported it, so I can't. – Joe N 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 08:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bardia

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Getting back to creating and editing the odd article. Starting with this one on Bardia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few quick comments for now:

• The lead requires an expansion, preferably to a good three paragraphs.
• Subheadings should not begin with "The", per MoS.
• Images require alt text.
• Endashes are needed between page ranges used in citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Some minor comments:

• Check if it was Lieutenant General Annibale Bergonzoli's XXIII Corps - I think it may have been the XXI Corps (I dont think there was a XXIII Corps in Africa at that time. XX, XXI and XXII Corps formed the Tenth Army under command of General d'Armata Tellera.
  • I have checked all my sources. All are agreed that Bergonzoli commanded the XXIII Corps, which was destroyed in the battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I checked Pitt: The Crucible of War: Wavell's Command - he clearly states in the oob for this period that XXI Corps under command of Annibale Bergonzoli contained the 1st and 2nd Blackshirt Divisions! BUT...... this could have been after Bardia, as the oob gives no specific date - its the Compass oob. So, I go along with your text. Farawayman (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• In the CampaignBox, if you list Bergonzoli as commander (i.e. Italian Corps Commander), then should we not list the corresponding Allied Corps Commander: O'Conner?
  • And list all the Italian division commanders to match Mackay? Mackay was in overall command of the attacking force; Bergonzoli of the defence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional detail and deserving of A Class status! Farawayman (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I concur fully...outstanding job! This battle set the pattern and tone for the rest of Operation Compass. Arguably, if you take Bardia and repeated it about 8 times you would basically have Compass.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: IMO it meets the A class criteria. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support: no dabs, alt text is present, external links all work and refs consolidated. Images all have appropriate copyright licences, etc. Well written, illustrated and appropriate length. Great work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter War

Nominator(s): Peltimikko (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets criterias required. If necessary, I am willing to deliver more subarticles. Peltimikko (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this excellent article meets the A class criteria. I do think that the last two sub-sections in the 'background' section are a bit out of place there, however, as they cover the war itself rather than the background to it. More articles on this topic would be great! Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wow, great work. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support: there are no dab links, alt text is present and the external links all work according to the Featured article tools. It is well written and illustrated and I believe it meets the A class criteria. Great work and thank for you contribution to Wiki! One issue for FA and it is very minor. I think citation # 141 needs to be consolidated with # 25 as they seem to be the same. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Teardrop

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article was recently peer reviewed, and I think it may now meet the A class criteria. Comments on how to further develop the article to FA status would also be great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to wind in the See Also into the article or delete it. Also, I got the feeling that the 'Background' first section was a little under-cited - might want to add more in or repeat cites. Is the extensive discussion of the postwar mission evaluation necessary, or, since it's not actually part of Operation Teardrop, better placed at another article? The alt text for USS Mosley could also use 'destroyer' instead of 'ship.' Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've removed the see also (as these German operations weren't the target of the USN's barrier forces which is the topic of this article), trimmed the last para so its better focused on the article's topic and tweaked the alt text. Those parts of the background section all come from Lundeberg (who has written the most detailed and recent work on the high-level political and military background to this operation) and I'm a little bit reluctant to break down the citations into individual pages, though I would be happy to do so. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: there are no dab links, all the duplicate refs have been consolidated and alt text is present. There is one external link, however, that is dead according to the Featured article tools linkchecker. Can you please investigate this? Other than that I believe that the article meets A class. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. The link states that 'This page is temporarily out of service. Please check back later' when you load it, so it may come back. I'll remove the URL if its still dead in a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Prose looks very good.
  • "considering attacking" could be "considering an attack on".
    • Done
  • "utilized", being an ugly word, could be just "used".
    • Done
  • "deployed into a 120-mile (190 km)-long line while the two carriers, each"—see "Multi-hyphenated items" at User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A: "a line 120 miles (190 km) long"?
    • Done, thanks
  • Quite a lot of "alsos".
    • I've just trimmed these a bit
  • Consider placing "However," at the start of a sentence. Tell your readers early that you're going to contradict the foregoing in some way.
    • I've been trained in my writing-intensive government job to not start sentences with 'however' as it makes it look like the sentence is nullifying the previous one, so I'm reluctant to do that
  • "the boats found no targets" would be nicer.
    • Done
  • Radar out for close repetitions: "after being ... after being".
    • Well spotted! I just trimmed some.
  • Numeral for "22"? Where is your boundary between spelling out and numerals? I think numerals would be easier in some cases: "three escort carriers and 31 destroyer escorts".
    • I don't have a barrier; the use of both was criticised in one of my FACs, so I've stuck to spelling it out
  • "Upon"? Bit old-fashioned in most contexts.
    • I trimmed the first one, but I think that the second one is OK
  • "to quickly get information" might be "to promptly extract information".
    • Yes, that's much better, thanks
  • "he'd"—MoS says no contractives.
    • Fixed
  • The images are tiny. Some are full of detail or hard to make out at current sizes. I've enlarged a few. The V-1 image—there's a better way of displaying horizontal images (see MoS?). It's so tiny even the sighted need the alt text. Tony (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm confused about image sizing; I like the default 180px (which look fine on my large monitor) and forced resizing was discouraged for a long time, though that seems to have recently changed. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Good prose, lots of references and the pics support the article very nicely given the content. Very good read, well done! Ryan4314 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

AH-56 Cheyenne

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Fnlayson (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it is a quality article and meets the requirements. Fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article which easily meets the criteria. I have some suggestions for further development you may wish to consider:
  • If possible, more images would be valuable
  • "During early flight tests, a rotor instability was discovered when the aircraft was flying in ground effect" is a bit technical and could be converted into plainer language (eg, what's 'ground effect?').
  • How does the AH-1 Cobra fit into this story? I was a bit surprised that it wasn't mentioned given that it was the Army's main attack helicopter at the time the Cheyenne was being developed. Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to reword about that. The AH-1 Cobra does not really fit into the story. The AH-1 was originally intended as an interim gunship for jungle fighting in Vietnam. It was lightly armed then and not intended for the anti-armor role that the AH-56 was designed for. Things changed though. By the time the AH-56 program was finally ended in 1972, the US Army put TOW missiles on Cobras (AH-1Q) for use against tanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: this is a well written, cited, illustrated and comprehensive article. There are no dab links and the external links all check out with the Featured article tools. The images, however, are missing alt text. Can this please be added in per WP:ALT? Assuming that that is added in, I support this article for A class. Cheers and well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if Alt text was required here. Describing a visual in words is not something I'm good at. But I made an attempt at the Alt text. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure either, but it seems to come up at most A class reviews. The alt text would probably need to be improved a bit if you want to take this article to FAC, however, I think it is okay for A class. (I also, however, have problems with writing good alt text, so I know what you mean when you say you have difficulty describing a visual in words.) Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support.

• It needs a copy-edit. Some places are confusing or badly worded and should be looked over by someone else. I've fixed at least one example, another particularly bad one is below.
• "The Army perceived Lockheed's design as less expensive, able to be available earlier, and that it would have less technical risk than Sikorsky's Rotorprop." Rephrase please.

Otherwise, however, it looks good. Get that fixed and it'll be great for A-class. – Joe N 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support

Great article! Nothing major, just a few comments to look at before I support it.

• I'm not sure what the standard intro procedure is, but I feel like the last 2 paragraphs of the intro could be moved to the development section, before the background, as they seem to provide a nice summary of the development program, but more than is needed in the intro. If you move those two paragraphs down, you could add a one-liner saying the program was canceled to the intro.
• A copy edit things... in Background: "from existing aircraft whose design purpose was other than carrying weapons for aerial employment." is really rough. Try something like "derivatives of helicoptors designed for other purposes". You've already established this is a combat helicoptor.
• Need more wikilinks (red links are fine imo): UH-1A, D-255, D-262,
• Do we know why the first flight was with the second prototype? (Flight Testing)
• What did the AAH program result in? The AH-64? That should be mentioned, if only in passing, there at the end of the development section.
• What are the off-axis weapons? (maybe just redifine that as the "wing mounted weapons" or whatever, a lay person may not get it) -SidewinderX (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. I beleive the Lead meets WP:LEAD guidelines in summarizing the entire article and not being too long. The last 2 paragraphs there can be shortened some and possibly be recombined. Shortening them too much though would mean glossing over things like the complicated end of the program. I addressed everything else you mentioned. Except links for the D-255 and D-262 proposed designs are not warranted as those are explained about as well in this article as separate article(s) could. Let me know if I missed something or you see something else. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the lead is fine with me. The fixes look fine to me. Good job! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

USS President (1800)

Yes, another original frigate article. Recently passed GA and has been copy edited to some extent. All sources are exhausted on this subject yet they still leave a substantial amount of information at hand. --Brad (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support

• "During the war President patrolled as far east as the English Channel and as far north as Norway." Noway is east of the English Channel.

And there is the dilemma I was faced with. Norway is north-east of the English Channel. It's certainly farther north and east than the EC. The trouble I had was making it understandable. Perhaps removing the north and east descriptions would solve the problem? I'm open to suggestions.

Perhaps just "patrolled as far from the United States as the English Channel and Norway"? – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be more clear now. I also had to remove "christened" and replace it with "completed" as I have no evidence that the ship was ever christened. Another editor had added christened. --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Sources do not agree on the roles of those involved in her construction. Toll claims Cheeseman; DANFS claims Bergh; the New York Times article written by Bergh's son Henry, claims that Bergh was Naval Constructor appointed by Cheeseman;" This phrase doesn't make sense and makes the whole note confusing.

I'm trying to explain to the reader what each source I had at my disposal said about the builders. That is, none of my sources agreed with the other or made no mention of it. In this case my only choice was to include all three persons and attempt to explain why the article is unclear about who did what and when. Ideas?

I understand what you're trying to do, I just think you forgot a word. Toll claims Cheeseman...what? Was the foreman? Same with Bergh. A useful footnote, just badly phrased. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this more clear now? --Brad (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• You mention her recommissioning in 1809 but no decommissioning, can this be clarified?

This question came up at the GAR. Being knowledgeable about ship procedures I could say that President was put in reserve after the First Barbary War which is quite likely, but none of my sources say this ever happened. So, if I can't cite it, I can't say it. I did have a cite to say that the ship was recommissioned on 1809.

Too bad, it's just rather confusing, but I suppose it can't be helped. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a note at the end of the section to explain the gap. Look ok to you? --Brad (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Rodgers' squadron managed to capture seven merchant ships and recapture one American vessel before returning to Boston." Wait, I thought you said he hadn't caught the convoy. If he later went chasing other ships after giving up the chase for the Jamaica convoy, you should say that.

This should be more clear now? --Brad (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. – Joe N 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall good, just a few clarifications before I can support it. – Joe N 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, it's all good now. – Joe N 18:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support with few comments:
  • Please consider adding references inside the notes as well, even if the coresponding references are posted near the note links in the article text.
  • There is no need for separate section for notes and citation. See here how you can easily merge the two sections in a more elegant referencing system.
  • Why are some characteristics in the infobox cited and some not? They should all be cited even if they are referenced by the same citation.
• Otherwise a good article and a nice read. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You suggest some ideas that I will pursue before FAC such as the easier setup on notes and references. As for the infobox citations.. I had another editor mention that whatever was cited in the body of the article didn't need citing in the box. Whichever way is correct I will repair the cites there. --Brad (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My recommendations above would make your life easier through an FAC, but they are just advices so feel free to do what you consider best. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The images all have alt text, and the external links all work. There is one disambig link though that needs fixing (Irish Channel). Can you please investigate and pipe it through to the most correct link? Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Closed as promote -MBK₀₀₄ 06:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Congress (1799)

Recently passed to GA. This article is short! As I pointed out on the talk page, there is a lack of any substantial writing that has been done via sources used for this article. In fact, for a change, the DANFS article actually contained more information about her later career than anything else did. There are still gaps in her later career that I'm not sure could ever be filled in without extensive research that goes beyond what is expected for a WP article. Nevertheless, I'm nominating this article for A-class. --Brad (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Full Support

Excellent article, although I was confused by the beginning of the construction section; I realize you've linked the main article at the start of the section, but to begin with 'The keel of "Frigate F" was laid down' is very confusing as I've no idea what Frigate F is. Might I suggest a few sentences explaining what the first six frigates programme was?

 Done Your observation was spot on. I realize that I wrote the construction section making a lot of assumptions. I will rework that section and also fix your questions about Algiers. --Brad (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we have some info, even just a sentence, on what the previous two Constellations were, since it's mentioned in the lede but not the main article, so far as I can see.

Constellations? If you mean the previous two ships named Congress there is a link at the top of the article for more information on the other ships named Congress. My feeling is that dragging those ships into this article is more or less off topic.

Yes, that's what I meant, I apologize. I guess that's fair enough then. Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

'Construction was interrupted in March 1796 upon conclusion of peace terms with Algiers' - Eh? What peace terms, what conflict with Algiers? This section needs some real context!

When ship names are first used, I would suggest placing 'USS' in front of them, like the Chesapeake in the second section, as it confused me for a second before I clicked on the link.

The article is written about a US Navy ship, therefore having to point out the nationality of other ships of the US Navy isn't really needed. This isn't the case when Royal Navy ships are brought into the article which I have identified by using the HMS prefix.

'She was then placed in ordinary at the Washington Navy Yard' - What does 'in ordinary' mean, please? Even just a wikilink would be good.

in ordinary is linked in the lead section. No need for repetitive linking.

'recaptured one American flagged ship' - This is rather confusing. I assume it was captured by the British before they recaptured it, but why was it still flying the US flag? Was it some kind of subterfuge?

Hopefully I have clarified a bit further but sources are lacking any detailed description of who had captured that ship to begin with.

No information on what the nine prizes captured by the two ships were, I'm guessing? Skinny87 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the War of 1812 section was researched by having to follow the doings of President and United States which Congress served with during that time. Congress was always written as an afterthought in most of the sources. --Brad (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've certainly cleared up everything I wanted to know. Full support! Skinny87 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Mostly looks good given the limited sources, but there are two issues that it'd be nice to resolve a bit more.

• "she returned to Boston in April and was ordered to the Washington Navy Yard to be placed in ordinary.[1][13] En route, she passed Mount Vernon on her way up the Potomac and Captain Sever ordered her sails lowered, flag at half-mast, and fired a 13-gun salute to honor the recently deceased George Washington.[14]" Eh? If my geography's correct, one wouldn't sail up a river in Virginia to get to Boston, in Massachusetts.

Here is part of the paragraph I used from Allen p. 258:

Meanwhile the vessels not needed for service in the spring of 1801 were laid up in different ports. The United States, Congress, and New York were ordered to Washington. The Congress sailed from Boston and " was delayed by head winds, so that we did not reach Washington till late in May. We passed the frigate United States in the lower part of the Potomac. About 10 o'clock in the morning of a beautifully serene day we passed Mount Vernon.

I'm not a nautical navigation expert but I believe that to get from Boston to Washington DC by ship you must go from Boston down to the mouth of the Potomac and back up to DC.

I think I must have misread it the first time, it looks good now. – Joe N 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Any idea what happened between 1807 and 1811?

I can't fill in any more gaps from my sources. At this point I think that further research might require a trip to the National Archives to find the log books of Congress or records from the various navy yards she was in during that period. But that is research far beyond what is expected for a wp article. --Brad (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, that wouldn't be necessary. It's still a shame though. – Joe N 01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

– Joe N 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I believe that this article meets the required standard for A-class. Its not as comprehensive as equivalent A-class articles, but as you have said, there is a paucity of sources covering this particular ship. -- saberwyn 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

John Lloyd Waddy

promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article on a leading RAAF ace, "Morotai Mutineer", post-war head of the Citizen Air Force, and state government minister, because I'm reasonably satisfied it meets the criteria for referencing, detail, structure, style and supporting materials. Any and all comments welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you direct ref the quotes in the SW Pacific section?
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Given this person was a minister in the largest state in Australia. I was hoping for a bit more on the political stuff, eg his policies or bills he sponsored that passed. Also do you have numbers on his election campaign. You said he was reelected a few times, the years should be added. Also I presume as it was a north shore seat it must have been very safe Liberal. Was there a large battle to get control of this blue ribbon seat? Was there any factional basis for him being turfed out in a power struggle? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Tks for that, mate. I agree the ministerial achievements look a bit light on, however there's surprisingly little out there in the web and secondary book sources I've checked. I'll see if I can find any other books that talk about him, otherwise if you think it's an issue I might have to just pick out some facts from the parliamentary record at the Mitchell Library. Regarding his deselection, again you'd think they'd be something but all I've found is the fact of it in his NSW Parliament web page, plus one of his colleagues describing the act as unfair, but not why it happened. Anyway, I'll do some more digging and see what turns up. If that doesn't work, I might write to son Lloyd for some pointers - after all, his father and mine were both in 250 Squadron... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Nothing more on deselection but expanded ministerial career details - not all riveting stuff but such is the nature of state government business... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - excellent article, just a few points:

• Would you be able to specify the exact date of his enlistment in the RAAF?
  • Should do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually I remember why I said "late 1940", because one source says September and the other December, so hedged my bets... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • World War II Nominal Roll? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep, that's the September source - unfortunately it also says he was born in 1914, not 1916 which pretty well everyone else says, so I'm a bit dubious about giving it more weight than my other source which says December (Newton's Australian Air Aces)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• The mention of Waddy's Mention in Despatches seems rather off hand, and as if he was awarded it for joining the Citizen Air Force. I think it would be best if this snippet was added back up into the World War II section, and, if you are able, add ruffly why he was awarded it.
  • Unusually, neither the AWM recommendations nor the Gazette entries offer much in the way of reasons for his awards, except the DFC. However, I agree about placement of the MiD bit; will put it in the SW Pacific subsection and just say when gazetted, similar to how I did with the DFC mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• "a seat on the Air Board, the service's controlling body" - the "service" seems to be alluding to the CAF, rather than the Air Force as a whole. This should be clarified.
  • Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not the most knowledgable in this area, so why was Waddy permitted to retain the title of "Honourable" following his retirement from politics?
  • It's not that unusual apparently, judging by a list I've seen of all those who can. However I haven't seen a particular reason in Waddy's case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• The award of Waddy's US Air Medal is mentioned in both the lead and infobox, but not the prose.
  • Quite so - tks for picking that up, and for the review in general. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am now satisfied that any and all of my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to support the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• Can you mention the cause of Richard's 1941 death? Accident or enemy action?

• Unfortunately this isn't made clear; one source says it occurred in the UK and, since the B of B was over by then, I think it was probably an accident, but there's nothing that specific. The two sources I cite don't even agree on the aircraft he was in, one says Hurricane and the other Spitfire, which is why I hedged my bets with "single-engined fighter"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would also like to see some more information his post-military career, you seem to briefly mention some things but not explain them in depth, such as his directorship of an airline - that could be a pretty major thing, but it doesn't even receive one sentence. I understand if the information just isn't out there, but if it is, I'd like to see it. – Joe N 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tks for review mate. I'll have a bit more to add soon re. his parliamentary career. Re. the airline, it appears to have been a small seaplane concern, nothing major/public, but I wouldn't say that additional info is from what we'd term a reliable source. Again, I'll see what more, if anything, I can find. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support There are no dab links, alt text is present and external links all work according to the link checker. The article is well written and comprehensive in my opinion and well illustrated and referenced. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

SMS Nassau

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another one of my seemingly interminable German warship articles :) Seriously, though, I think this article is fairly comprehensive; it passed GA about a month ago, and I have recently dug through my copy of John Campbell's Jutland: an Analysis of the Fighting and added what extra bits I could. I appreciate all comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You need to fix up the convert measurements.
  • What happened to this ship between 1916 and 1918? I see a gap there. --Brad (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I've got all the conversions now, but if I missed any, can you point them out? As for between 1916 and 1918, I haven't found anything; it seems she sat in port for the majority of it. It would be probable that she took part in this operation, since her sistership Oldenburg was there, but Nassau isn't mentioned by name as having been there. Should I add it on the assumption that she was there? Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Support I added some non-breaking spaces where needed. Better to leave the time gap in the article than to begin assuming. I've run into the same problem on a couple of frigate articles I've worked on. Not much can be done about it. --Brad (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good, except that at the end of the Jutland section it seems to imply that she was hit while standing guard at night, is that correct? If not, it should be rephrased. – Joe N 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out, I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Needs a link to the article on the main armament. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't have a 28 cm SK L/45 gun article (or equivalent), do we? I looked through the relevant category as well as List of naval guns, and it appears there isn't an article about this particular model. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Lewis McGee

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now satisfies the criteria. Another Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War, he was ultimately killed in the Battle of Passchendaele just eight days after his courageous exploits. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - although a bit lighter on detail than I'd normally expect for an A-Class article, I understand there can't be much more to write because of his relatively short life, and it easily satisfies the criteria for structure, referencing, prose/style, and supporting materials. If you can add any more on early life, given that he was a bit older than some of his contemporaries, that'd be great but support is offered in any case. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and copyedit, Ian. I gathered as much as I could on McGee, but there wasn't a lot to grasp onto due to, as you stated above, his relatively short life, though I do believe this article is comprehensive. There is very little written on his early life, and I think I have put as much as I could in that section, but I will see if there is anything more I can add. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. Check the dab links though...!
    • I meant to do this, but completely forgot! Thanks for the reminder; all fixed now. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Interesting and well-written article; well-deserving of A-Class. Great work, as always. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Tosa class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) and Parsecboy (talk · contribs)

Both Tosas were canceled as part of the agreements made at the Washington Naval Treaty, but Kaga was reordered as an aircraft carrier when the battlecruiser Amagi was severely damaged by an earthquake and served in the Second World War, where she was sunk. As always, all comments are welcome! Thanks and cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments I almost feel like I need to make a template for Ed articles to point out the following:

• Convert templates missing on some measurements. When converting nautical miles you need to include the US measurements in addition to the metric. The US reader is still lost without them. 19,000 yards should have the miles in addition to meters or km.
• You need OCLC numbers on your book references.
• You need a blue link reduction though I'm sure you will disagree. --Brad (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I've delinked what I could; my apologies for the state of the article, as Parsec and I wrote most of it back in January. I'll try to get back to this later or tomorrow. —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Pics need ALT text. No sense in waiting for FAC. --Brad (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I totally forgot to get back to this. I believe that your concerns have been addressed. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes Ed they have. Support. --Brad (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article and couldn't find any other issues. – Joe N 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

M22 Locust

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is the 'companion' as it were to the Light Tank Mk VII, the Tetrarch which I raised to FA class some time ago. The Locust was designed to replace the Tetratch, but amazingly it was even more poorly designed. Eight were used during Operation Varsity, but none really did anything. Prose will probably be the main problem here; I added some new sources yesterday, but I haven't looked over the rest for a while. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

Looks quite good. One thing I've just noticed after a quick skim through, shouldn't there be a Union Jack in the Used by section of the infobox? I'll read it a bit more thoroughly in a bit. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes. Rather an odd thing to miss, but there's one there now. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. You've put a lot of good work into this article. Only suggestion I could give is that the prose seems to drag on quite a bit. It's a bit lengthy and there's some unneeded wording in it. But otherwise it is a well written article. Might make a good FA. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Prose is always a problem for me; several editors are copy-editing it at the moment, but I'll get it thoroughly copy-edited prior to an FAC attempt. Skinny87 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support This was always meant to be support, just realised it wasn't. Copied and pasted from the wrong line.... Ranger Steve (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great read. I'd never heard of this tank before now, so another success for Wikipedia (and Skinny). I made some alterations to the prose, but feel free to revert if you disapprove. Got a few queries though:

• From Faults: There were also mechanical problems with the design, which was proving to be unreliable in that area I'm probably being thick, but I'm not sure what this means. Is it that the tank was unreliable in the mechanics of the design?

I've rewritten it so hopefully it says that, but feel free to rewrite if required. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, looks much better now. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• From Second World War: Six Locusts from the regiment, divided into two troops of three, would land with the 6th Airlanding Brigade in landing-zone P. Six or eight? It says 8 everywhere else, but here it's described as 2 groups of 3 so I didn't change it just in case. Also, what time were they relieved - am or pm?

Good points, I'll check them out. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Time is am, as I'm using the 24 hour clock, although I've now added am just make sure. Still checking the numbers.Skinny87 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't read ;P It was eight Locusts in two troops of four. Corrected now. Skinny87 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought it might be! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• With regards to the obsolete bit, I was trying to find a way to make it sound a little less like the Airborne Forces only got them because they were obsolete (although I suppose technically that's true). I get the meaning of the sentence, but I had to re-read it originally 'cos I'd thought the war office decided that the Airborne needed an obsolete tank, rather than getting them because they were obsolete for Armoured formations.

That's what I tried to put across, and David Underdown refigured it. If it still doesn't make sense, fee lfree to rewrite it, although the two sources need to go together. Skinny87 (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, I just thought I'd try, but I confess I can't really see a simple way to make it clearer. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, all good. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, but I'd like to see some more coverage of it with the Egyptian army - I read about it in an article on a battle in that war that was up for A-Class a few weeks back, and it seems to have had a somewhat major role there. – Joe N 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good god, link me, link me! I know they were used, but can't find any reliable sources. If they exist, I need to use them! Skinny87 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this article doesn't have any references to the Locust, confirmed by the editor who got it to A-Class some time ago. Skinny87 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Battle of Bien Hoa (1968)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review on the suggestion of another user. All constructive comments welcome of course. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A1. Not Mostly Met, needs to say if VWP / PAVN / PLAF secondary sources in English exist or not: ausvets is not RS for military history. The citation is not appropriate for a web citation.(actioned by date: 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)) Regimental histories of 273R, 274R, unknown bn of 84A Rocket Regiment, and Dong Nai R do not appear to have been sought out (you should comment on your major secondary sources attempts to access this material, ie, their complaints that they couldn't, or that the units don't have official histories.

Ausvets is only used once and in conjunction with another source. Point taken about the NVA/VC histories. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A2. Not Met: Your nomenclature is biased, OPFOR should be identified with own nomenclature at first use of the standard English nomenclature. (actioned by date: 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)) Giap was not paramount in the DRVN leadership at this stage, I suggest you look into the recent scholarship on intraparty squabbling and the key thought behind "General offensive, general uprising" strategy (Its not Giap). Your prelude fails to give OPFOR's order of battle and Bien Hoa's political, strategic or operational importance for OPFOR. Your core narrative of Australia's experience in the Battle of Bien Hoa is factually accurate, neutral, focused. My concern is with neglect, and a bias-by-ommission. Additionally your Prelude narrative does not come up to contemporary scholarship regarding DRVN politics and strategy. Prose is consistently and worryingly biased towards an RAR / RVN / US-led alliance point of view, ie, "Ominously, they would be operating ..." The issue here is the prose's voice appears to come from RAR. Prose voice should be neutralised.

Working on the prose voice. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have added mention of the role of General Nguyen Chi Thanh. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to say that he was in command of the Tet Offensive. The inner workings of a secret communist party can be hard to discern. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the inner party life over the General offensive general uprising is fairly well known and documented in peer reviewed academic journals. That the editors mischaracterised Giaps role in the conduct of such a well documented DRVN policy choice and offensive speaks against their decision not to include mention of OPFOR accounts and leads me to suspect they never bothered to look. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A3. Met: Structure appears appropriate.

A4. Met: Not met: See concern about prose-voice POV. Basic issues with military terminology, "Tet was a tactical disaster for the communists". Really? Using tactics to describe a series of interlinked operations and a strategic gambit? I'm willing to accept this as a difference in opinion / characterisation that reasonable people would have.

Are you saying that Tet was not a heavy military defeat for the VC/NV? Sure the Western public and politicians got freaked out but from a raw military position, the communists lost YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course Tet was a defeat, measured against intended outcomes and force preservation. It was tactically successful, see the seizure of Hue. It was operational insanity and strategically desperate. If the article is characterising this as a tactical failure there is an issue with the editors' capacities for summarising military history at a conceptual level. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I'd have said that Tet was a tactical defeat for the Viet Cong, but a strategic victory for them also. Certainly that is how it is taught at RMC-D, or at least how it was taught when I was there. The reasoning for this is that tactically it was a defeat as the battles were lost militarily (i.e. on the ground and in terms of strict losses v. gains), but strategically it was a victory because of the overarching effect it had on the home front, politics and military planning in the US and Australia and perceptions in the media, etc. This is where the terms 'tactical' and 'strategic' take on broader conceptions than the basic 'tactical' meaning what to do in a single military situation and 'strategic' (as in a conflict-wide plan). As such, I feel that you are probably being a bit harsh in your criticism of the editor's ability to summarise military history, however, I hasten to add that we were both at RMC at the same time and as such my own conceptions of the many ways in which these terms can be used is probably coloured in the same way as his own. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm assessing tactical success in terms of achieving many immediate missions, maintaining unit cohesion in complex and radically changed operations, and having a capacity to assert their operational goals: are small units successful in completing or attempting missions assigned. (I suspect here RMC-D had a different opinion on the expendable nature of their infantry assets to the NLF in 1968). I'm assessing strategic against the aims of the general offensive / general uprising (which, admittedly, were for the people of Saigon to seize power after being inspired...), or against the general strategic aim of reunification under VWP control.

A5. NotMostly Met: Diagram map of lines of communication / bases would be an appropriate addition, and is wanting. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I Support this article moving forward to A. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a map of sorts now, but not quite what we're after as it is of the main Tet attacks. Am currently attempting to draw one of AOs Uniontown and Columbus myself, but at this stage it is a wooful effort. Will not upload unless I can somehow make it look less like something drawn by a monkey with a crayon between his teeth. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the article. The problems highlighted are, with the exception of the PLAF/PAVN military histories, small and resolvable. The issue of access to Vietnamese accounts of the battle is a major concern. If such accounts are unavailable, the military histories referenced in creating the article should discuss the absence of availability. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: There are no dab links, external links all work and alt text is present according to the Featured article tools. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comments This is an impressive article which provides a highly detailed, well written and well referenced account of the battle. However, I think that it needs some more work to reach A class:
  • The introduction is a bit short

Have expanded introduction. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that the article is told almost exclusively from an Australian POV. This may be difficult to avoid given the relative availability of sources, but more should be done to explain what the Communist forces in the area were doing and what their experiences were.

Have added (a little) to NVA/VC forces and their objectives. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The number of fair use images may be excessive
  • The article would benefit from a copy edit by an editor with a fresh pair of eyes (nothing is seriously wrong, it just needs tightening and some typos fixed)
  • I agree that maps would be invaluable
  • The para on the strategic effects of the Tet Offensive seems unnecessary given that this was only one battle in it. The para's focus on the American public also seems out of place - what was its impact on the Australian public? Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now added a bit on the effect of Tet in Australia. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Having written the article and chosen the name Battle of Bien Hoa, I'm now a bit concerned that this isn't really reflective of the subject. In many ways this article focusses on the Australian component of the battle, namely Operation Coburg. 1ATF operated in conjunction with an American brigade to defend the Long Binh-Bien Hoa complex and occupied the western AO (AO Columbus), while the Americans occupied AO Uniontown around Long Binh and the airbase itself. By my own admission this article largely ignores the activities of the US 199th Infantry Brigade and all casualty figures etc are for Operation Coburg only. As such I am proposing to move the article to Operation Coburg. A larger article, perhaps named Battle of Long Binh-Bien Hoa or something similar is really needed to cover the overall battle and can be written at a latter date. Any objections? Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also currently rewritting this article off line to take care of some of the outstanding concerns above and will put it onto the mainspace shortly. Unfortunately I do not feel that I can get this one over the line for A class though. Thank you all for your comments and helping to improve this article nonetheless. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting for an Admin to delete the previous redirect page at Operation Coburg so I can move this article accross. Can anyone help? Anotherclown (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ack. I think that moving the article as you did makes sense. I see no reason why the article named Operation Coburg couldn't make it to A class, but that might be for another time if you were inclined to try again some time. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Still concerned about nomenclature (I can go over Coburg myself to do that), and attempts to seek PLAF / PAVN / NLF sources (more significant, would like at least something on their unavailability, or that P/P/N didn't esteem the operation, or "No mention of Coburg / Bien Hoa exists in the English translation of the official history." Those two cleared, I'd support. Still wish we had a map of the operation, even if generated by an editor relatively unskilled in map-making. Points, lines, movement? Still generally pleased with the excellence of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I have now added ref to DRVN (and RVN). I have been thinking about how to do this for a while so as not to make it too confusing for readers (i.e. using Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Vietnam and then north and south etc). Anyway let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will go over the sources again to try to come up with a solution to your concern about Vietnamese sources etc. Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If they don't exist there isn't any need to say so. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying so in Talk:, or here would be sufficient. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have endevoured to add more PAVN sources but it seems that not much is readily available in English. I have added a reference to the PAVN Official history now, although it is not much. To be exact the books coverage of the battle consists of no more than 2 lines. Quote - "The 5th Division atacked the Bien Hoa air base, the Long Binh warehouse complex, and the headquaters of the U.S. [2nd] Field Force." Unquote. Equally a search of the Australian War Memorial library reveals no histories for the PAVN units that took part (273, 274 Regiments, the Dong Nai Regiment etc). A quick search of Google doesn't reveal anything to me - but I'm not really an expert on its use for academic research. I have also gone through the sources used to date and cannot locate much. Even the Australian Official histories, which have a fairly impressive academic pedigree, have little in the way of PAVN/Vietnamese sources. I suspect that the reason for the limited coverage is that this battle was in many ways fairly insignificant from PAVN perspective, as the main attacks during Tet really took place in Saigon, Hue and other places.Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support: most of the concerns raised above appear to have been covered off on. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This article was overhauled earlier this month, and passed GA review over the weekend. I feel it's up to A-class standards, or very close. I appreciate all reviews/comments that are directed at improving the article. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look at this nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Shouldn't the article tell us a little more about the name patrons of the ship? And tell why she was named Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelmand later Barbaros Hayreddin. Later in brackets only does it tell us that Barbaros Hayreddin was a former admiral. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Convert the displacement in the infobox. And I'm fairly certain that the nomenclature on these guns was 28 cm K L/50 as I believe that the KLM changed their style of naming after these ships these ships entered service. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't find anything that explicitly states that these ships carried K L/40 and L/35 guns, though Groner's doesn't call them quick-firing, and Conway's 1906-1921 has a table of German guns, and has entries for 28cm K L/40 and K L/35, but no entry for a 28cm SK L/35. The entry for the SK L/40 has the turret information for the 1901 mounts used on the Braunschweigs and Deutschlands. I have also amended 28 cm SK L/40 gun accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Fixed a punctuation error but otherwise looks good. – Joe N 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You need convert templates throughout the article (you knew I was going to say that)
• Are we not putting citations into the infoboxes anymore? I'm curious about this for the articles I'm working on. --Brad (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm usually good at doing them in the technical sections, but usually forget them in the rest of the prose. On your second point, I haven't ever put citations in the infobox, as long as the information is cited in the prose (sort of the same reasoning why we don't need to cite the intro as long as it's cited elsewhere). Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Convert templates still needed. --Brad (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I added one for the 45cm torpedo tubes, which is the only one I found missing. Are you referring to the gun sizes in the Balkan wars section? I left them unconverted because they're already done in the "Construction" section. Do you think I should convert them too? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
        • A conversion done at the beginning may not be remembered in later sections but that's just my 2 cents. You're missing a conversion in the infobox where the belt armor is 12-16 inches. When converting knots or nautical miles you should also include the US measurements. Anyhow, to move along, I support for A-class. --Brad (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Fair enough; I've added conversions in the rest of the prose. Thanks for catching the conversion issues in the infobox; I usually just leave speed conversions without specifying the output, but those must've been done by someone else and I just missed them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support: there are no dab links and there are no external links to cause any dramas. My only question is should the infobox image have alt text per WP:ALT? Other than that I think it is up to scratch. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt text has been added. For some reason, I thought I had done that some time ago, but apparently not. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Brazilian cruiser Bahia

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

Part of the fastest class of cruisers in the world when commissioned, Bahia was a participant in the "Revolt of the Whip". She then served in both World Wars as a convoy escort, but in 1945 she blew up and sank in about three minutes with few survivors. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on this article, Ed. I'll review the article in more detail later, but right now I wanted to point out a glaring problem in the infobox. Right now, it says that the ship was launched more than a year before she was laid down. Can you fix that? Parsecboy (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Have fixed it; nice catch! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article GA today, and found no issues that haven't already been fixed that would prevent this article from meeting A-class requirements. Excellent work again, Ed :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• These two sentences need work. Massive explosions incapacitated the ship, and she sank within minutes with a large loss of life. Incapacitated how? Blew her stern off, what? This resulted in a striking aesthetic change, with the exhaust being trunked into three funnels now, rather than three Typo, I think? More comments later. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sources don't specify, though something catastrophic (like the stern being blown off) happened; the ship (3,100 tons) went down in three minutes! Parsec fixed your second point. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, but when you mention that "While firing, he accidentally hit the depth charges on the stern—a direct consequence of the lack of guide rails that would normally prohibit the guns from being aimed at the ship." it seems rather out of the blue - if you plan to bring up the guide rails, they should be introduced better and/or covered more extensively or earlier in the article. – Joe N 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You make a good point. I'll try to introduce them better, but they aren't important enough to be mentioned earlier in the article. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Yet another great article about a Brazilian warship. I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class status though. My comments are:
  • While not directly relevant to A-class status, I don't think that the lead para meets MOS:BEGIN
  • Can the 'Construction and commissioning' section be expanded?
  • Is there anything more which can be said about this ship's experiences in the "Revolt of the Whip"?
  • Was Bahia involved in anti-submarine patrols before the formal declaration of war in 1917? - the current text is a bit unclear
  • The sentence "Bahia was used extensively during the Second World War for escorting and patrolling, conducting 67 of the former and 15 or the latter" is a bit unclear - did she escort 67 convoys and make 15 patrols? - if so, it would probably be better to state this.
  • Was there a reason that guard rails to stop the 20mm guns hitting the ship weren't fitted? (this is probably the most embarrassing fate to befall any major ship I've seen, by the way). Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • ...and again, I disagree. :| The first paragraph in itself does not, but the first sentence does, I believe.
    • Possibly with stuff about the 1904 naval authorizations.
    • Not really. Although she took part, the principal ships were really the brand-new Minas Geraes and Sao Paulo.
    • I am not sure. The source itself is not clear; it says something like 'the Brazilian Navy patrolled...' It's really not specific on that point.
    • I changed a typo "or" to "of". Was that what you were asking me to do?
      • I was more thinking about the "escorting and patrolling, conducting 67 of the former and 15 or the latter" bit Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I know. ;-) Was this what you were looking for, or did you want me to restructure the sentence? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I would assume so, but the missing guide rails are only mentioned in connection with the explosion; nothing is said about why they were not there, just that they weren't. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• 36 cites to a Brazilian Navy document written in Portuguese? How was this document translated? How reliable was the translator? How can anyone reading an article written in English check facts against a document written in Portuguese? Despite the language barrier, this isn't much different than 36 cites to a DANFS article. I'll stop here, I have a headache now. --Brad (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little-known Brazilian ship. What would you expect? For translation, I used Google Translate; I can't provide a direct link to the translation because it is a Microsoft Word document. For what it is worth, I asked the Brazilian who helped me with Minas Geraes to look this article over. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I am a professional translator and I can mostly vouch for the accuracy of the translation, although I am viciously biased against Google Translate :) I've made corrections as necessary. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your input on this issue. I'd hope that if the questions arises again that Ed can point to this conversation. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • By the way, there's no such thing as "Curtiss, Thornycroft & Brown". It should be Thornycroft (as in, the boilers) and Brown-Curtiss (the turbines). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much. I'll try to fix the company issue now. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have left {{cn}} in places where conversion templates are still needed.
• This article needs blue link reduction and a copy edit. Some of the sentences are awkward though I'm not the English expert, someone needs to address this. --Brad (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a conversion template for the first mention of it, but as the others were in the same section and a subsection, I did not add {convert}'s.
  • Can't really say much about the need for a copyedit (I'm a little close to my own writing). As to the blue links, however, which ones do you think are unneeded? I just wanted to be sure that the article was accessible to a general reader who may not, for example, know what a transport aircraft or the stern of a ship is. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It's links like this: Armstrong Whitworth's Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne that are glaring out at me. I'd think that if a person was interested in the geographical details they could follow the shipyard link. See if you can find one of those mythical copy editors to have a look. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I see. I'll try to hunt these down and kill them, while simultaneously finding a copyeditor. With thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I cleaned up the blue link troubles yesterday. --Brad (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I saw, and I thank you. However, I added some back, because general readers—ones who do not know anything about ships—would not know what these terms were otherwise...
            • You do realize that you've linked to Central Powers twice within two sentences? Otherwise I disagree that something like torpedo boat needs linking. Doesn't "torpedo" and "boat" explain enough? How about "troop" and "transport"? --Brad (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
              • No, I did not; thanks. Torpedo boat needs linking because it's a specific class of warship, one which could provide additional information for a reader of the article. Lastly, if you didn't notice, I left troop transport unlinked as that probably would not provide much additional information, especially with a link to the ship right there. :-) —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
                • I support your article Argumentative Ed. --Brad (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • Thanks Brad, apologies for arguing the points, but many thanks for your help. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Bellhalla (talk · contribs) also did his thing and copyedited the article; I still have a few issues to clear up, but for the most part it should be reading much more smoothly. Thanks BH! :-) —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ryan4314 (talk)

Hi everybody, Nick-D recommended I go for a an A class review. Apologies in advance, I shall not been online again until Monday morning, thankyou for your patience. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few points I noticed:

• Images require alt text.
• I think it would be best if the ranks were not abbreviated, but in full.
• Cite #1 really should be tweaked to display an actualy name, rather than a plain URL.
• Just curious, but why is there a box listing the fatalities from the incident all the way down in the "Notes" section?
• I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked the placement of a few of the images so they alternate from each side, and thus have better visual appeal.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to thankyou for taking the time to review the article, if I may respond in bullets:

• Done
• Done
• Please see "Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue" below Done
• I was emulating the style of the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, please feel free to move it
• I'm more than happy for you to have done this, however I'm concerned about the images in the "incident" and "investigations" sections, is this allowed re; MOS:IMAGES #7

• So long as the images are not under a level 3 heading this is fine; they are currently under a level 2 heading. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a comment/!vote to the "Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue" section below please? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Aside from the above suggestions, you have one ambiguous link that needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Additionally, two external links are reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
  • I think your external links need to be retooled, from where I sit some do not appear to be formatted correctly. I'll check back tomorrow if I get a moment and add to this then. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tom, thankyou for contributing to the review and for seeing if my "external links" need to be "retooled".

• I am unable to find the "ambiguous link", I'm afraid I'd don't quite know what you mean by this. Do you mean the link leads to a disambiguation page? Could you explain this to me further, sorry for the inconvenience (been a year sine I last wrote an article lol). Are the two suspicious links http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm and http://www.british-towns.net/offshore/falklands/life/island_images/pleasant_peak.asp , if so please see "Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue" regarding the former. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think I may have found it, was it this one [5]? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Friendly fire" vs "blue on blue"

Should the first line refer to the incident as either "friendly fire" or "blue on blue"? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer "friendly fire" for these reasons:

1. WP:IAR: The term is unquestionably more easier for a layman to understand
2. "Blue on blue" is not a exclusive British term, it is a international NATO term
3. If sources is the name of the game: here's 2 mainstream British newspapers referring to the incident as "friendly fire" [6][7] and I also suggest looking at the number of hits it gets on Hansard, amongst British parliamentarians. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I go with friendly fire simply because of point 1) writing for the uninitiated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, importantly, to match the article name. As an aside the friendly fire article is a bit of a state - half the content is a list of incidents, most of which are not notable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• British forces have sadly enough been at the receiving end of US "friendly fire" several times. Therefore it could be debated whether it should be British English or US English in those incidents. Thanks to Hollywood and CNN more superficial journalists may use the American term (we have the same problem in Denmark, I can remember that in a news feature a female reporter repetitively used "friendly fire" although the interviewed servicemen used the correct term: da:Egenbeskydning).
  • I don't think that "friendly fire" is easier to understand: "Excuse me, friend - may I shoot you? Certainly, I would love to be shot at by you anytime. Bang - bang. Oh dear me, you're bleeding. Never mind, as long as it was you who shot me".
  • I didn't know the "blue on blue" term before I began to study the Falklands War. So IMHO "blue on blue" is correct for Falklands War articles.
  • Simplifying the text for laymen is a luxury newspapers have, not Wikipedia. Newspapers have no hyperlinks to explain technical words, Wikipedia has.
  • Article names are not static, they could easily be changed. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • So because YOU hadn't heard the term "blue on blue" until you started reading about the Falklands, that is why everyone else should use the term???
    • A layman understands "friendly fire", because it is used so much by the media. No layman (British or American) understands "blue on blue".
    • By your logic that means we should always refer to the common cold as Acute viral rhinopharyngitis on Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that "friendly fire" is better to use in the introduction than "blue on blue". Friendly fire is used in the media, is a term most laymen would know, and matches the title of the article, while "blue on blue" is a highly techincal term that most people wouldn't understand. In the article (titled Friendly fire), it explains that the origin of the "blue on blue" terminology is from NATO exercises. Since the Falklands War was not NATO exercise, applying NATO terminology to it is probably best avoided where an alternative exists. Just a note, I'll be doing a more thorough review in the next few days as I have time. – Joe N 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree with "friendly fire"; it is the most commonly known and understood term. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of "friendly fire" from our American cousins, I can assure you "friendly fire" isn't. Having said that the term "friendly fire" is widely used in the English language and readily understood by most readers. "Blue on blue" is a technical and specialised military term, that is opaque to most readers. For that reaon I would stick with "(un)friendly fire". Regards, Justin talk 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The British Official history of the Falklands War actually uses the term 'blue on blue'. Despite my earlier comments favouring 'friendly fire', I'd suggest that the first sentence read 'The loss of the British Army Gazelle XX377 was a friendly fire ('blue on blue') incident over the Falkland Islands...' as both terms are correct and used by the sources. Which one to then use in the article's body is a difficult question though; I'd suggest 'friendly fire' for the reasons Ryan identified. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that "blue on blue" is an obsolete MoD description, like flat-tops for aircraft carriers. Since so many Britons favour, sorry favor, the "friendly fire" who am I to contradict that. The next step for you would be to change to RIGHT-hand drive ;-) "Blue on blue" should be reserved for Lawrence Freedman's "The official history of the Falklands campaign" and the 'suspicious' www.britains-smallwars.com and other Falklands War only media. BTW, it's still a lame argument that it should match the article name since it's not dead certain. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is formed. If you are concerned about the encroaching effect of American culture into the British language then I suggest you go start a blog or wave a placard outside 10 Downing Street, please don't soapbox on an article about incident of war 27 years ago ;-) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this is an excellent article which easily meets the A-class criteria. My only suggestions for how it could be further improved are:
  • Now that the names of all those killed are in the 'Incident' section the box listing their names isn't needed
  • If you're thinking of taking this to a FAC I'd suggest that you ask an editor with a low knowledge of military jargon to give it a copy edit to ensure that there aren't too many technical terms. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thankyou for your support Nick, I shall get my partner to read through for military jargon lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I printed the article off for my partner to read (print so no access to blue links) and she said the only bit she didn't understand was RAE Farnborough. She said she didn't know what e.g a C-130 Hercules was, but that the article explained it was some sort of resupply plane. I'm amending the Farnborough link now. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. I would recommend a look-over for some possible jargon and ease of reading issues, but once that's done and the friendly fire v. blue on blue debate resolved it should be good. – Joe N 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That issue is resolved now and I thankyou very much for your support. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comments. An excellent article that, with a little work, I'll be happy to support.
  • Citations in the lead: these aren't normally necessary (unless to comply with WP:BLP, which doesn't come into this article). The lead is just a summary of the article, so the information it gives should be cited in the main body of the text below; there's no need to cite twice.
  • Wikilinking: I don't think there's any need to link things like units of measurement, commonly-understood terms or things of marginal relevance to the article. Every link should add value, and at the same time you don't really want to encourage the reader too hard to browse away from the article ;)
  • Prose: this wanders away from encyclopedic at times, and a few minor tweaks would, I think, work wonders. For example, could we use "...costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen on both sides." instead of "...costing the lives of approximately 900 servicemen (both sides)."? Also, "...declare the helicopter's mission to any other authority i.e. the navy, as the flight..."; could we lose the "i.e. the navy", as it's stating the obvious and the 'i.e.' isn't ideal.
• Afk, more to follow EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for taking the time to review the article.

• No problem, I think I only initially put them in to get it on DYK.
• I agree, although do you think more obscure measurements like "kn" (knot) should remain linked?
• I defer to your more experienced judgement on this one, I'll make the above changes and anymore you suggest. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That was quick, I've only just got in from work! Up to you about linking kn; I'm sure if you're heading FA-wards, you'll get other opinions on that... If you do link it though, it should only be on the first instance. OK, continuing with the prose:

• Lead-in words like 'However' at the start of a sentence should be followed by a comma (there are a few instances of this)

• Done. Would mind checking too see if there are any more instances of this please, thankyou. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how you feel about cites breaking up a sentence, but where possible I normally prefer them at the end in sequential order (both for readability and because I think it looks nicer). You could perhaps move the two cites in the last sentence of Background to the end - up to you, it won't affect this review :)

• Done. I agree, I did it this way for the sake of verifiability. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Para 3 of Incident: sentences broken up with dashes should either use unspaced emdashes (preferred) or spaced endashes (see WP:MOSDASH).

• Done. Not me [8] Ryan4314 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When the Gurkhas came across the personnel manning the Pleasant Peak station there was potential for another friendly fire incident to occur; fortunately it did not." Writing 'fortunately' comes over as editor commentary; this should be rewritten more neutrally (or attributed as a quote if appropriate).

• Done, I had this originally, it was changed in a C/E [9] Ryan4314 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• We shouldn't normally wikilink from inside a direct quotation (Sentence beginning "Historian Hugh Bicheno remarked...", para 2 of Investigations)

• In the Bicheno quote there a 2 links: MoD & blue-on-blue. As these acronyms/terms are not explained in the article body and because it is obvious as to what he is referring to, I think it best to leave this links in for reader clarity your thoughts? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Related to this, no need to link 'yards' at the end of para 1 of this section, and I'm not sure about the utility of a quote here.

• I was concerned about not quoting this, as the information given is vague; "several hundred yards". I linked "yards" for the same reason I linked kn and nmi, I don't think many people know how long a yard is (including me lol!) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• No need to have 'paragraph 13' in quotes (later in the same section)

• "Done". Ryan4314 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• From Effects, I'm not sure what the relevance of the first sentence is (and it may need a cite?). Also, "IFF transmitters are now fitted to all Army Air Corps and Royal Marine Gazelle and Lynx helicopters."; the article states that the Gazelle already had an IFF, it just wasn't switched on. Did the board recommend this anyway?

• Ah yes, I see, this is my fault and I will work to amend it.

1. I can cite the first sentence, the board attributed the incident to the fog of war created by joint warfare operations and recommended greater emphasis on training, thus reducing incidents such as these.
2. IFF was actually only fitted to half of the land forces Gazelles and Scouts and only recently too, XX377 was one of the few to have it. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's it! Thank you for submitting your article, and well done on a fascinating read. EyeSerene^talk 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for reviewing the article. I work odd hours and from different locations, I hope to be able to action the points you've raised over the week, thankyou for your patience. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Still concerned about those two external links, but will to AGF in this case. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Details on my talk page. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SMS Lützow

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Here's the last of the three Derfflinger-class battlecruisers to grace the hallowed MILHIST A-class review page. This article was rewritten over the past few months and passed GA in mid-August. Hopefully the comments and suggestions that come here will help smooth out the eventual FAC for this article. Thanks in advance to all reviewers! Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - references, dabs, external links and alt text look okay. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It'd be nice if you could say who hit her when the smokescreen was being laid. – Joe N 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support You might clarify the exact nature of the hits that caused her to take on so much water. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

North Carolina class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Ed (Talk • Contribs)

The North Carolinas were constructed in the late 1930s and early 40s; they were commissioned just in time to see the aircraft carrier take the battleship's place as queen of the sea. So, after about six years of service, they were put into reserve and never returned. Any and all comments would be appreciated, and I hope you enjoy reading the article! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks to Parsecboy (talk · contribs) for his help in adding the "Propulsion" and "Armor" sections. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One external link is reported as dead, please check and advise. Eleven disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. One image (the turret cutaway) has no alt text.
  • At the bottom of the design section you have a quote, but having read through the section I would recommend taking the quote and putting it at the top of the Design section between the actual design header and the "A-L" header. I think that in this manner the quote can serve as a reminder to readers throughout the section of the constant fluctuation of the design for the battleships.
  • In the sixth paragraph of the North Carolina section you have the following: "She returned to active duty in November and returned to carrier escort in time to be hit by a typhoon. North Carolina protected carriers while they provided air cover for invasion fleets and launched attacks on Leyte, Luzon, and the Visayas. Surviving another typhoon, one which sank three destroyers..." Typhoon Cobra sank three destroyers - Hull, Monogan, and Spence, yet the paragraph seems to suggest that another typhoon did the same thing. Are you sure that you don't have one typhoon crossed with another? Best to make sure now.
  • The second paragraph of the Electronics section seems to be missing a word or two, or at the very least a capital letter.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • All fixed. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Some basic information stats are missing from the infobox (namely speed and crew complement) but looks good otherwise.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is a great article which provides a huge amount of information on these ships. I think it needs a little bit more work to reach A class though:
  • The first para isn't consistent with MOS:BEGIN as it doesn't fully define the scope of the article (eg, it doesn't stand alone and summarise the ships).
  • Further on the lead, I think that it provides too much detail on the debate over the design and has too many numbers in it - many readers will be put off by this level of technical detail
  • A table summarising the key features of the main design options considered would be interesting and a good way to make this complicated information more accessible - the current prose is very interesting, but heavy going
  • "an aerial attack would also be capable of taking out the Nagatos" seems a bit informal - I'd suggest that "taking out" be replaced with 'sinking', 'destroying' or similar
  • Should the 'Specifications' section go before the 'service' section?
  • There seems to be no reason to state that "Nevertheless, she stayed in action" after describing the North Carolina being hit by a 5 inch shell - such small caliber weapons couldn't do much damage to a battleship so there would have been no reason for her to break off for repairs
  • There should be a link to the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in the section on Washington (which took place on the night of 14-15 November, rather than 13 November as the article states)
  • The last para of Washington's service history is uncited
  • "After the war, North Carolina and Washington remained in active commission for short periods of time, possibly because they were more comfortable and less cramped than the four South Dakotas. However, they were still quickly sent to the reserve fleet, with both being decommissioned on 27 June 1947" is a bit confusing - 'however' doesn't seem needed at the start of the second sentence and you should say what happened to the South Dakotas
  • The detailed descriptions of weapons and their histories in the 'Smaller weaponry' section seems out of place - this material would be better placed in articles on the weapons rather than this article, especially as the North Carolinas were just two of the thousands of ships which carried these weapons Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • In order, though I'm extremely tired so excuse stupid errors: I would think that the lead is easier to understand this way... I did it mostly the same was on Design 1047 battlecruiser.
    • You're right. I removed a couple numbers, and will look into this more when I am next on.
    • That would nice. I'll try to throw one together, and if I can't get the syntax I'll get someone to help. :-)
    • done.
    • I don't know, should it?
      • Not necessarily - I think it would look tidier. It's not required for A class status though! Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • done.
    • Will take a look when I am next on.
    • done.
    • Yeah, I see the problem. Will fix.
    • I was thinking about that too. I think we should leave the specifications of the smaller weapons though. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay Nick, I've fixed your last two issues. Not sure how to address you first point, as I disagree with your assessment. :-) I'll try to work on a table when I've got some time. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've struck those comments. While the first one isn't enough to stop an A class nomination, it will probably be a problem if/when this goes to a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I also moved the specifications section up, per your and Joe's suggestion. :-) I'll try to tweak the lead, but I don't want to make it into four paragraphs because that makes it look too long. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Just two issues.

• "When the Bureau of Ordnance introduced a "super-heavy" 16 in shell, the ships were redesigned ("A1", "B1" and "C1") in an attempt to provide protection against it; "A1" was only just 500-long-ton (510 t; 560 ST) the 35,000-ton limit, while the other two were just short of 40,000-long-ton (41,000 t; 45,000 ST)." Rather awkward, and I think you're missing a word, please rephrase
• "530 long tons (590 ST; 540 t) of cargo and 200,000 US gal (760,000 L) would also be able to be carried." Passive voice should be avoided, and 200,000 gallons of what?

• I believe that I have addressed both of your concerns. Thanks! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than those it looks good, but I'd like to ask why the specifications section is at the end - it seems that most articles I recall have that at the beginning, after the design section. – Joe N 22:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well done! (GO BATTLESHIPS!!!!!!!!!) Sorry, moment of weakness :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom, but I believe you might want to watch it—you are becoming a single-purpose account focused on battleship-related topics only. ;-> —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Once again I see a heavy reliance on DANFS articles. Entire paragraphs have only one cite to DANFS. Is DANFS in this case the only source for operational activities? I'm glad to see that you brought in other material and that has made a difference. --Brad (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't—if I could have gotten my hands on Battleships: United States Battleships in World War II I would have cited it—but I also did not believe that it mattered because these are simple summaries, not full accounts of the ship's history... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you have access to MelCat? Here is one listing that I found. There are many battleship books listed there; even one on the Mighty Mo. --Brad (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I do. I think I requested it...it's a confusing site. The major problem is that with college classes, homework etc., I don't have a lot of time to read and transcribe information from books to Wikipedia. :| —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • My concern is that this battleship clique is trying to churn out articles to meet their goals but are overlooking other sources that would balance the article. This particular article is well done, you've rewritten it to remove the "DANFS speak", it's well organized and the prose is good; it's miles above the current Massachusetts article. The only issue is the reliance on US Navy sources. I support for A-class but I really hope that you can bring in other sources before it goes to FAC. --Brad (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with Brad's comments here. I really recommend the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II as a source. Most large Australian libraries have a set, so it should be available through US libraries. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SMS Derfflinger

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This article was significantly reworked about a month ago, and it passed GA review 2 weeks ago. Just think: after this article, SMS Goeben, SMS Lützow, Mackensen class battlecruiser, Ersatz Yorck class battlecruiser, and O class battlecruiser, Milhist won't be seeing any more A-class noms for German battlecruisers. (kinda makes you want to cry, right?). Anyways, I feel this article meets the criteria for A-class, and the comments here will help me prepare the article for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all editors who review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments You mean the barrage has almost lifted...?! Heh, anyway, another fine article. Just a few things:

• Don't think there's any need to cite the nickname "Iron Dog" in the lead nor in the infobox, it's cited under the Battle of Jutland subection.
• 14 dreadnoughts and eight pre-dreadnoughts and a screening force of two armored cruisers, 7 light cruisers, and 54 torpedo boats. Just an example of where you need to check standardation of figure formats - here, at the very least, "7" should be "seven" for consistency with the other single-digit numbers.
• In Later Operations, is there a particular reason you go from events in 1917, then to 1918, then back to 1917 in the last (and very short) paragraph?
• Need to check alt text and dab links in the tool box.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ian, not completely, he is only talking about battlecruisers, not the German battleships which he is also doing, see User:Parsecboy/Sandbox/MT and User:The_ed17/Sandbox2. (Parsec, you forgot the Goeben in your initial statement, so I added it for you). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, better keep my umbrella up then, eh...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think I've got the things you pointed out, with the exception of alt text for File:SMS Derfflinger crest.jpg, for which I can't think of anything because it's hard to tell what some of the things even are.

• Tks mate, all good - I put in some alt text for the crest to hold the fort until/unless others can improve. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks MBK :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, good luck finishing the battlecruisers and starting on the infinite joys of the battleships. – Joe N 14:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text, external links, or disambig links. Well done!
  • Last line of the second intro paragraph reads "Under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the interned ships were scuttled on 21 June 1919; Derfflinger sank at 14:45." Whose 14:45? Germany's? England's? Was it UTC? Best to clarify that.
  • ...On that note you may want to note whose time is being used in the article. I think this would help avoid any confusion as to what standard is being used to measure the time.
  • In the second paragraph of the construction section you have the following line "On completion she displaced nearly 27,000 tons and was 210 m long." I can not think in metric, and though its mentioned in infobox I think that adding a conversion for 210 m here would be a good idea.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom. It's all in CET, and I've added a note to the first time that's mentioned. I also added conversion templates to the construction section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support But what's the significance of the diagram labeled as 16 December 1916? I couldn't find anything in the text of significance on that date. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The map shows where the various portions of the British and German fleets the morning after the German BCs bombarded Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Whitby. The operation started on the night of the 15th, but most of the significant activity took part on the 16th. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - yet another quality article! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Detzner

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...first, it is thoroughly researched and well written, and is, i hope, of evident quality (which is what previous reviewers have said), it represents the relevant body of published knowledge, and ais supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate; second, it fills a gap in the coverage of WWI in the South Seas and German colonialism, keeps the focus on Detnzer, and fits him into his context; and third, it offers an interesting insight into problems faced in post-WWI Germany, the problems of the post-colonial empire, and the frequently touchy intersection of science, geography, territory and national pride. Little has been written about Detzner himself, although he appears frequently as an interesting and enigmatic figure in the shadow of other stories. It is, of course, in line with style guides, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No issues reported with disambig links, external links, or alt text.
  • You images need to be simply thumbs, unless you have a very pressing reason to have them sized as such. I can not see a reason for this so I suggest that you remove the size parameter from the image code.

the post card needs the larger image. It's hard to see all the detail. The rest are smaller.

• • In the "Early Explorations" section you have the following line: "Mapping of the interior had in large part remained unfinished, and the boundary between Papua (British) and New Guinea (German) had been established by a join expedition in 1909. Since then, Papuan gold prospectors had been known to cross into German territory which, from the German perspective, made the accuracy of the border essential." This reads awkwardly, can it be rephrased? Fixed.
  • In the section "Four years in the unexplored interior of New Guinea" you have the following line: "Eventually, he found his way to the Lutheran mission in the Sattelberg, where he sought assistance from Christian Keyser, who had been instructed, who had signed an oath of neutrality for the Australians." Again, this reads awkwardly, can it be rephrased? Fixed.
  • In the controversy section, the paragraph before the block quote seems to be largely unsourced. If #48 is the source of the information in the last half of this paragraph I would suggest citing citing the end of the paragraph to this sources as well. done
  • Lose the see also section and integrate the links into the main body of the text. also done
  • Combine like citations, I saw at least two cites to the same source, page and all. done. it meant taking out a few of the cites, though...
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support I disagree with the post card image needing to be a certain size, but I am not going to turn that into grounds for a passing issue; everything else is fine. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • the last FA I worked on, the size of the images became an issue, because some of them, esp. the ones with high detail, were too small in the "thumb" size to read. That is also the case with this one. What size do you think it should be? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As a rule I operate on the assumption that there should be no size parameter for an image unless the user working on the article can demonstrate that there is a need for the image to be at certain size for the sake of the text in the article. My reasoning for this is that anyone interested in the greater detail of the image can click on the image to see all the extra detail, and because forcing an image size has a bad tendency to disrupt text flow in small browser windows. In the case of your post card, the text you have next to it is not pointing out anything pressing in the postcard image itself (ie: no small print signature, no graphic image displays, no pools of blood, etc), so I see no reason for the image to be set at a certain size. As I noted above though I am not going to insist that the images all conform to 'my' standards for passing, everything else is in order, so I am not holding your preference for image sizing against you. If you feel the image needs to be bigger for the audience then I accept your reasoning on grounds that you are more familiar with the article and its content than me, and as such are in a better position to judge my advice on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

*that's a good rationale and I'll reduce it. If someone wants it larger, they can open it further. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• actually, I didn't. Instead, I added text to the paragraph beside the image, linking it more strongly to the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good and an interesting read. – Joe N 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Went through this at Peer Review and since then further detail has been added and improvements made. I picked up the odd minor style inconsistency and made a few tweaks, so perhaps you should just go over the article from that perspective again before FAC. Aside from that I can only echo what I said at PR, that this is well-written/cited/illustrated, and makes a very interesting read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • did that. Thanks, Ian. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The article seems to be well written and sourced. I fixed a couple of little things, but I see no other problems with the article. Excellent work, Auntieruth. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted. EyeSerene^talk 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I Corps (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. All images need alt text. Due to a server error I am unable to check the disambig links at this time. No disambig links reported.
  • I find it hard to believe that there are so many notable commanders of the group. Surely these men were not all five star officers, our active during US blitzkrieg campaigns. Half the names I do not even recognize. I would consider some serious trimming to the section.
    • I took "notable commanders" to mean people notable enough to have their own articles. usually a smaller list on smaller unit articles. What should I limit the list to? —Ed!^(talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • It happens that this particular filed was added at my suggestion; at the time I was tinkering with our Fort Bliss article, and we had a field for the current commander of a post (these days, the CO is usually a two star). That was all well and good, but Fort Bliss was commanded by Gen. Pershing back in the day, and it did not seem right to me to a have a field for the current guy but not a well known commander like Pershing. That is why asked if we could add a field for notable commanders. In my minds eye (in other words, my opinion on the matter of notability as it relates to this discussion) the field should be reserved for men who were famous in later life or in their service branches, men who had held marshal rank or five star position, men whose skill and legendary service to the unit deserved to be recognized. Since then these fields have provided an avenue for such men to be recognized long after their command of a base or unit has passed. Its this perspective that compels me to raise the issue of notability here since most commands have only one or two men of such caliber. To be fair, and in the interest of full disclosure, the parameter field only states: notable_commanders – optional – any notable former commanders of the unit; judgement of notability is left to individual article editors. Despite this, I still feel that the section could be trimmed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I trimmed the list down to major wartime commanders, four-stars, and a few other notables, and trimmed the rest. Good enough?
  • Lose the history header and bump the rest of the header up a level. The entire article is history, so it makes no sense to have that as the lead header.
  • In the New Guinia campaign section you have the following line: "On July 6, 1942 Lieutenant General Robert L. Eichelberger took command of the corps which he was destined to lead through the majority of its service in the war." I strongly recommend you lose the "destined to lead through the majority of its service in the war" part, its too flower for the article, and for all we know it may have been the luck of the draw, not destiny. I would also suggest linking to Lieutenant General since this is the first appearance of the term in the article.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the same section you have the line "The Task Force established itself ashore after a successful amphibious assault on April 19, 1944 and began the reduction of the Japanese forces in that area for the subsequent establishment of air bases there." This reads awkwardly, can you reword it?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Luzon section you have the line "Before the assault could be launched, Japan surrendered, following the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." May I suggest that you link to the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of linking to nuclear weapon, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki individually? Since this former article discusses the nuclear attacks it would save people the effort of having to go to article A to get to article B.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the section "Organization" you have the I Corps insignia and then beside it the lettering "I Corps ([Fort Lewis, WA)" Me thinks perhaps you were trying to link Fort Lewis, but however that extra bracket got in there its unneeded in its current for and should be removed or coupled with the rest of the coding to form a link to an article.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Good work on these army articles. Keep it up! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few points I noticed:

• Dashes used in date ranges should be endashes, not emdashes.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Tom about the notable commanders section; it is too long to interest the reader. It appears to me that you have just added names of those who have commanded the unit during a period of war.
  • See above comment. How should I trim the article? —Ed!^(talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• There is a little bit of unpleasant sandwiching of text between images in the "Stalemate" section.
  • I've shrunk the size of one image, this is all I can think to do. —Ed!^(talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have slightly tweaked the placement of two images to remove the sandwiching; hope that is ok? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Everything in the "Honors" section is completely without a cite, and requires them.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Images require alt text.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Alright, I'm happy. I would personally trim about two or three more guys from the notable commanders section, but thats me. As a word of caution to a fellow contributor: FAC people do not like change, so be prepared to address this issue at FAC if and when you get there. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• "Soldier of the 21st Infantry, 24th Infantry Division captured and executed by North Korean forces, 1950" Which was it, 21st or 24th? If you mean 21st regiment or something, please specify, picture captions are among the most read parts of and article and this one is rather confusing.
• I've made some minor stylistic changes.

Otherwise it looks good, good job. – Joe N 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed the 21st Infantry Regiment caption. —Ed!^(talk) 16:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that this article meets A class crieria. Well done. I have a couple of minor points, though:
  • In the Sources section: should Malkasian come before Marston alphabetically? (I might be having a dumb day, if so I will make sure to give myself an uppercut)
  • The lead appears to be five paragraphs, when the max is four per WP:LEAD, could one be consolidated? Anyway, great work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed both concerns. —Ed!^(talk) 02:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Kimberley

Nominator(s): Socrates2008 (Talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because there are no GA, A or FA articles about the Second Boer War. The siege is well documented, and interesting from both a political and a military standpoint. I am confident the article will meet the requirements for the review. Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with diambig links. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Alt text tool reports that none of the images in the article have alt text, this needs to be added to the images before I can support.

• Alt text done; can't see any dodgy external links - could you point this out please?

• Owing to the real-time nature of the net the tool sometimes catches pages when their undergoing maintenance and such; that is why I add check and advise to my comments here, if you can;t find the error then its probably been fixed.

• • Can the introduction be expanded? One paragraph is too thin for an article of this nature, IMO. Try to get at least one more paragraph into the lead.

• Expanded - please review.

• Its a good start, but your expansion needs a good spit and polish before its up to A-class level.

 Done Have been polishing - if you have any specific points that you are still concerned about, please let me know. Thanks.

• • In the forth paragraph of the section "Relief" you have the following line "He wheeled his right and center brigades towards their enemy, thereby allowing the brigade on the left to hold course for Klip Drift." I recommend replacing "he" with a proper name to avoid confusion.

•  Done Fixed

• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback

• Comment Firstly the lead needs to be expanded. For instance it only identifies one side of the combat (UK) and doesn't give a proper introduction. Secondly, the first paragraph doesn't give the reader any background about who/what the Boers were or what the political situation and competing ideologies were. I think there should be more background there. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Intro expanded; background info to follow too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: There are a few issues that I feel need to be addressed, these are:
  • the first paragraph in the Background section is uncited;

 Done (you caught me in the middle of expanding per the request above)

• • last sentence in second paragraph of Preparation section (beginning with "Nearly 90%) needs a citation;

 Done Couldn't find the source, so copyedited.

• • last part of the last paragraph in Relief section needs a citation as it has the appearance of being uncited;

 Done

• • although probably obvious given the title, it would be good to have a citation for the last sentence in the Aftermath section (beginning with "The town of Wesselsbron...";

 Done No reliable reference - removed.

• • according to the Featured article tool, the photo of the memorial is missing alt text

 Done

• • also the image in the infobox is missing alt text

 Done

• • some of the images that have alt text, possibly need tweaking. For example the alt text for the Long Cecil gun, just says "Long Cecil gun". I think it needs to be a bit more descriptive, as someone relying on alt text would not necessarily know what a Long Cecil gun actually looks like

• I feel that this issue still needs to be addressed. Please look at WP:ALT. This might help with tweaking the alt text for the images. As they stand I feel they are not quite descriptive enough to convey what they are to someone who cannot look at the image (alt text is for sight impaired readers, I believe). — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• • the inclusion of the co-ordinates for locations in text takes the eye off the prose, I'd suggest not using it there as I don't believe it is needed (although I might be wrong)

• Would like to include this information - can you suggest a better way to do it?

• • Not sure, to be honest. Could it maybe be included in a footnote? Before you change it, though, I'd recommend getting other opinions as this is really just a matter of personal preference and I don't want to make you change something that I might be the only one who doesn't like it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• • There is a precedent in a number of Featured Articles - does that help? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe superscript them as per this discussion on the Ridge Route article. It is probably still not the best solution, but it is less distracting. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• • some of the external links are missing accessdates.

 Done (NB: Not required for books)

• • Extreme nitpick: some of the instances where you have multiple citations don't appear in numerical order. There is one in the 4th paragraph, sentence beginning with "He had used his position..." (citation # 22, 12, 23) and another in the Siege section, paragraph 5, second last sentence begining with "Labram was the most notable civilian casualty..." (citations # 35, 33).

• This comes about when identical sources are consolidated (a MOS requirement) - so I can't see an obvious way around this problem...

• • Just re-order them, by moving the mark up code so that the citation that has the smallest number appears first. It is just a cut and paste job really, but having said all of that, I don't believe it is a requirement. It is just a personal preference as it flows better (numbers left to right, that sort of thing, maybe I've been institutionalised by my military training, but I like things ordered). Example: <ref name=cite2/><ref name=cite1/> becomes <ref name=cite1/><ref name=cite2/>. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• • The capitalisation of the titles in the References section seem a little irregular. Should they be like that, or should they be mainly capitalised?

• These are all cut&paste from the source (typically archive.org or books.google.com)

• • I believe that they need to conform to WP:MOSCAPS, with specific reference to the section on Composition titles. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• • Should the Further reading section go above the Notes and References section? I couldn't find anything in the WP:MOS, but I think it makes more sense for it to be after sources that have been cited.

 Done

I will read the article over a couple more times and see what else I can come up with. So far, not looking too bad and most of what I've said above I think you can fix pretty easily. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you

• Comments: My first participation in an assessments; please ignore any comments that are not relevant. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead section needs citations.
    • To clarify this point, the lead does not necessarily need citations if all the points in the lead are cited in the body below. A number of A class articles do not have cited leads. Having said this WP:LEADCITE also states that citations can be added to the lead. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather then the images of the guns under the Siege it would be good to have more descriptive images of what life was like for the people during the siege. The diamond mines of South Africa from page 605 has some good images. Besieged by the Boers has good images of the Shrapnel Hotel and civilian life.

• Thanks - unfortunately space is limited and I had to make a call...

• Comment minor thing, pick a consistent citation style when using "chapter" in a reference. Currently, refs 15, 32, 44, and 64 all have different ways of saying "chapter". Mm40 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Sorted, thank you.

• Support, couldn't find any major grammatical or stylistic errors, good job. – Joe N 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Although, I believe that the alt text might still need to be improved a little in line with WP:ALT, I believe that this article meets the requirements for A class. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support much better now. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bayern class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Finally, the last class of German battleships. This article passed GA review about a week and a half ago, and I think it's pretty close to A-class standards. I look forward to any and all comments and suggestions directed at improving the article, towards an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One image (the sinking in Scapa Flow one specifically) lacks alt text, please fix this. Nine disambig links are reported in the article, please locate these and if at all possible fix them. No problems were reported with the external links.
  • Machinery section, first paragraph: "However, as with preceding German dreadnoughts, the engines were not ready by the time construction was completed..." Why weren't the engines ready? Might be worth a mention in the article.
  • Suggestion: If you can, see about adding a picture of the ammunition these battleship carried. I have such an image in the article Armament of the Iowa class battleship, it helps give some idea of the size of the shells being discussed. Such an image could improve this articles quality, I think, although I will not hold this against you if you are unable to locate such an image.
  • It sounds from the basic description of the armour protection that we are talking about something similar to the All or nothing armor scheme. Have you explored this angle at all? It may prove to be an interesting aspect of naval history.
  • WikiSource may have a copy of the Versailles Treaty, if so then I would recommend adding a note to the Fate section providing a link to the text of Article 186.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text to the image that still needed it, thanks for pointing that out. There is this picture at Navweaps that gives a good size comparison, but it doesn't have any source information. As to the armor, if you look at the lead photo, you can see the main section of the belt stops at the forward barbette, and the reduced thickness goes quite a good deal up to the bow. If you look at a typical all-or-nothing BB, like the KGV], you'll see the armor belt is just the thick portion that covered the section between the forward and rear barbettes. Bayern's armor definitely wasn't anything close to all-or-nothing. I have tracked down Article 186 on Wikisource, and have added it to the article. Thanks, Tom. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Up to usual standard, can't really see anything to fault. Two suggestions:
  • Bayern's involvement with Operation Albion had come to an abrupt end. seems a bit redundant given the immediately preceding sentences, and over-dramatic compared to the rest of the text.
  • The 'rule' of thumb-size pics appears to have been successfully challenged at FA-level and 250px pics are acceptable; for the images in the body of this article, a larger size certainly seems warranted. However there's also been talk of making the thumb default 250px anyway, so up to you...

Well done, as ever. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for reviewing the article, Ian. I removed the line as you suggested. I think I'll leave the images at the default thumb size for now. When this eventually goes to FAC, we'll see what happens. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• Please add in the footnote about the provisional naming of ships under construction you have in all the other ones.
• Please specify the year of the fleet advance of August 18-19
• "Along with several 9 light cruisers," Which? Several, or nine? Rather humorous Operation Albion error.

Otherwise looks great as usual, time for articles on all the individual ships, or are you doing L 20 α class battleship? – Joe N 00:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I've fixed the things you pointed out. I'm afraid I've used up all my sources for the L 20 α design, so until I find something new, that's on the back burner. It's on to the individual ship articles now (and perhaps to SMS Goeben, which would finish out the German BCs). Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Alright then. One little note: if you are unable to locate the copyright information for the image you found you may wish to link to it via an external link box; in this manner the public can find your image without you having to add it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SMS Hindenburg

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yes, another article from the German Imperial Navy. This one is short and sweet: the ship was only in commission for the last year of the war before she was interned and sunk at Scapa Flow, and as such saw no combat. Regardless of her largely inactive career, I think the article is close to A-class, so here we are. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with alt text or external links. One disambig link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed.
  • I would consider removing the word dubious from the line concerning her being the last ship to sink at Scapa flow, that seems a little...iffy, for lack of a better word.
  • A word of advice from one contributor to another: when MBK and I made our push to get Illinois to FA status we encountered a lot - and I do mean a lot - of resistance because of the length of the article. If you intend to go to FA after this you may want to take into consideration the length bais, as I am sure someone will oppose on those grounds.

• I think there was also some trouble for this with the Arena Active Protection System, can't remember who nominated that, but it ultimately passed. – Joe N 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that was JonCatalan who wrote and nominated the Arena article. I recall reading through that FAC at the time (though I didn't end up commenting on it), and Sandy repeatedly reminded editors that there's no size requirement for FAs. I'd assume she'd do the same if that issue popped up again. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Tom. I removed "dubious" per your suggestion. Yeah, I know you guys had problems with Illinois at FAC, and I think the people who opposed the article then weren't as familiar with FA criteria as they might have thought. For a ship that saw no major action and was in service for only 1 year, I think this is pretty comprehensive, which is all the FA criteria requires. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I cannot support this article, since it makes such a basic mistake as to call a Battlecruiser a Dreadnought. This is a term which, rightly, only applies to battleships. I attempted to correct this slight, but Parsecboy stubbornly refuses to allow it to stand. Changed to support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources on the talk page that use the term "dreadnought" to refer to battlecruisers; who is being stubborn? Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - for anyone who wants to review this detail further, see the discussion on the article's talk page here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It astounds me how you manage to get so much right about WWI-era warships' technical details, yet insist on being wrong regarding a simple matter of classification terminology. Just 3 little words, that's all I ask.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are unequivocally wrong in your assumption about to what the term "dreadnought" applies. I have provided a number of reliable sources that demonstrate the falsehood of your position, yet you dismiss them as "wrong." I don't know about anyone else, but I'd take the word of a 40-year veteran of the Royal Navy over yours. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a type of guitar named after HMS Dreadnought also. By your same logic, we may as well call Hindenburg a guitar. Oh, and check my sources.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a strawman, and a total distortion of my argument. I won't dignify it with further response. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's called facetiousness, but I can't expect you to know the difference.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I see nothing that fails to meet the criteria. R.D.H. has failed to provide cites for his definition, but Parsecboy has provided multiple instances supporting his usage. Good work. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did. Do keep up with current events and check em out:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Good article, comprehensive because of the little action she saw. I made a minor clarificatio to a footnote, it said Seydlitz had resumed her duties, but the article never mentions a previous stint as flagship by Seydlitz. – Joe N 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help, Joe. Parsecboy (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I asked for 3 words but I'll settle for 2 since they are the right ones now. Good article! Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Keep all this for the record: Note. Do you mind if this section is removed from "Fate": "Unaware that the deadline had been extended to the 23rd..." Fremantle, as reported in Marder (From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume V. p. 277.) stated that he unofficially informed von Reuter of the extension of the deadline. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, Herwig in Luxury Fleet explicitly states the opposite: Vice Admiral Sir Sydney Fremantle ordered the British naval forces guarding Scapa Flow out to sea for routine exercises without informing Reuter that the Armistice had been extended to 23 June by the Council of Four in Paris (page 256). I wonder what other sources have to say on the matter...Parsecboy (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Bennet's Naval Battles of the First World War states The conflict between Fremantle's responsibilities and his orders was, however, seemingly resolved on the night of the 20th. He learned—and at once sent word to von Reuter—that the armistice was to be extended for 48 hours. Could be that Herwig is mistaken, or that von Reuter later claimed to have not known the armistice had been extended. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

      I can only assume that Fremantle made the assertion in his published memoirs, My Naval Career: 1880-1928. Also, Marder corresponded with Fremantle towards the end of the latter's life. Van der Vat (The Grand Scuttle. p. 179.) writes "Fremantle always maintained afterwards that he had informed Reuter 'unofficially' of the extension before the scuttling". At the very least Fremantle's claim is verifiable. I'm assuming Herwig is simply repeating whatever von Reuter later said in justification. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

      • That's what I was thinking was the most likely scenario. Also, thanks for adding the line about her being deliberately sunk on an even keel, I hadn't seen that before. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • At any rate, if the sentence I highlighted is removed (since it is evidently a matter of contention in the historical record) then I will Support, it being the only thing I can find fault with. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
          • All right, I've removed the line from the text and placed the contradictory statements in a note. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I fear I've used too many asterisks ;). Thanks for the swift editing, and the explanatory note too. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 23:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support My issues have been addressed. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No. 3 Commando

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it may meet the A class criteria and it got positive feedback upon its initial review. Any and all comments welcome, plus if you want tweak something, that is fine too. This is my first crack at an A-class article so apologies in advance if its not yet up to scratch. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is a fantastic article, and very close to A class in my view. I've got the following suggestions for changes to bump it over the line:
  • The coverage of the Dieppe raid in the lead is a bit too detailed, especially compared to the coverage of the unit's other operations here
  • I'm pretty sure that the Allies were reading German codes in March 1941. Did the Lofoten Islands lead to different categories of codes being broken? Also, there was no 'Enigma code' - the Germans used the Enigma machine
  • The second sentence in the 'D-Day and beyond' section needs a cite to cover its second half Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, Nick. I think I've addressed those points. I've tweaked the lead to reduce the focus on the Dieppe raid, added a citation in the spot you pointed out and fixed the mention of the capture of the Enigma wheels. Please let me know if they still need more work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support All comments addressed. This is probably one of the best articles on a battalion-sized military unit on Wikipedia. Are you considering trying for FA status? Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure yet, I'm certainly considering it, but will probably wait a while. I want to try to get a few more of the red linked articles on the other Commando units in the template started and maybe take them to B class. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with disambig and external links; all images have alt text.
  • Can we get a site for the line "Formed in July 1940 from volunteers for special service, it was the first such unit to carry the title of 'Commando'."

Thanks for pointing this one out, I'd thought I'd mentioned it in the body, but I actually included that in the John Durnford-Slater article that I was writing at the same time. I have now added the point and clarified it in the Formation section as I thought it best not to add a single cite in the lead as it would look a bit lonely. Anyway, please let me know if this needs any more work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Just a couple of typos and some minor punctuation which I alreadyt have had a chop at. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I proof read it a couple of times and thought I had them all. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support My issue has been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, Leaning to Oppose

My chief concerns are threefold; that the article relies too heavily upon the memoirs of a member of the Commando, particularly when the final section is almost entirely cited to that memoir; that not all secondary sources have been consulted, and as such the article is not comprehensive. I have with me a copy of Charles Messenger's 'The Commandos 1940-1946' which has a large amount on No. 3 Commando, yet hasn't been utilized in the article. Thirdly, there is little analysis of how effective the Commando's actions were; whilst not possible in all actions, for their participation in the Dieppe raid Messenger is very complementary, writing that '...the Royal Navy would have suffered many more casualties in ships without the efforts of No 3 and No 4 Commandos against the coastal batteries.' (p. 409)

I'm currently busy with RL concerns, but if you cannot get ahold of Messenger's book then please let me know on my talkpage and I'll do what I can to expand the article. Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've added a few more citations and expanded a little in the final section based on information in the Hilary St. George Saunders book, but don't have access to the Messenger book, to be honest. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Ellis Wackett

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating yet another Air Marshal for A-Class review, this one however best-known as an engineer, as well as being a pilot and the service's first parachute instructor, and the longest-serving member of the RAAF Air Board. Any and all comments welcome, including suggestions before a possible FAC nom... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is yet another excellent article on an important RAAF figure. I do have some comments though:
  • There are some very long sentences which should be broken up. The first sentences in the 'World War II' and 'Post-war career' sections, for example.
    • Firstly, tks for review/support/comments, Nick. Re. this one, for now just done the 'Post-war career' sentence, which I agree readily lent itself to splitting. Will review further before any FAC submission. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Did he command 'a' Papuan Survey Flight or 'the' flight? I doubt that there would have been more than one, but could be wrong about this
    • Yep, think we can risk 'the'... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Can anything more be said about his role in World War II? Given that the RAAF went from being technically backwards in 1939 to successfully operating hundreds of very sophisticated aircraft in 1945 there seems to be scope (if not sources!) to expand this section.
    • Granted, for now I've just tried to restrict myself to what I can attribute directly to Wackett through the available sources, though I did find mention of yet another committee he served on along with brother LJ. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The sizes of the photos shouldn't be fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well there has been a fair bit of discussion on this at the FAC and MOS talk pages, and consensus as I see it is that thumbs are not mandated where they provide little useful visual info and one is forced to click on them to see anything worthwhile. Perhaps as a test case, Tony increased the size of those in my current FAC article, John Lerew, and I haven't noticed a rush to reduce them again, though admittedly the FAC hasn't closed yet. There's also talk of increasing the default pic size, so I haven't gone round altering the size of pics in other articles I've worked on, but I think at the size they are in this article now we have a better chance of curtailing the necessity to click on them to get a decent image, which improves the reading experience... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support No problems reported with external or disambig links. All images have alt text as per our new requirements. Outstanding article to read. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I believe this article meets the criteria. More good work, Ian. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - another excellent and interesting article. Just a few comments:

• Is there any particular reason why Wackett's service in the RAN is not included in the "Service/branch" section of the infobox? I think it merits inclusion as he did begin his military career in the RAN, and spent eight years in the service.
  • Okay. I think we had the same question with Joe Hewitt and didn't bother with it then but, hey, why not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• The images in the article are excellent, but I do tend to think they are slightly to large. To me, they seem to over power the text a little due to their size. Would it be possible to tone them down slightly?
  • Okay, made 250px since that may well become the default. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Better. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Graduating in 1918, he was commissioned in 1921 and posted to England for study." - Would it be possible to add the rank he was commissioned as? I presume it was as a sub-lieutenant?
  • I presume it too but the source for the commissioning date doesn't state the rank explicitly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there anything in/at the National Archives? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Is it known why he applied to join the RAAF?
  • Heh, take it as read with these bios - if I knew I'd include it 'cos it interests me too... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Bugger. I'll just pretend to think he transferred due to Lawrence's influence. Lol :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• "chutes" is a tad colloquial, isn't it?
  • Maybe - changed anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Operation Pleshet

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ynhockey ^(Talk)

I took great time in making sure the article is comprehensive and balanced, and believe it to qualify for A-Class. The GA review raised some comprehensiveness concerns which have been addressed, so now I'm awaiting review from Milhist. The more reviews, the better, and the last time Milhist reviewed one of my articles, it was a positive and building experience. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. Alt text tool reports no images in the article are currently using alt text, please add check your images and add alt text to them. Due to a technical glitch I have been unable to check disambig links, but the tool seems to have gotten its second wind with this article because its reporting two such links present; if this is in fact correct then these need to be located and if at all possible fixed.

•  Done Fixed alt text problems. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - while on the surface your sources appear to be good, I have a few concerns. Many of the boooks were published in Israel; while this in itself is not a bad thing—for obvious reasons, a majority of the books about this operation would be published in either Eygpt or Isreal—I do not see any books from or about the Eygptian forces. For one, this could be an indication of a non-neutral point of view, though I'd be the first to say that I do not have the knowledge to make a determination like this. It can also mean that an entire side of the battle is missing: for a battle to begin, it requires, at minimum, two sides. Similarily, the corresponding Wikipedia article should use sources from both sides; for example, the Battle off Samar article would ideally cull information from primary sources associated with Kurita and Sprauge, the two commanders, and secondary sources that research information (correcting errors in the originals) and analyze the action and the decisions made by each commander.
• One particular example I found is this: "Muhammad Naguib decided to use the armored vehicles in his operational reserve against the retreating forces." Okay, but why did he choose to do this? Would an Eygptian source hold the answer?
• I apologize for the TL;DR, and I also apologize if these comments are in error. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed17! Your comments are welcome, and somewhat echo the comments made in the GA review, which you can read here. Actually this article has a disproportionate amount of Arab historiography compared to almost all Israeli–Arab conflict articles I have seen on Wikipedia. The reason is simply that Israeli historiography is predominant, and both the most pro-Israel and most anti-Israel historians are actually Israeli (regardless of where they publish). It is very hard to find Arab primary or secondary sources, especially Egyptian ones. I have really scoured every possible source I could find on this operation, and came across just five Arab sources in existence which have nearly the level of detail needed:

• Mustafa Kabha (who is actually an Israeli), who is extensively cited in the article.
• The memoirs of presidents Nasser and Naguib, which I could not get hold of but are mentioned in many Israeli sources and in the article. I am fairly certain that the relevant parts of it are already given weight in the article.
• The book "In the Eyes of the Enemy", which is an Israeli book that has three verbatim Arab accounts, and is cited by some of the authors I cited in the article (I could not get hold of the actual book). This includes captured Egyptian war logs which are mentioned in the article. I am fairly certain that the relevant parts of this source are already given weight in the article.
• An Egyptian book by Ibrahim Shakib about the war, Harb Filastin, which I could not get, but it is cited in Kabha, and therefore some relevant parts are in the article. I do not know if there is anything in that book relevant to the operation which has not already been mentioned.
• A Lebanese tertiary source about the Arab–Israeli wars, relevant parts of which are fully quoted by Kabha and does not provide any new information.

There are also other non-Egyptian Arab sources directly or indirectly used in the article, like Gerges and Abdullah At-Tal, that are not Egyptian and are no different from secondary Israeli sources.

Granted, the actual Operation section is told almost entirely from the Israeli point of view, however, there is no evidence of any Arab sources in existence (primary or secondary) that describe the operation from the Egyptian point of view. The Arab sources outlined above mainly deal with the background and aftermath, and none of them have more than one short sentence on the entire operation (which in the article is quite long). I am trying to get a hold of Harb Filastin, but on the whole I don't think it's fair to assess the article on the basis that Israeli historiography is predominant, as Israeli historiography is predominant on the subject of the entire Arab–Israeli conflict. The account provided by the Operation section is based almost entirely on the book by Avraham Ayalon, which is cited by every major historian of this war (Gelber, Morris, Karsh, etc.) when describing the operation itself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. About the specific part of why he chose to use his operational reserve, it's actually discussed in a couple Israeli sources. I didn't think it was important to go into detail about this point. Should I? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept that in good faith; I have no reason to think you'd be lying. ;-) I hope that you can obtain Harb, just for appearance's sake if nothing else. Re specific part: if you could. I know that'd be a little in-depth, but I was wondering why he used the reserve there. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I have added a short explanation as you requested. IIRC another one of the sources I used discussed this more in-depth, but I can't remember which, and it's probably not necessary to go into more detail anyway. Just for the record by the way, the chance that Harb Filastin has any valuable info for the Operation section is close to zero (per TL:DR post above). Its value lies in creating more balance for the Historiography section. It might be a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless, that in regards to the 1948 war, Arab military history sources are almost entirely absent (especially Syrian, which AFAIK don't exist at all). If anyone does have any sources in Arabic about the war (not just Pleshet), I would be delighted to have them, and would be willing to significantly improve my Arabic in order to read them. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but it raises another question. ;-) Why would retreating soldiers pose a threat to cut off the Egyptian army? Were they retreating to the flank(s)—rather than backwards?

Thanks for your replies and great effort in striving to maintain total neutrality; it's appreciated. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to put it into the article; was sure it was clear before, but I guess not :( would appreciate suggestions. Basically, the southern retreat (until the AFVs showed up) was organized and was not done under pressure. The Israeli forces were in a good position, and the bulk of the Egyptian forces were engage to the north. The decision to retreat was only made because of a perceived disadvantage of fighting during the day (because of Egypt's superiority in weaponry); simple math (although this would be WP:SYNTH for the article) suggests that Negev suffered zero KIAs before the retreat. Naguib therefore had no reason to believe that the force would retreat all the way to Nitzanim, especially because they came from the other direction, and he did not know how far they would retreat. He also likely believed that the 53rd's forces were in place (aftermath, paragraph 3).

As the article implies, it was the appearance of the AFVs during this retreat which turned it from an ordered withdrawal into a desperate escape. However, even in light of this, the Negev forces were in a much better position than the Givati forces in the north.

The above is meant as a general explanation, I don't think I can add anything more to the article on this issue; it's important to stick to what the sources explicitly say, without my own interpretations (which I can probably write a book about, after all that research!). If you have specific suggestions, please make them! Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back here, life is what happens when your busy making other plans.

• Your block quotes need to be uniformly cited, you have some that cite from the last line before the quote and some after the end of the quote. They need to be all one thing or all the other, not split.
  •  Done —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I also share the concern over effective sourcing in the article, but I second read through is in order before I add any citation needed tags. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. While at first read it seems like an interesting good article, I share the concerns expressed above over sourcing and wish to see those resolved before I can fully support it. – Joe N 01:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the concerns. What has not been addressed? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom's comment that he still expects to find places that need a citation needed tag, primarily. – Joe N 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for Tom to re-read the article and point out things that do not appear to be sourced. As the primary author of this article, I can assure any reviewer that 100% of the article is sourced (except the lead/infobox of course). If you find something that does not appear to be sourced, please let me know and I will try to make it as clear as possible what source the fact is taken from. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues appear to have been resolved, support. – Joe N 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I added three citation needed tags to a part I thought was weakly cited, otherwise I think everything appears in place. I would strongly suggest adding more citations to the already cited material if you can; for an article at 50 kilobytes having a bare 42 citations implies a lack of coverage and citation in the article even when you have everything cited to reliable sources. As a practical matter, this is partially compensated for by the presence of a healthy bibliography section, but I reiterate that adding more citations from these sources and any other you can find would help improve the perception of adequate citations in the article. In addition, while rereading the article I realized that in this case part of the problem here for me is that I am not used to reading about conflicts between the Israeli's and their neighbors, and as such had a hard time understanding what was being said in the article. This comment is not so much a sourcing issue as it is a flow of words issue, and even if the article was copy edited I am not sure all of this would be adequately addressed. From where I sit then the citations are thin but adequate and the prose issue is in my opinion beyond our ability to fix, so I offer my support for A-class with the understanding that this article be improved as all articles are over time. At any rate, you've done well with this article, and I wish you luck with FAC if you choose to head there. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81! Thank you for your support. The citations for the tags you added are in the main text: carta-pleshet and aharoni229. I welcome any suggestion on how to make this more clear. In fact, every source in the Bibliography discusses this issue in one way or another, so that fact is not a problem. As regards to the overall sourcing, that's not really how I see it—Carta (Wallach) alone is cited 16 times, 8 times for Kabha, and certain pages of Ayalon are also cited many times in the article. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to say that there are only 42 sources, but rather there are 111 sourced statements (quick count), which is more than any article I have seen on such an obscure topic. Again though, if anyone has other sources which neither Nudve or I used (there aren't many in the world!), I very strongly encourage the user to either insert the information/sources, or send me the materials so I could add them. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I seek all comments and feedback in benefit of the article.MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Do to a technical glitch I am unable to check the disambig links. No problems are reported with the external links. Alt text tool reports that all images in the article are in need of alt text, please add this to your images.

    done No disambiguation links on Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

    done Alt text added MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the "Military Service" you have the sentence "His Luftwaffe career started with the II. Gruppe (group) of the Zerstörergeschwader 76 (ZG 76)..." The period after II creates the illusion that the sentence is a fragment, I would suggest either removing the period or putting the II in italics so that II Gruppe appears as a German unit and thus is not mistaken for the end of the sentence.

    done put in italics MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the same section you have the following sentence: "He was wounded in action on 13 March 1941, while flying Bf 110 D-2 (W.Nr. 3376 — factory number) of the 4./NJG1 with his radio operator Josef Renette when he made an emergency landing at Bergen after their aircraft was hit by the defence fire, wounding them both." Where did their plane take AA-fire? England? France? Over the English Channel? Somewhere else? See if you can nail this down, and if at all possible add the unit(s) providing the AA-fire that compelled the plane to make an emergency landing.

    can't do I checked all my references but they give no indication as to where the action took place. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the same section the word General is written in italics. Why are English words in the article in italics? Surely General doesn't need to be italicized, does it?

    done removed italics MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the same section you have the following sentence: "On 30 June 1941 while flying Bf 110 C-4 (W.Nr. 3273) on a practice intercept mission, he collided with Bf 110 C-7 (W.Nr. 2075) of the 4./NJG 1 and crashed near Bergen aan Zee." Where was the practice intercept mission being carried out, and can we link to Bergen aan Zee?

    done added location and linked Bergen aan Zee MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the same section you have the following paragraph: "In January 1941 Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld became acquainted with Hannelore Ide, nicknamed Idelein. She was a secretary for a Luftgau. The two shared a close relationship and spent as much time together as the war permitted, listening to music and sailing on the Zuiderzee until his death in 1944." If you have any information on his personal life, like surviving family, I would recommend split this info out of the Military Service section and placing it in a "personal life" section. If no additional information can be provided for his personal life, disregard this suggestion.

    done provided a bit more information on the relationship and moved the paragraph into his personal life section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In the same section you have the following sentence: "He was transferred again, taking command of the III. Gruppe of NJG 1 on 31 May 1943." Again, the period after the III creates the illusion that the sentence ends. If at all possible I suggest removing the period or expanding the Italics to include the III so that people read this as part of a German term and not as the end of the sentence.

    done put in italics and provided the English equivalent MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Overall it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question Why is there an image in the upper right hand corner of the talk page? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  cut and paste. I removed it MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81 (Talk) 09:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• You mention that he was in the hospital for a month, but don't explain why. Was he sick, injured in fighting, etc.?
• Please explain the cause of his accident. You mention bad weather, but was that the primary cause?

• done I added a bit more detail on his last flight MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but expansion in those areas would be appreciated. – Joe N 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted by the_ed17 [10]

Derfflinger class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I thought I'd give you guys a break from my World War I German battleships...with an article about a class of World War I German battlecruisers. In all seriousness, this article has been significantly improved, and passed GA about a week ago. I appreciate any and all comments and suggestions as I prepare this article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No issues reported with dismabig or external links. A few images may be in need of alt text though, please check and make sure this is added to the article.
  • In the design section you have the following paragraph: "This was due to the fact that the latest British battleships had thicker main belt armor, up to 300 mm." I can't think in metric, so can you add the standard measurement for 300 mm.
  • What's the difference between a diesel engine and a diesel generator? Earlier in the article I read that the diesel engines were not ready for service at the time the battlecruisers were in service, now I read that each had a diesel generator installed. It may be useful to note the difference in the long run so as to avoid confusion in the article.
  • Again, when you get the chance, try to add the gold mark inflation value to the article. I won;t hold this one against you, just a comment.
  • In the section "SMS Derfflinger" you mention that the battlecruiser had damage to her turbines but you do not give a reason why int eh article, can this be added?
  • In the section "SMS Lützow" you note that her turbine was also damaged, do you know why? I would add this to the article as well.
• Otherwise everything looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking the article over, Tom. I added a conversion for the 300mm in the design section. The difference between diesel engines and generators is that the engines turn the screws, while the generators only provide electric power. I added "electric" for both types of generators; is this more clear now? As to the turbine damage on Derfflinger and Lützow, Staff's book doesn't go into much detail. I'd assume that they were just accidents/equipment malfunctions, but I can't say one way or the other. I did clarify that both instances occurred during shakedown cruises. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Everything appears to be in order and addressed. Well Done!— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Minor copyedit, mainly for style, but in general yet more fine work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Can you hide the disambiguator on SMS Moltke (1910) please? Otherwise looks great. – Joe N 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Joe. I fixed the template (one too many pipes) so the dab is now hidden. Parsecboy (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Conversions are needed for the tonnage figures for the coal bunkerage, might I suggest using convert|xxx|t|ton which will give you metric tons, long and short tons? They're also needed for the gun ranges and the muzzle velocity. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturmvogel. I added conversions where necessary (though I used the {{convert|xxx|MT}} format, which gives the same results as the version you suggested). Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SMS König

Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another German battleship article. This passed GA just last week, and I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments that help me improve the article towards an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with external links. One map image needs alt text. Due to a malfunction, I am currently unable to check disambig links.
  • In the construction section you 45 million goldmarks; as before I would like to (eventually) see an adjusted for inflation value. Not holding this against you, just something to add when and if you finally locate a converter.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, but I'd like to see some description of the repairs she presumably underwent after Jutland. You mention somewhat extensive damage, and then suddenly she's conducting battle operations against the Russians, with no discussion where or how long the repairs were. – Joe N 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the article. I added a few lines about the repairs to the "Jutland" section. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Dab tool seems to be up again which was holding up my support; no dab links reported here, so here is the support :) TomStar81 (Talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Just tweaked one note for expression, apart from that it all looks good - well done again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

24th Infantry Division (United States)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 01:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a number of minor edits, mainly copyedits. You need to discuss more how the division was assigned to XVIII Corps when it was reformed back in the US and then as part of the RDF. Be sure that all subordinate units are linked; I think I saw some regiments that lacked them. A couple of orders of battle, down to battalion level, would be nice at various times.

There's some contradiction between the Philippine section regarding unit awards and the awards summary at the end. I think the latter is correct, but you need to validate it. Don't rely on the Almanac that you cited, it may be confusing campaign streamers vs. unit awards like the DUC, etc. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Support:I have the following comments:

• There are no dab links and the external links check out with the tools (I've got no idea about alt text, but you might need to look into that);
• The lead could possibly be tightened a little bit? For example in the second sentence, should "created" be replaced with "formed". Also "on New Guinea" with "in New Guinea". Perhaps "Division saw one more mission" could be reworded as it is a bit stilted.

Other than that, I think that the article is up to A class standard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Can't spare a moment to provide a detailed report, but I do want to confirm that your images are missing alt text and will need to be fixed before an move to FAC. More to follow later. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• As promised, I am back to do the rest of the reviewing :) I make the following findings:
  • In the first section both the History and Hawaiian division edit tags are being displaced by something and are as a result showing up next to the template box entitled US 24th infantry. See if you can fix this problem.
    • Do you know anything about this? I've been trying to figure out why this happens but frankly I have no idea. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I have encountered the problem before. This reason for the displaced edit tabs is directly related to the templates {{US Infantry}} and {{US 24th Infantry Division}}, when these are hidden the edit tabs align correctly. This is a technical problem and is therefore outside my limited capacity to fix beyond suggesting that the templates be removed, which for obvious reasons I am rather loathe to do. My recommendation here would be to take the matter up with someone more technically minded, I am sure we have a message board here (village pump or something to that extent) where you could raise the matter and I know for a fact that we do have a few people in the project with the technical skills to take a look at the problem and at the very least recommend a course of action (Kirill comes to mind off the top of my head). Sorry I can not be of more assistance here :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll see what I can do... —Ed!^(talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the WWII section its states that the 298 infantry regiment was replaced by the 299 regiment, which in turn was replaced by the 34 infantry regiment, but there is no explanation given as to why the replacements were done in the first place. Were the units needed else where, was the army simply reorganizing, or was the war to blame for the switching out of the regiments?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Well you covered the 34th, but what about the 298 & 299? Was it the same story for them as well?
        • As far as I know, yes. The 298th and 299th were reserve units, which have a limited mandate for deployment. On top of that, the 34th is an active duty unit, which was better trained. —Ed!^(talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the desert shield section, there is mention that the 24th arrived in Saudi Arabia aboard 10 cargo ships, but no mention is made as to the nationality of these ships. Were they civilian ships pressed into to service for the army, vessels from the US Military Sealift Command (ie USNS Bob Hope or similar ships) or were they foreign ships under contract to bring in the 24th?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise it looks good. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Alright, then. I'm happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. One comment: "shattering all of the Iraqi formations." sounds a bit propagandist, perhaps that phrase could be reworded. – Joe N 01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Menaced" also sounds a bit too colourful YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Both words have been replaced. —Ed!^(talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

König class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another one of my WWI German battleship class articles (don't worry, there's only Bayern class battleship after this! Before I start working on all the of the individual ships...) Anyways, I think the article is at or close to A-class, and the reviews that will be done here will help me fine-tune the article for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I'm ten minutes into a break at the moment with only another 10 minutes left to borrow against, so I can not preform a thorough review at the moment. I can tell you that the external links check out ok, but you have two disambig links that need to be located and if at all possible fixed. Also, it appears that some images are missing alt text, please check and advise on them. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tom. I fixed the two dablinks and added alt text to the images. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your welcome. Now for the more thorough review points:
  • Stateside Americans can't think in metric; could you translate the weapon sizes into standard measurements so we can have a better idea of what the battleships of the class were packing?
  • The second paragraph of the design section brings money into the equation. The mark of 1918 and the current mark are probably off due to inflation; would it be possible to get a dollar figure for 1918 or adjust the mark inflation for 2008/2009? It would better the understanding of the expense the Reichstag approved for the construction of these big ships.
  • Otherwise everything else appears to be in good order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I added conversions for the weapon sizes. As to the second issue, we have {{Inflation}}, but it only goes as far back as 1950 for Germany. I don't have anything to convert 1914 marks into dollars or pounds, and haven't been able to find anything online yet. I have found this book, which states that in May 1921, it was 62.30 marks to the dollar, but this was well into the post-war financial panic in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Well written, referenced and illustrated. I made a couple of minor tweaks (endashes, consolidated refs, reference format etc.) but otherwise I couldn't see anything holding it back. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Another example of your great work. – Joe N 02:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy, though I would suggest trying to find an inflation conversion website somewhere. I am not going to hold this one against you though, everything else is in order for a promotion. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps at FAC people will ask for more source diversity, but for ACR, this passes handily YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Hello! I just closed off a generally supportive and productive peer review on this article, and am now nominating it for A-class, feeling that it fulfills the criteria, and as a final stage before submitting it for FAC... So please take your time and be thorough. Thanks in advance, Constantine ✍ 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Doing homework at the moment and thus am unable to do a thorough read threw, though I will try to do that either today or tomorrow.
  • No problems reported with disambig or external links. Alt text tool reports some images may be missing alt text, please check and advise. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For the latter concern, the two instances where alt text is missing are two maps. I am not sure how exactly to describe them in a concise manner. It would take a whole paragraph to describe them sufficiently, and unlike with portraits etc, a map is a sort of article in itself, meant to be seen. Constantine ✍ 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per my peer-review comments (PS: I admit I have a difficulty to fully understand this recent alt text requirement!).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I made a minor grammatical change and would request that some images be moved to the left for balance, but otherwise it looks good. – Joe N 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Convoy GP55

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I'd like to nominate this new article on a convoy battle fought off the Australian east coast in 1943 for A class status. Any comments on how the article could be improved further to reach FA status would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • No problems reported with disambig or external links. Alt text tool (if I am reading it right) reports some images are in need of alt text, please check and advise.
  • You introduction is a little sparse, any chance of getting another paragraph in there? I think the article could benefit from it.
• Otherwise everything appears in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom. The images look fine to me - I get alternative text displaying when I hold my mouse over them (using the Google Chrome browser) and the tool seems to confirm this. I've added a second para to the introduction per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks food. That second paragraph for the intro really helps. I find nothing lack in the article, though I do caution that if you are heading for FAC you may have some trouble with people who evaluate an article based on its size. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tom. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the lead is a little short, but sometimes that can't be helped much. I played around with it a bit, hope you don't mind. One question though: in the lead, it says that I-174 escaped undamaged, but in the body, it says it was lightly damaged. Which one was it? Everything else look good though. Good luck at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

HMS Endeavour

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Euryalus (talk)

The article passed GA last year, and got a fairly clean bill of health at a WP:SHIPS peer review in June. After endless tinkering about with it, I think it might meet the A-class criteria but am too close to it to spot any obvious gaps or copyediting issues. All comments and criticisms welcome. Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No problems reported with disambig links. One external link reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Alt text, so far as I can tell, looks to be in place and properly used.
  • In the section "Purchase and refit by the admiralty", the fifth paragrpah starts off by stating "The new cabins provided around two square metres of floorspace apiece...". How do we define two square meters in terms of feet and inches?
  • Why is there a commons link in the replica section? I was under the impression that we were to place all those links for commons and such at the bottom of the page. Has something changed, or is this just a unique case of needs for the article?
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • Replies
      • Suspicious link - I've replaced the use of this link with references from other sources, as all its contents also appeared elsehwre. Hope this addresses the issue - let me know if I missed one.
      • Conversion to sq. ft - Conversion template added, comes to 22 square feet. Given this is an approximation of cabin space I didn't go to inches, but can do if you think it adds to the understanding of the sentence.
      • Commonscat - My mistake, removed.
    • Overall, thanks for taking the time to comment and I hope the above addresses the points you raised. Euryalus (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I am happy now. My above complaints have been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Is it correct to say that the National Library is the publisher of Cook's diary. It seems they have only scanned it and put it on the web. If I get an old PD book and scan it and put it on WP, that doesn't make WP the publisher does it? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Hard to say. The National Library (NLA) holds the original of Cook's Journal and publishes it on its website, so maybe Cook himself is the publisher as he produced the copy they're transcribing. However Cook didn't publicly publish it in any meaningful way, and as far as I know it was first properly published in its entirety by Elliot Stock in 1893.
  • So - is the NLA the publisher as they published the website used to reference the article? Or is Cook the publisher as well as the author, as he produced the copy the NLA scanned? Or should I avoid this conundrum altogether by getting a book version of the Journal and citing that instead?Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Update - As the issue remains unresolved, I've avoided it by replacing the National Library web cites from Cook's Journal with references directly to a published edition by J.C. Beaglehole, who is probably the pre-eminent Cook historian as his slightly hagiographic Wikipedia article makes clear. Beaglehole published Cook's Journal in its entirely (which is more than the National Library did), and has a definitive publisher in Cambridge University Press. The problem still exists on a smaller scale with the passing references to journals by Hawkesworth and Banks, which are also on the National Library website, but I'll replace these with something more definitive over the weekend. Euryalus (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Further update - all NLA refs now replaced with ones with a definitive publisher (either Parkin (Miegunyah Press) or Beaglehole (Cambridge University Press)). I hope this addresses the issue - luckily Endeavour is well-documented enough that claims can usually be referenced from more than one reliable source. Euryalus (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article, and I think that it would also pass a FAC without any difficulties. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great and an interesting read. – Joe N 02:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Everything looks good, images all check out. Good luck at FAC! Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SMS Blücher

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I rewrote this article a couple of weeks ago; it passed GA yesterday. I think it's pretty close to A-class; the extra eyes that will look the article over during this review will help me to iron out the fine details in order for an eventual FAC. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s) No problems reported with external or disambig links. Leaving for diner (or breakfast in my case, since I didn't wake up until just after 6:00PM :), will conduct a more detailed review when I get back. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support everything appears in order, no complaints. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly sure Blücher was notable in having the highest ihp of any warship ever built. I think I read it in D.K. Brown but if correct it ought to be a simple fact to verify. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 03:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, neither Conway's or Groner mention that. Herwig's Luxury Fleet doesn't mention it either. Do you happen to have Brown's book handy? I searched in google books, but nothing came up for the ship and its ihp. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great, no major issues. – Joe N 11:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support Another excellent article. Took the liberty of my usual copyedit for prose but detail and referencing are fine. The only thing preventing me giving unequivocal support right now is that the intro talks about Hipper making what seems a calculated/opportunistic decision to 'abandon' Blucher to the RN to make good the escape of the rest of High Seas Fleet, yet this wasn't the impression I got reading the battle details in the main body of the article. If he did indeed make a conscious decision, it may be just a matter of adding a sentence and citation to Service History. Two other suggestions, but support isn't be conditional on these:
  • Structure: the subheading World War I in the Service History section seems redundant without any other subsections there.
  • Supporting materials: the two pictures captioned SMS Blucher could be dated to provide a tad more detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ian. I added a few lines and a quote from Hipper about what he was thinking when he decided to abandon the ship, and fixed the other two things you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tks mate - happy with all that - keep up the good work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lerew

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this article for A-Class review because, after being laid low for a while, it's time to get back into it...! Known for his classic comeback to an ill-conceived order from RAAF Headquarters during the Battle of Rabaul, John Lerew was also important for his contributions to flying safety within the Air Force and in the civil aviation world, areas 'pon which I’ve significantly expanded since this article was first assessed as B-Class. Like to think it also has the legs for FA-Class, so any recommendations on that front would also be appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s) No problems reported with disambig links. One external linked flagged as suspicious, please check and advise. Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated sus url... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Well written, referenced, and illustrated. Good work. I have one question, though. Is the capitalisation of ranks correct? My understanding is that where a rank is being used as a title, e.g. Group Captain Lerew it is capitalised, but where it is just being used by itself such as in Lerew was a group captain, that it is not capitalised. It's just a small thing and I might be wrong. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, then again, you might be right...! What you say is definitely a school of thought and some editors abide by it consistently, whereas I for one capitalise ranks consistently in all articles in which I have major involvement. Like "World War II" vs "Second World War", I don't think there's an agreed standard, at least not in MILHIST, except that things should be consistent within an article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, MOS:CAPS has a recommendation/"general rule" on this, although I do agree consistency in an article is more important. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, except I would recommend expanding the later life bit. In the lead, you imply that he was extremely influential in Civilian Life, but in the main body that section seems rather short compared to that about his military career. – Joe N 21:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tks Joe. May be more what's in the lead that needs to be brought in line with the later work details rather than the other way round - wasn't really happy with the wording in the first sentence anyway, it seemed a little more than was apparent from the details, so have toned down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Kaiser class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another one of my German dreadnought class articles :) This passed GA some time ago, and after a bit more work, I think it's ready for A-class. I appreciate any and all comments towards improving the article. Thanks in advance! Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • No problems reported with your external links. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed.
  • First Intro paragraph, last line, "As was usual for German battleships of the period, the Kaiser class mounted main guns that were smaller than those of their British rivals". Why was this usual? I would recommend on elaborating on this a little, it strikes me as something worth going into.
  • Our article on the German naval laws do not explain why the service life of the battleships was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. See if you can elaborate on this point, it definitely deserves a greater mention.
  • Propulsion section, first paragraph, second line: "...an alternative to the Parsons turbine monopoly." I would recommend linking to the Parsons article, even if we do not have one, and elaborating a little on the monopoly aspect since it seems important to the history of these ships.
  • The last part of the armament section references torpedo tubes as being common to the design of German ships at the time. Why? I would recommend elaborating on this a little.
  • Although not necessary, I would suggest trimming a little from the Jutland section, it seems rather long for the article's subject matter. I list this as an optional suggestion, so I will not hold this one against you if you decide not to trim the section.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I got the two dab links. I'm looking into the first point you raised, about the "smaller main guns than the British" bit. I know I read somewhere the explanation for why the Germans preferred the smaller caliber gun, but I haven't yet managed to track it down. When I do, I'll add it in a note. The next two points I think I've addressed in the article, can you take a look and see if what I've added is sufficient? For the last one, the Jutland section is a bit long, but I don't know what should be trimmed without losing some important supporting facts. Like, the stuff about the BCs isn't really relevant to the article, but I think it would be pretty bad to just drop the reader into the "run to the north", without any explanation of what got the two fleets to that point. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. Still in the dark about the torpedoes, though; its seems a little odd (to me it does anyway) for a battleship with really big guns to have torpedoes in any respect. Any luck with this point? TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't seen anything just yet, but it does seem that most if not all BBs and BCs of the era carried a few torpedo tubes; all of the pre-Washington American and British BBs were equipped with submerged tubes, as did the Japanese, French, and Russian BBs of the period. It's probably a legacy of pre-dreadnought designs that were designed to fight at very close range (these torpedoes generally had a range of only a few kilometers). It does seem odd that they were retained. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• A few comments
• "However, the diesel was not ready in time to be installed in Prinzregent Luitpold, so the ship ..."

The diesel or the engine? It's just that (in my little, sleep-deprived brain) "diesel" and "installed" don't seem to go together... I'm 90% sure this isn't a mistake, but just checking.

• "At maximum elevation, the guns had a range of up to 16,299 m (17,825 yd). The mountings were later modified to depress to -5.5 degrees and elevate to 16 degrees. This extended the maximum range of 20,400 m (67,000 ft)."

Why first yards then feet? (I added the bold marks, to show what I mean)

• "The ships also lost speed up to 66 percent and heeled over 8 degrees. The ships had a transverse metacentric height of 2.59 m (8.5 ft)."

Sounds awkward to begin two consecutive sentences with 'the ships'.

I wasn't able to look over the entire article, seeing as I'm going to leave for a little vacation tomorrow morning - what I have seen looks very good. Icy // ♫ 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've fixed the things you pointed out. It always amazes me how I can miss little, but seemingly glaring things like the yards/feet conversion thing. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
• I saw a few redlinks in the article. Otherwise, it looks fine. Sumanch (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are encouraged, see WP:REDLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, only a couple minor stylistic errors that I corrected. Just wondering, do you plan on making an FT along the lines of German battleships of World War I? – Joe N 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and fixes, Joe. Actually, yes, I am hoping to eventually have a "High Seas Fleet" featured topic. It might take years to finish, but someday I'll get it done. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. However, I have the following comments which I think should be looked at (although my support is not dependant upon them being addressed):
  • what's a superfiring turret? (I'm mainly a land animal so don't know much about ships, but it doesn't seem to be apparent in the article and the term is not wikilinked. Could you perhaps link it or briefly explain the term?)
  • there is some overlink, e.g. World War I has two links in the lead, also Scapa Flow is linked a couple times throughout the article, might be some others I missed.

Anyway, good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rupert. I linked to Superfire (it just means that one gun turret is superimposed over another, so the upper turret can fire over the top of the lower one). I also removed the extra links you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support If you are going for FAC, you might also note the new requirement for WP:ALT YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Took the liberty of making a few copyedits but structure, detail, references and illustrations all look fine - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

7th Infantry Division (United States)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ed!^(talk)

The article is a GA and has seen a lot of work from me recently. Its peer review has recieved very little feedback compared to other articles I have up, and I feel it is time to move the process along. I will address any concerns directly on the review. -Ed!^(talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments - just a few points that stick out:

• Generally, only one review should be open at a time for an article, so I would advise archiving the peer review if you are finished with it.
  • I was under the impression that only GA and A class reviews could not occur simultaneously. I was hoping that the Peer Review would bring in suggestions based on FA criteria, while the ACR would address problems with A criteria. But if it is required to only have one review open at a time, I will close the Peer Review. -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is formally required, but it is best not to have a simultaneous peer and A-Class review open; it just confuses things. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've requested to close the peer review in favor of keeping this one open. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You do realise you could have done that yourself, right? ;-) I have just archived it, but remember that if you wish to open a peer review on the article again you will have to move the original to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/7th Infantry Division (United States)/Archive 1" and open a complete new review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• As I stated in one of your above peer reviews, I do not know how you have ordered those listed as "Notable commanders" in the infobox, but I think it would be preferable if they were ordered chronologically, with the earliest of the four placed first and the most recent last.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Now they require endashes. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• There are a number of puncuation typos throughout the article, with commas or fullstops missing. Please go through the article and fix these.
  • I have given the article a full copy edit, and looked over it again to fix what I saw. Are there any sections that you saw needing attention? -Ed!^(talk) 05:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have not had a full read of the prose, but skimming through I spotted a number of, as mentioned above, puncuation typos involving fullstops and commas. However, I think they have now mostly been addressed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've looked through most of the article and added commas and fullstops wherever I saw them needed. -Ed!^(talk) 05:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Everything listed in the "Honors" section requires a cite.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Emdashes should be unspaced.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.
  • Done. Ed!^(talk) 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I am gearing up for the first week of Spanish 1302, and am uncertain of my abiility to get back here an and preform a thorough review any earlier than wednesday, but I do have a few comments for you in the maen time:
  • You have no errors reported in your external links or disambig links, well done!
  • You have one malformed citation, it says there no such cite as liniage. That needs to be fixed.
• I will take a closer look at the article when the opurtunity to do so arises. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Citation fixed. -Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good job. Now, as promised, the thorough review:
  • In the WWII section you have cited Field Artillery Battalions, a Signal Company, an Ordnance Company, a Quartermaster Company, a Reconnaissance Troop, an Engineering Battalion, a Medical Battalion, and a Counter Intelligence Detachment. While I grant that not all of these groups may have an article here I do think we could lik to the broader terms like "Engineering Batalion". See if you can find some articles to serve as suitable substitutes for the time being.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "...a bitter battle over freezing tundra against fanatically resisting Japanese." Having written WWII articles before I am aware of the extent to which the Japanese resisted the Allied advance, but as a coordinator I do feel obliged to point out that we do need to weigh our weasel words with care. I would suggest double citing the sentence if possible, or citing the words bitter and fanatical to a precise source just to be safe.
    • I agree. I simply removed the weasel words, tried to put more neutral terminology in there. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • battle at Chichagof Harbor, if the propser name for the battle, needs to be capitalized (ie :Battle of Chichagof Harbor), and if it is the culmination of the island action then we probably have an article on it here that you can link to.
    • It's not a formal name, just the statement of a battle taking place there. I found the article for the Harbor itself and linked it. -Ed!^(talk) 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Leyete and Okinawa sections you have two pictures lined up to the right, I would suggest altering them so that one aligns to the left and one to the right.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Okinawa section you have the line "After the fight, the division began capturing large numbers of Japanese prisoners for the first time in the war". Why did these Japanese surrender? Thats worth going into a little since most choose to fight to the death.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Okinawa section, the second to last paragraph ends with the line "but these plans were scrapped after the Japanese surrendered following the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[36]" I would suggest linking to the article Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than linking individually to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just a thought.
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it all looks good. well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I now believe this to be A-class. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article is close to meeting the criteria, but needs a little more work:
  • "The 12th and 13th Brigades did not reactivate" it might be worth noting that this was because the standard US Army infantry division organisation at the time did not include brigades
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "With the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor, the division was sent to Camp San Luis Obispo to resume its training as a combat division" - what was the division doing before that? The pre-Pearl Harbor training exercises described look pretty standard for combat units
    • I just meant that the division was moved to a new location to continue its training. I have changed the word from "resume" to "continue" -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • When was the 53rd Infantry Regiment replaced, where did it go and was the 159th Infantry Regiment transferred from another division or newly raised?
    • It was a new unit from the California National Guard. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The 7th Division didn't 'drive' the Japanese from Attu - as the text correctly notes, the remnants of the garrison mounted a suicide attack and were not withdrawn
    • Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The statement that the division "drove them from the island" is still there - this should be removed as its incorrect (it implies that the Japanese force left the island). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did the 159th Infantry Regiment later form part of another division?
    • No. The regiment stayed on the island for some time and then returned to the US where it remained until the end of the war. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Could this be mentioned in the article? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Ed!^(talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A map of the Okinawan campaign would be helpful if one is available
    • Done. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you know why the ratio of wounded to killed was so low during the retreat to Hungnam? Normally more soldiers are wounded than killed - I presume that this figure reflects the division being unable to properly evacuate or care for its casualties during the retreat.
    • Around 2,000 of the killed were from Task Force Faith, which was completely destroyed by the Chinese, those who were too wounded to retreat were killed. Clarified this in the casualty count. -Ed!^(talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Was the entire division involved in the invasion of Panama? If so, limiting coverage to a single sentence doesn't seem sufficient.
    • Elements of the division participated in it, but as far as my sources say, all the 7th Division troops did was secure some of the northern military bases and hold them while the 82nd Airborne Division took care of the rest of the country. Clarified this. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What role did the division play during the LA riots?
    • Clarified. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The third para in the 'A division in name only' section is full of military jargon which needs to be translated (eg, what's a 'Small Scale Contingency Operations rotation', what was involved in the various training and evaluation functions, etc - I think everything you need to cover in the para is already there, it's just diffiult to understand as written). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've cut out military terms and replaced them with more descriptive ones. -Ed!^(talk) 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support My above comments have now been addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
• File:7InfDivRightDUI.gif lacks author information
• File:Battle of Inchon.png Is there a specific source for this, ie website?
• File:Don C Faith.jpg lacks author information
• File:Einar H Ingman.jpg lacks author information
• I think the author issues should be easily resolved, all of the images seem to be good US public domain images so no copyright issues.
• The MOS states that it is preferable for the images to alternate wherever possible. I notice they are inconsistent in their placing, is that for any particular reason?
• Other than these little issues, I think the article is good to go for A-Class. Good job. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Images given info and placed in an alternating fashion. -Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Happy to support now, my minor issues have been sorted. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

British Army during World War I

Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has received a major overhaul and I believe all major points of criticism from the peer review and GA-review have been addressed... Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment'. I haven't actually read it yet, but I think the lead is a bit too long. It's currently 8 paragraphs, while the MOS recommends a maximum length of 4 paragraphs. As several of your 8 paragraphs are small ones, I think you could probably keep most of that text by merging into larger paras. Cool3 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comments below.
  • When citing web sites with cite web, you seem to have used the author field only rather than the first and last fields (for example on ref 9). As such the names are displayed First Last, when convention (and what you do with the other sources) suggests you should use the Last, First format.

Changed to last- first format

• • Is there a reason not to capitalize the W in ref 25?

No and its now been changed

• • What makes ref 49, Encyclopedia Britannica, a reliable source? I remember an article saying they were less than fully accurate... (sorry couldn't resist)
  • "In 1914, no British officer had controlled a force larger than a division on active operations, and there were no established procedures or relevant experience to guide them in their decisions." Surely this an overstatement, by which you mean "no living British officer" In the wars of the past (e.g., the Napoleonic War

s) British officer commanded larger forces; this could be considered relevant experience. Certainly, also, the British (like all participants in the war) saw earlier conflicts as relevant, including the Russo-Japanese War, the American Civil War, and to a certain extent the Wars of German Unification.

Reworked

• • "As the commander in chief French's authority amongst the officer corps had been undermined by his participation in the Curragh mutiny in March 1914, when several officers threatened to resign rather then obey their orders to enforce home rule in Ireland, he became involved trying to get them to reconsider and promised Government support without the authority to do so and he later had to retract the promise and offered to resign." This is a terrible sentence, first of all you need a comma after "chief". Second, "his participation in the Curragh mutiny" makes him sound like a mutineer.

Reworked

• • "on the staff then a field command." should be than

Amended

• • "of which 12,738 were regular officers and the rest in the reserves." for balance, should read "rest were in the reserves"

Amended

• • I think the section on doctrine is a weak one. Among political scientists and historians, an unbelievable number of words have been devoted to the shortcomings of British (and indeed nearly everyone's) doctrine, particularly the "cult of the offensive". I find only one glancing reference to this in the sentence: "Expecting an offensive mobile war it had not instructed the troops in defensive tactics and had failed to obtain stocks of barbed wire, hand grenades or trench mortars." In order to be comprehensive, the article needs far more on this.

I think the paragraph above covers it The Second Boer War had taught the army the dangers posed by fire zones covered by long range magazine fed rifles. In the place of volley firing and frontal attacks, there was a greater emphasis on advancing in extended order, the use of available cover, how to use artillery to support the attack, flank and converging attacks, and fire and movement. The Army expected units to advance as far as possible in a firing line without opening fire both to conceal its position and conserve ammunition, then attack in successive waves, closing with the enemy in a decisive attack.

• • In the section on the Royal Flying Corps, you refer only to its role in reconnaissance. Although the role of air power in combat was not as significant in WW1 as in later wars, I think it deserves a mention.

Section expanded

• • I think more than one sentence would be appropriate leading into the section on the Western Front.

Expanded

• • during which the BEF is involved in the Battle of Le Cateau." Surely, you mean was (unless the battle is still raging)

Amended

• • Why have you chosen the order you did for the section on "Other fronts." The first sentence of that section "The British Army was involved in some comparatively obscure theatres of the war" seems to imply that all the fronts discussed will be obscure. There is certainly nothing obscure about Gallipoli or Mesopotamia (and probably nothing obscure about several of the others discussed)?

I did start in datal order which was canged when moving the sections around - they have now been restord to datal order. The section has been renamed Other campaigns which I think reads better and the first sentence has been changed.

• • "They varied in depth, but they were usually about four or five feet deep, with a built up wall to allow men to stand upright, the fire trenches were provided with a fire step built into the front wall, so the occupants could return fire during an attack." Reads poorly; I'd suggest rephrasing.

Reworked

• • " dug outs were made for living in, these gave shelter from the elements and shrapnel, but in the British Army dugouts" Please pick either dug outs or dugouts rather than using both (personally, I've seen dugouts much more commonly)

dugouts it is think I caught them all

• • "500 to 6oo" are those lower case Os rather than zeroes?

Amended must have read over this 50 times and never caught it

• • Is there a particular logic to what equipment gets includes and what does not?

No it was a matter of choice after a lot of thought, with 49 different artillery guns alone I could not include them all. I have added a further information heading with a link to the full list of weapons.

• • "The British Army during World War I, was the largest" Shouldn't have a comma.

Removed

• • " and bigger then the American Army" should be "than"

Amended

• • The first paragraph of the Aftermath section is ludicrously non-neutral. In particular "The BEF had also done something that no other British Army had done since the Duke of Wellington's army of 1815, or any British army has done since: it defeated the the main army of a European enemy on the mainland of Europe." suggests that the BEF won the war alone, right....

Removed the offending line

• • "The British Army tried to learn the lessons of World War I, and adopt them into its pre war doctrine, while trying to predict how advances in weapons and technology might effect any future war." If you're going to open this can of worms, then something on the Second World War is needed.

reworked

• A great article on a topic that's very hard to cover completely, but I think there's some room for improvement here. Cool3 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most points have now been addressed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08

32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I support this article for A class, but have the following points:

• • in the Army Service Corps section, please check the amount of bread delivered. It currently says "4,500,00". Should this be "45,000" or "4,500,000"?
  • I know its nitpick, but please check the citations for consistency. Some have a "p. #" while others have a "p #". (The difference being the presence or absence of a full stop". Either way is probably fine, so long as there is consistency. I would do them myself, but I don't know which style you prefer (I assume it is "p #").
  • please check for irregular capitalisation, I have fixed some but there are other instances.
  • there is some inconsistency in the way in which numbers are treated. Generally I believe that numbers below 10 should be spelt and 10 and above use numerals. In some cases you follow this rule and in others you don't.

Other than that, very good effort. Well done. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review it was 4,500,000 and I think have changed all the rest of the points --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems to be a complete and accurate article, but there are many places where it seems that punctuation was entirely omitted, and there are several paragraphs without a single comma in them. I'd recommend that you ask someone to do a through copy-edit of it preferably before it gets A-Class and definitely before it gets to FA. – Joe N 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Joe N, the article really does need a thorough copy-edit in compliance with the manual of style. Some things I see:

Support provided the article recieves a copy-edit, I think it is now within A criteria. -Ed!^(talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • In the lead, the "division" "brigade" and "corps" links are capitalized. Generally, unless a link is a proper noun it should not be. Someone should go though the article checking capitalization.

Changed

• • Some of the links are double linked. Most links shouldn't be linked to after the first reference.

Think I have got them all now

• • Punctuation isn't consistent. Per above, I see commas and periods being used interchangably in some parts of the article.
  • Sentence structure needs to be reworked. Some sentences are run-ons while others seem incomplete.

Also, is there any way the article could be split up? It seems like this process could be easier if we were dealing with 2-3 articles individually. It would also make promoting those articles easier. -Ed!^(talk) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A request for copy edit has been posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests - where do you suggest splitting the article ? its already split off from History of the British Army - I do realise its on the large side but this was the largest war the British Army was involved in etc. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Campaigns (Sections 6 and 7) could be their own article? Weapons (Section 9) could do well on its own too. Wikipedia guidelines at WP:SIZE suggest articles not go much longer than 50 KB, but it's really up to you. -Ed!^(talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been split with the weapons section forming the basis of a new article British Army uniform and equipment in World War I --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a very good choice, though perhaps a very short and sweet summary should remain in a section on Equipment? Cool3 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: In light of the recent changes to the article, I wish to reconfirm my support for A class for this article (as previously stated earlier). Please note this is only one vote, I just felt that as the article had changed signficiantly since I voted, I should reconfirm my opinion. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit in progress thanks to User talk:Twelsht. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment. This is an article on the British Army in World War I then I really feel it needs to include a summary about the weapons. I agree that the article was too big with all the information from British Army uniform and equipment in World War I in it, but it does need a summary in the main article.

I would also suggest cutting down the Western Front section and remove the separate one paragraph headings which, in my opinion, slightly overwhelm the table of contents. (A3 The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, ... and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.)

Regards, Woody (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Section heading and some of the western front content removed and added a weapons section including the Lee Enfield, Vickers & Lewis machine guns, Stokes Mortar and the Mk I tank. the common artillery is pretty much covered elsewhere. There is also a link to British Army uniform and equipment in World War I. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't oppose this at the moment but I don't think I can support it until we can reduce it a little bit more. I still note that this is a very long article and think there could still be reductions made. I notice there is a "trench warfare" section in the doctrine section as well as a large "life in the trenches section". Could they be merged and reduced somehow?

There are quite a few small paragraphs in the recruitment section, could these be merged and condensed? This doesn't seem to be a summary at the moment; Recruitment to the British Army during World War I would be an excellent place for some of this information to be moved to.

The same with "Commanders." This seems to be quite bloated, though again I can't particularly see where it can be trimmed, or where it could be merged to.

Summary: needs a bit more condensing until I can fully support it for A-Class and beyond. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Trench warfare and life in the trenches sections condensed and combined, same with the recruitment section with content copied as suggested to the talk page of [Recruitment to the British Army during World War I] which I will add at a later date. Also trimmed the commanders section about as much as much as I think it will take. altogether removed about 5,000 bytes of content. But any further suggestions welcome. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks good. I can't help but think that some of the sections could be reorganised to somehow reduce the number of section headers. As it is, after re-reading it, I can't seem to think of the way to do it, therefore I can't in good faith oppose over it! I think that we could almost have a new fork about the commanders of World War I, possibly including the other service(s). It seems a bit big at the moment, but saying that, it is all very pertinent information given the page title. The article is still big, but other than forking the commanders, I don't see much scope for reductions if I'm honest. Excellent work so far. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note I am off on holiday and may not be able to respond to any changes as quickly as I would like. Thanks for the review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I still think there's room for improvement, but I think it does pass the criteria. One remaining concern, though, is the lead which I do not think is a very good summary of the article. Also, it's beginning to occur to me that the article might benefit from some more context (i.e., comparison of the British Army experience to that of the French, German, American, etc.) Cool3 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because taking this FL-Class article to A-Class hopefully is just little more than a formality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. While I tend to think FLs and FAs should be automatically granted A-Class, I do have a few brief comments on this one:
  • "The following soldiers and servicemen were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross or one of its higher grades as a foreigner to the German Wehrmacht as well as the Waffen SS and police units." One would expect the list to follow more or less immediately after this, but it doesn't actually come for a few paragraphs. Rephrase?
  • The lead could probably use an outside copyedit, some bits of it were hard to follow, but I don't think there's anything about the flow that falls short of A-Class, so this is more of a general suggestion.
  • The lead could probably provide a better summary of the list. For example, it would be useful to discuss the nationality of the recipients (just adding them up and saying "The recipients came from X country. Country Y had the most with Z" or some such).
  • How about some images of the recipients? A very quick check reveals that free images are available of most of them. You might want to consider a column with pictures (as is fairly common in FLs of pictures) or perhaps just putting a few out to the side of the table. Cool3 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added some pictures. However the Victoria Cross lists don't have any pictures either and they are all FLCs too. I also believe to have addressed your other concerns, so please check again MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree with Cool3 that the lead does require a bit of a copyedit, as the prose is a little mixed and does not fit well in some places.
• I am uncomfortable with the foreign recipients being constantly referred to as "soldiers and servicemen" as these words imply they were in the army when this is not the case with all of the recipients listed, for example Isoroku Yamamoto was a senior naval officer.
• The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross only needs to be linked once in the lead; it is linked twice in successive paragraphs at the moment.
• I don't think the mention of Hans-Joachim Marseille is particularly necessary.
• As you have begun to add images of the recipients to the table, it would be best to add as many recipients’ images as possible. I know that a few of the recipients without an image in the table actually have a photograph on Wikipedia.
• I think it would be best if each table was uniform to each other. The columns in each table are slightly different in size, and it would be nice if all related columns in the tables are the same width.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Again I believe that I have addressed the issues. Regarding prose changes, I actively seek help here since English is not my native language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have struck my above comments which I believe have been adequately addressed. In regards to the prose, I think your best bet would be to obtain the services of a good copyeditor. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the width of columns: I have applied the everything I read here Help:Table#Width, height. Here it reads "Note that style="inline CSS" has no effect with some browsers. If compatibility is important, equivalent older constructs like width="75%" should work on more browsers". Since the columns look very much aligned on my browser, I fear that total alignment may not be achievable. How shall I proceed? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, if that's the best you can do, than that is okay. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I could find no problems not being resolved above. – Joe N 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. I could find no issues with it. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Operation Sky Monitor

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)

A relatively short article (about 1200 words), but an entirely comprehensive one on one of NATO's first operations in the Balkans. Cool3 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments References 2-8 are incorrectly formatted, please fix. Four internet sites reported as suspicious, please check and advise. No problems reported with disamgig links. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  References re-formatted. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "suspicious", could you please elaborate? Cool3 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The external link checker in the toolbox to the right checks external links and highlights those the diagnosed as potentially problematic based on a predetermined color coded scale. Within this article the tool has four of the websites you are using for sources highlighted green, which implies the possibility the websites in question are malfunctioning or are otherwise not working the way they should. Confirmation is therefore needed to determine to what extent if any the links are malfunctioning and what you intend to do about the problem if the links in question are in fact defective. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I don't know why the tool is flagging those links, but if you click on them they all work just fine. Also, as they are all New York Times articles, the links are not essential as other archives are available. Cool3 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Very well then. Now on to the article itself:
    • the introduction really ought to be at least two paragraphs, more like three if you could find the material for it. See if you can expand that.
      • I suppose that I could expand the lead to two paragraphs, but in my opinion the lead adequately summarizes the article. It seems that an expansion would just be expanding it for expansion's sake.
    • Op Maritime Guard is a red link, see if you can find some info on that.
      • I'll see what I can do.
    • Why is the edit tab for the background section beside the template for NATO's intervention in Bosnia?
      • That's just where it ends up? I don't really know what to do about it.
    • The article states that hungry was willing to provide fighter support, but does not mention the kind of fighters that would be available for use. See what you can do about finding info on that point.
      • The sources don't say. It appears that the Hungarian Air Force would have provided support with Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 fighters and SAMs. As it never was actually provided, I'm not entirely certain that this is relevant, but I've added in a line.
    • For that matter, do what know what kind of fighter support was available for the operation, and if said fighter support ever flew with the sentries? It seems to me that there would be some kind of air combat support available, but nothing is really mentioned in the article.
      • No fighters ever flew with the NATO planes.
    • Sea support is mentioned in the article. Where there is sea support, there are ships with weapons, where there are ships with weapons there are men on deployment and where there are men on deployment there are records on file somewhere of that deployment. Any idea what was out there? Could be worth looking into to add to the article.
      • STANAVFORMED was in the Adriatic for Operation Maritime Monitor and then Operation Maritime Guard. Other than sort of growing out of Maritime Monitor, though, Sky Monitor had little involvement with naval forces.
    • Admiral implies rank, rank implies status, and these two factors taken together plus the sea support strongly suggest the presence of an aircraft carrier. If this is in fact correct, it would be nice to know which one was present for the operation. My money says if there was a carrier then the carrier you would be looking for was assigned to the 6th fleet at the time.
      • Nope, no carriers. I assume you're referring to Admiral Jeremy Boorda who was very much on the ground at the time in Naples. Perhaps it should be more clear in the article, but Boorda wasn't called in to lead the operation, he was the head of AFSOUTH, which was used to carry out the operation; thus, he commanded it.
  • Overall, Its a good article, but I see room for improvement before green lighting a promotion to A-class. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! Cool3 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a good article which meets the A-class criteria. I've got some comments on the article which you may wish to consider:
  • The main type of aircraft used should be identified earlier in the article than the last sentence, and the other aircraft used should be mentioned as well - were fighter aircraft used for surveillance at all?
    • Moved up the reference to the E-3 into the lead. It was only the E-3s used in the mission; no fighters flew missions.
  • Was the NATO AWACS squadron used, or only USAF aircraft?
    • THe NATO AWACS squadron was used, as were French and British squadrons. No US planes were used. The previous lead image in the article of a USAF plane was incorrect; no such aircraft could have participated in the operation. I included the image based on a misreading of the article at de.wikipedia. As you point out, the NATO AWACS squadron is painted with a different pattern (and registered in Luxembourg); thus, no aircraft with USAF markings could possibly have participated.
  • What's meant by "combat violation" - it would be better to spell this out, as it's a bit unclear
    • Well, the bombing of the villages was the combat violation; it was the only time that the belligerents actually used airpower in a combat role (all of the other violations were the use of aircraft for transportation, reconnaissance, etc.)
  • On what date did the UN "eventually called for NATO to use force in response"? (I'd also suggest the the word 'eventually' be removed as it's a bit non-neutral)
    • March 31, 1993 (added). "eventually" removed.
  • What did the huge number of 'non-combat' violations involve? Were these all smuggling flights, or did they include scheduled civil routes? Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the sources don't give many details. I can say, though, that this would not have included scheduled civil routes. Civil air traffic into Bosnia was at this point rare, and such flights would have been authorized by the UN. The violations would have been mostly smuggling, transportation of military personnel within Bosnia, transportation of military supplies either within Bosnia or to Bosnia, reconnaissance missions, and the like.
• Support still think there be room for improvement, but meets A-class minimum requirements. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article meets the A class criteria. Good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Agreed. The article seems fine at its current size. Sourcing and prose look good to me. -Ed!^(talk) 06:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Helgoland class battleship

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I recently rewrote this article, and finally finished up the prose today. It passed GA about a month and a half ago, and now that it's more or less finished, here we are. I appreciate any and all comments/suggestions. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • In the "general characteristics" section you have the line "The class was greatly improved over the Nassau in terms of handling." This reads rather awkwardly, I would suggest rewording it.
  • You have on disamgib link that needs to be located and if at all possible fixed.
• Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the dab and reworded that sentence; does it read more smoothly now? Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Better now. Thanks for the response. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments
  • "Of the need to increase naval construction due to growing German isolation, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible."[3]"
    • When I see the word "isolation" here, I think of the United States' isolationist policy. I somehow doubt that Germany was cutting itself off like the U.S. though; perhaps a better word could be used?
  • "The Helgoland class ships—Helgoland, Ostfriesland, Thüringen, and Oldenburg—were ordered under the provisional names Ersatz Siegfried, Ersatz Oldenburg, Ersatz Beowulf, and Ersatz Frithjof, respectively.[4]"
    • 'Provisional names' needs to be explained. The only reason why I know what you mean is because of O class battlecruiser. :) Also, perhaps something should be thrown in about how all of the provisional names include the ships they were intended to replace?
    • Having said that, I see farther down in the "Construction" section you explain it. Perhaps this could be mentioned in just one place in the article?
  • "The ships were also significantly heavier than the Nassaus; the Helgolands displaced 22,808 metric tons (22,448 long tons) normally, and 24,700 metric tons (24,310 long tons) at full load, nearly 4,000 metric tons (3,900 long tons) more than the earlier ships.[A 1][5]"
    • Ick, I don't like the look of "Nassaus". Could this be reworded? Also, should [A1] come after the ref? (it's your style choice, just asking)
  • "Ostfriesland and Thüringen escaped the battle unscathed, although on the return to German waters, Ostfriesland struck a mine, and had to be repaired in Wilhelmshaven."
    • Too many commas?
  • Cheers Parsec, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the review, Ed. I reworded the "isolation" sentence, does that read more clearly now? I fixed the "ersatz" stuff in the design section, and added a note to explain it further. "Nassaus" has also been fixed, along with the commas at the end (I think). Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent and interesting article. – Joe N 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support article looks good. One minor point though, some links appear multiple times in the article (Nassau class battleship, SMS Oldenburg (1910), SMS Thüringen and a few others, mostly ships). Per WP:LINK each page should be linked to only on first reference. I see you linked to a few different ships with the same name, it could cut down on confusion if each ship was only linked to once. -Ed!^(talk) 07:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. I was thinking that Wikipedia:LINK#Link_density is a little vague, and that other ships would more than likely be the links people would want to click (since they're already reading a ship article), so it'd make more sense to sprinkle them in liberally. I'll take a look at the article and see where they're too close together. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted by the_ed17 [11]

Battle of Ticonderoga (1777)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano

Like my previous ACR submission, this wasn't much of a battle, but it had some interesting political aftereffects, and Ticonderoga's reputation got a reality check. I hope you think it meets with the standards. Magic♪piano 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Good article. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on background has a very long sentence (A small Continental Navy fleet...) which probably should be rewritten. Done
  • The images probably should be moved slightly up so St. Clair is in the American section and Burgoyne is in the British section. Fixed - Moved the images
  • The map looks funny - can we make it flow better? Fixed - I made the map smaller and tried to fit it next to the British Advance section, that was what I meant. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think 'Sugar Loaf left unfortified' is actually a subheading of 'American defences'. Also, I think its a strange sounding noun phrase re: WP:LAYOUT. Perhaps 'Battlefield', with some expansion? Or simply 'Sugar Loaf'? Fixed
  • This article has fewer references than Fort Ticonderoga or the Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) version, but it seems like some of them would be useful in this article, e.g. Smith 1907.
  • Why is the heading is American withdrawal instead of American retreat? Later in the article you refer to the American retreat. Fixed
  • I'd like to see more reliable web accessible references, if possible.

Kirk (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to move images around; in my display Burgoyne and St. Clair show up in places I think are appropriate (and I'm not sure what you dislike about the map's placement).
• I've renamed the Sugar Loaf section, and tried to normalize on "retreat" (except in reference to movements away from something specific).
• On sources: Smith (1907) is primarily about the Invasion of Canada (1775) (400+ pages) and later proposed operations against Quebec; he spends all of four pages covering the entire Saratoga campaign. I will point out that Ketchum is probably available in just about every library within 20 miles of where I type this -- not the internet, but not that hard to get a hold of, either. (And Ketchum actually uses Nickerson as a source for some of his material.) I've yet to find a web site or PD book that would make a good source for the amount of detail present here. I'm in no way opposed to using such sources; reviews of other articles have included comments and questions on the use of old sources.
  • Right, you seem to know what I'm talking about, and I understand that sometimes there just aren't any good web references for a particular subject. In my opinion, even if Smith only spends 4 pages on the Saratoga campaign it makes the article a better FA candidate if you include it. Kirk (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Magic♪piano 02:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article. Was there anyone in the battle who wasn't drunk? – Joe N 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • :) It does make one wonder, doesn't it? Magic♪piano 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support This is in great shape. A few copyediting comments:

• The plural of court-martial is courts-martial.
• I see "Canadians" in the infobox, but "Canadiens" in the text (British forces section). An oversight?
• " Fort Independence (Vermont) was established on Mount Independence to the east" - Quite strange to see a disambiguation term within article text.
• The St. Clair portrait could use an |upright tag, for more consistent sizing.
• "A height called Sugar Loaf (now known as Mount Defiance) overlooked both Ticonderoga and Independence, and large cannon on that height would make the fort impossible to defend; a tactical problem that John Trumbull had pointed out when Gates was in command." - this is wonky use of a semicolon; an emdash would be better here.
• The caption given for File:1777BurgoyneTiconderoga.jpg is just "Detail of a 1780 map showing the Ticonderoga area", yet the image page says it shows Burgoyne's troop movements during and after Ticonderoga. Suggest either expanding on this in the caption or (as that image is really difficult to decipher) perhaps replacing it with File:ChamplainValley1777.jpg.
• I see both "cannon" and "cannons" used as the plural; pick one, please.
• The references should be listed in alphabetical order.

Altogether well done. Maralia (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your comments, except for the map. The problem with File:ChamplainValley1777.jpg, and a notable number of other period maps that I've looked at, is that they tend to be missing one or more of the following places needed for the story:

• Hubbardton and/or Castleton
• Skenesboro
• Fort Anne
• Fort Edward

I'll spend some more time looking for better maps (I'm not overly happy with this one myself). Thanks for your comments and support. Magic♪piano 17:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a cleaner copy of the same map; you should find it much more readable. Magic♪piano 18:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good to me. -Ed!^(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted by the_ed17[12]

Battle of Bosworth Field

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has completed a peer review, and I think the article pretty much fulfills the A-Class criteria. This is a step to attaining FA and I hope everyone would offer comments and criticisms to help attain that objective. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything appears in order for a promotion to A-class. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Well cited, written and illustrated and comprehensive. Good work. I'd say it definately meets A class. I'm sorry I can't give much feedback as this is not my area of expertise at all. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Great to see an article of this standard on such a landmark battle - it's an epic in itself, well done! Can't see anything obvious stopping this from achieving FA as well. Couple of relatively minor points I'd like to see taken care of however:
  • Background: Richard III is described as "the tyrant", however the term is not in quotes, suggesting that this is editorialising. Does the source for that passage include the expression? If not it should removed.
  • Commanders: Last sentence of first para should be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  I have put "tyrant" in quotes (original text: "that of the south condemned him as a villain and a tyrant."). Added a cite for the last sentence of the Commanders' first paragraph. Jappalang (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Cool, I figured they'd have to be a "tyrant" quote available somewhere in there...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good. Can't find any major problems with it. -Ed!^(talk) 06:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - comments for FAC:
  • "Lord Stanley and Sir William Stanley were at the battlefield, considering which side would be more advantageous for them to support."
    • Should it be "Lord Thomas Stanley"?
  • "Richard's forces outnumbered Henry's, however Richard divided his army into three groups, each smaller than Henry's total force."
    • Perhaps "Richard's forces outnumbered Henry's, but Richard divided his army into three groups, which were each smaller than Henry's total force." would be better?
  • "The timing and extra judicial nature of the deeds done to obtain the throne for Richard won him no popularity, and rumours that spoke ill of the new king spread throughout England.[15]"
    • Hyphen needed? extra-judicial
  • "Except for those in the north, the people of England firmly believed that Richard, the "tyrant",[17] had murdered his nephews .[18]"
    • instead of "the tyrant", would "now called the "tyrant"" be better? Also, extra space between "nephews" and the period.
  • "The highest-ranking conspirator was Buckingham."
    • Do you mean the Duke of Buckingham?
  • Perhaps the maps should be forced larger? It is hard for me to decipher what is occuring with how small they are in thumbnail...
  • "Henry had no choice but to advance his army across the plain and confront Richard's forces on their own.[39]"
    • Henry's forces?
  • "The first open revolt against his rule occurred two years later."
    • "...occurred two years after the battle"?
  • Dude, this is one great article; I hope you are very proud of it. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is 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) 02:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Werner Mölders

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Werner Mölders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Werner Mölders/archive1

• Featured article review/Werner Mölders/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I don't believe it currently meets the criteria of Milhist A-Class and should be delisted. Specifically, the article really should rely heavily on Braatz (the most recent bio), not earlier biographies like Obermaier and Held, and the inadequate handling of the controversial aspects of Mölders' story let the article down in terms of recent scholarship (A1) and comprehensiveness (A2) respectively. It needs a concentrated effort to bring it up to A-Class standard in those areas, and there hasn't been the required level of effort being committed to improving it during or since its delisting as a Featured Article. For info, the 2009 ACR is now here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delist for the same reasons it was delisted at FAR. These issues have been sitting around for months/years and have not been fixed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 10:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per above. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist for the reasoning outlined above. Zawed (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist My comments in the FAR discussion haven't been entirely addressed. As the outstanding items include some significant issues (for instance, the paragraph starting with "According to Viktor Mölders, his brother had saved Georg Küch" details a story which it is then briefly noted is considered dubious by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office), I don't think that this article meets the A-class criteria either. If the puffery was to be removed and the article reworked using only solid sources it should be possible to bring this to a high standard given that there seems to have been considerable serious writing over the years on Mölders, his role in Nazi propaganda and how he is remembered. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I am going to list this for closing shortly given it has been open for two weeks and there is a strong consensus to delist and none opposing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 20 January 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.

---

Battle of Corydon

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

I have spent a couple weeks working on this article along with help from other editors. It is comprehensive now and I believe should pass an A class review. I am working towards FA class and am hoping to identify any remaining content problems with the article. Detailed sources on the battle are few, although there are many which give a brief mention of it. The two sources I have relied on the most, Funk and Conway, are both the work of the local historical society or the Corydon area. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comments Support. Looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cool3

Is it relevant in the first sentence to state that Corydon is the former capital of Indiana. This leads to the (incorrect) assumption that Corydon was the capital at the time of the battle. "It is the last battle that occured within Indiana" This doesn't read right to me (style-wise). The phrasing also seems to suggest that it was the "battle to end all battles" so to speak (i.e., that no future battles will occur). I'd recommend changing this to something like "No battles have occurred in Indiana since" I'd recommend linking "and launched an unsuccessful flanking movement against the Legion's works" to Flanking maneuver. "northward from the Confederacy." This is awfully vague. The Confederacy was a big place. Where exactly? "but to not cross the Ohio River into Union territory." In my opinion, this would read better as "but not to cross." Also, why didn't Bragg want Morgan to cross? "the Federal government had put a regiment regular cavalry troops in Harrison County for defensive purposes, but they had been withdrawn in March leaving only the local militia for defense." Why was the federal cavalry withdrawn? "Morgan had his men tap the Union telegraph lines and sent conflicting reports about his strength and destination and most officials believed his target was Louisville, Kentucky." I'd suggest breaking this into two sentence. At the very least, you need a comma after destination. "He did not find the support he was looking for, and had been pursued by the elements of the 6th and 8th Regiment of the Indiana Legion who killed three of his men and captured several others before the remainder escaped back into Kentucky." Did this incident have a name? Also, was it not a battle? "and requiring the Confederates secure ships to transport their men across" Should read "requiring that" "Indiana militia leaders learned of Morgan's occupation of Brandenburg, ten miles south of Corydon, and his intent to cross into Indiana." Did they have an inside source for his intentions or was this merely an inference? "the third one hitting the upper deck of the McComb and " Shoulnd't this be McCombs? "and the second shot land just short of the cannon" should be landed. "With the resistance seemingly at and end, Morgan began crossing his men" I assume this means on the two steamships, but that should probably be made explicit. "Once the landing was completed, the Alice Dean was set ablaze and sunk in the river between Morvin's landing and Mauckport." Any idea why? Which side of the river was Hobson on? It seems that it was the Kentucky side, but it would be better to make this clear. In the sentence "he learned that Union forces of Brig. Gen. Edward H. Hobson with a force of 4,000 cavalry were advancing on his position." just tacking on where Hobson was advancing from would be quite helpful "In the house Morgan stayed in" would read better as "in the house where Morgan stayed" "a nearby house were they assumed the shot had came from" would read better as "from which they assumed the shot had come" "Corydon was the county seat of Harrison County and the former capitol of State of Indiana" I think it would be helpful to state the years during which it was the capital of Indiana "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance elements of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, were sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon. " The subject and verb don't agree ("regiment" and "were"). This should probably read "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance element of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, was sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon." "Capt. George Lahue, a veteran of the Mexican-American War, was in command of the east wing. Most of the men behind the works had never seen battle." This would perhaps read better as "Although their commanders were experienced, most of the men behind the works had never seen battle," but I suppose that's a personal style choice. "Morgan’s artillery could have quickly dispersed the four hundred farmers-turned-soldiers," According to whom? "crossing the river in his rear in the night." would read better as "during the night" "Morgan’s main body was still en route" How far away were they? "and it was decided that the Legion should be engaged by the advance forces." Who made this decision? "At about noon, the Confederates were in position to attack the works" Does this just mean that they had arrived there? Or was there some other way in which they had prepared? "Morgan threatened to torch three local mills, and demanded amounts ranging from $700 to $1,000 from each to save them from destruction." Does this mean $700 to $1000 to save each mill? If so I would rephrase "from $700 to $1000 to save each of them from destruction." The from is, IMO, confusing. "stealing things ranging from" Is there a better word than "things" that could be used here? Perhaps items? "learned of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg, two blows from which the Confederacy could not recover." This needs better citation/attribution. It is certainly a majority view among scholars today that those two events were crucial turning points in the war, but I wouldn't present them as just simple facts. Also is there any evidence that Morgan thought at the time that the battles were "blows from which the Confederacy could not recover"? Many Southern leaders at the time did not necessarily consider the defeats catastrophic. "began to formulate plans for a safe return to the south." I'd make this "formulate new plans" I think the placement of the paragraph on casualties is strange. I would tend to either place it at the very beginning of the Aftermath section or even at the end of the section above. "ten–twelve wounded" this should probably be written out as "ten to twelve". "Additionally, two civilians were also killed" I don't think you should say both "additionally" and "also" "Because Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana the defeat was symbolic and many people saw the attack as an assault on the state's pride." This doesn't flow particularly well from the previous sentence. Also who is "many people"? "He then turned his force east towards Ohio as his raid turned into flight. He continued his raid eastward into Ohio" You say the raid turned into flight and then refer again to a raid. I believe the second instance should be "continued his flight"? "In the official government records of the war, the Battle of Corydon and the Battle of Gettysburg are the only two battles that are recognized as occurring on Northern soil." What does this mean? Would you mind posting an exact quote from the source? More to follow, but those should give you something to chew on for now :). Cool3 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I've added a bit more. Great article. Cool3 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I think it is notable that Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana. It made the defeat more symbolic. I will add a note about that in the aftermath section. In regards to Hines reconnaissance mission: reconnaissance mission is linked to the Hines' Raid article. The incident itself is mentioned in that article. My sources do not give the action any name. Your final point regarding the intent to cross: They knew he had ships and was on their southern border and that his plan was to cross from the reports from the escapees from Brandenburg. I have addressed all your other concerns in the article. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) In regards to gettysburg and vicksburg: I just removed that part. The primary point was, he realized he needed to get back to the south asap. I have placed the casualties where they are for chonology, it ends with Morgan leaving his wounded men in town, which carried well into the next section with his continued raid. I will try to rearrange a bit. In regards to being the one of two northern battles: I will get that exact quote when I arrive home later, that is where my book is. But the gist of it is that there were many skirmishes is the north, but only Corydon and Gettysburg were termed and listed as "Battles" in the offical war department records. I have addresed your other comments in the article. Thanks agains! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Heres the exact wording of my source regaurding the battle: The Battle of Corydon, registered by the War Department of the United States Government as an official battle of the Civil War, was one of only two such battles fought on northern soil.* The other battle was the most celebrated one of the war - The Battle of Gettysburg. However, the Corydon battle has been all but forgotten save by those who live the area. Hopefully this book will help the "almost forgotten" Civil War battle, fought on northern soil, to regain its rightful place in Civil War history. Within these pages the Battle of Corydon is relived. *There were various skirmishes in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but only Gettysburg and Corydon were termed Official Battles by the War Department. That is introduction to the book by Conway. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmm. I don't know quite how to treat this; in general I don't find the introduction of the book quite as "reliable" as the actual text. I think the problem here is that relies on definitions of both "battle" and "northern soil" that are neither intuitively obvious nor widely shared. If northern soil is taken as the soil of the Union, then battles like Antietam clearly qualify. Also, looking at the official union records [13], Corydon is referred to as a "Skirmish at Corydon, Ind." in just the same way as a number of other engagements in Morgan's raid. I'm inclined to say that the quote from the introduction is something along the lines of a flourish designed to sell books. Cool3 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I see your point. I don't think it really would take anything away to remove that statement from the article. I will do that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "a United States Navy ensign commandeered the tinclad Springfield , armed it with three 24-pound howitzers, and sped down river to stall the crossing" Did he actually commandeer it? Commandeering is an act whereby the military seizes private property. According to the article, USS Springfield (1862), the Navy already owned the steamer prior to the battle. Also, there should be no space between Springfield and the comma. Finally, it would be more appropriate to link to Union Navy rather than United States Navy
    • In regards to commandeering the steamer: that is the wording used by Conway. He indicates it was a private ship which a Navy Ensign who with the army command in Louisville took, then armed with three guns, and then took it downriver. I presume it is a different ship from the article that it is linked to. I had noted that earlier, but was unsure what to make of it. I tend to think they are different ships because the incident is not mentioned on the Springfield article, it is mentioned there as having six guns, while the boat in this article had three. But then again, why would a civilian boat be tinclad? I am going to see if I can cross reference this anywhere.
      • I believe I have addressed your remaining concerns, except for the Springfield. I have not been able to fully reconcile what is in my source to the USS Springfield article. I am quite certain now it is in fact the USS Springfield, but the discrepancy regarding the guns still makes me wonder a bit. I am going to go ahead and make it read as though it is the USS Springfield, and will footnote the possible discrepancy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you haven't already done so, you should probably look at this [14], which certainly seems to confirm that the Springfield was the boat involved; I still don't know what to make of the matter of the guns. Cool3 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I had read that, but it does not specifically mention this incident, but is refering to salinville and buffington island. But.. given it was in the same area.. had the same name, it seem more than a coincidence, and they are likely the same ship. There is still a little doubt to me that possible they are differnt, but I am 90% sure they are in fact the same. I think at this point, the possibility warrents a note. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no problems on my read-through save one; what is "paroled"? Is there something you could link to? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I have mispelled it, will attempt to find an article to link to. Parolled as in, he captured them, took their guns and broke them, then let them go on the promise they would not take up arms again for a given period of time. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an interwiki link to wikt:parole? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - the heavy reliance on one source might be a problem at FAC, because of the criteria that expects a wide range of literature YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conway gave the msot detailed description of the battle and I actually removed alot of the other various refs and moved the sources into furhter reading, but I can certainly re-add more citations from the other books to beef it up. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Army of the Tennessee

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Hartfelt (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that extensive work over the last month has brought the article to the A-Class level. The Army of the Tennessee played an important role in the Civil War; its leaders included Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. The article was started and given its basic structure by others; the leading editors up to the 17,000 bytes range were Jeremy Bentham and Hal Jespersen. I have now expanded the article to 75,000 bytes, with input of various kinds at the peer-review level from PKKoeppel, The ed17, and Yellow Monkey. The info box is based on that of the Army of the Cumberland. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Three disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. One external link registers as suspicious on the external link check, please make sure it is functioning properly. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

TomStar: (1) Thank you for your interest. (2) The five external links all work properly for me -- using IE, I can open the links and return to the article with the IE back button. (3) I am not 100% certain I understand the disambiguation problem you mention. If you mean that some of the wikilinks are to disambiguation pages, rather than to the intended subject page, I will try to find them. May I ask how you know that such mis-links exist and that there are three of them? (If you mean something else, please explain what the problem is so that I can attempt to address it.) Thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sorry for the delayed response, as noted at my talk page, I am in school at the moment, and school comes first. At any rate, everything seems to be in good order, and I find no compelling reason to oppose. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Would suggest moving the footnotes that are explanatory notes into a seperate category as 'Notes' - I find that's more informative. #Skinny87 (talk)
  • Hartfelt: see WP:REFGROUP. Also, Joe N (talk · contribs) requested here that this assessment not be closed until he returns from his vacation so that he can give an in-depth review of it. So it has three supports and will pass, but not yet, ok? :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs)
• Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Sd.Kfz. 10

Promoted -Eurocopter (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it just passed a GA review and I think it meets all the A-class requirements Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

• The intro should detail the design and devlopment devlopment of the vehicle.
• "The Sd.Kfz. 10 was a half-track vehicle with front wheels and a tracked rear suspension." in the description section would read better as "The Sd.Kfz. 10 was a half-track vehicle with tired wheels at the front and a tracked rear suspension."
• "the end" is redundant in "Production may have continued after that, but definitely not after the end of 1943." in the Sd.Kfz. 10/1 section.
• I think "Issue and use" would be better renamed to "deployment and use". "Issue" gives the impression of small arms rather than vehicles.

Other than that nothing wrong with it. It's a brilliant article and I'm sure it will pass FA after this stuff is cleared up. Just be sure to improve the intro. :-)--Patton^t/c 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I read your extract I'm wondering if I should re-write that entire section as a half-track is by definition a vehicle with front wheels and a tracked rear suspension so my current wording seems a bit a redundant. My leads are always weak, but I'll add in a sentence or two to recapitulate of the development history. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No I'm just saying that "front wheels" doesn't soudn great here. "Wheels at the front" sounds better.--Patton^t/c 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote that whole sentence. Check it out. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are there other sources that can be used? A-class is supposed to be based on WP:WIAFA and the "well researched" criteria there usually implies a wide variety of sources. At the moment about 75% of the citations are to the same thing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Jentz is the first detailed treatment of the vehicle that I'm aware of. All of the earlier literature are just surveys with only a few pages or less on the individual vehicles with an emphasis on its specifications. Even Spielberger, the former gold standard for German AFV histories, doesn't have any more than that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• The Soviet Union, not Russia. First noticed in the lead, but shouldn't be anywhere.
• It could use a copyedit, the prose can be rather choppy.
• "the 3 May 1940 production plan mentions a total of 400 to be procured at rate of thirty per month and thereafter at ten per month." After what?

These shouldn't be too hard to resolve, but I would like to see it copyedited and share the concerns expressed above about the low number of sources. – Joe N 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Cleaned up some of the text to make it flow better, but there are limits on what's possible given the nature of the subject.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support w/Comment(s) Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. No problems reported with the external links. I would ask that you make 100% sure that the German spelling is correct though, as checking that aspect of this nom is beyond my capabilities. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed the disabigs. Will check the spellings, but one mistake was already caught by an alert editor. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Closed as Promoted - Cam ^(Chat) 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Coral Sea

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

I believe this article about one of the arguably most significant and complex naval battles of World War II is ready for consideration for A-class status. Thank you (in no particular order) to Nick-D, Trekphiler, GoldDragon, Maralia, and Jehochman for significant assistance in expanding and polishing the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I feel that this article meets the A-class criteria. (Although Cla68 mentions me above, my contributions to the article were limited to copyediting.) Maralia (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article with no major prose issues. – Joe N 01:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an outstanding article. I do have some comments you might want to consider though:
  • It's a bit inaccurate to say that 'other nations, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand joined the United States as Allies in the war against Japan' after Pearl Harbor - the Commonwealth countries and the Dutch entered the war because Japan attacked Malaya and the NEI, not because of Pearl Harbor (the landing at Malaya was before the first bombs started to fall on Pearl), and cooperation between these countries and the US had been planned in some detail before the war started.
  • The 'Imperial Japanese expansion' section should make some reference to the Proposed Japanese invasion of Australia, as the debate over this led to the adoption of Operation FS as a compromise position between both the various factions of the Navy and the Navy and Army.
  • The See also section could be integrated into the article
  • There seems to be some over-linking (eg Combined Fleet is linked a few times) Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed as suggested. I noted the proposed invasion of Australia in footnote #9 and was planning on expanding on that in the Operation MO article, but I went ahead and added mention of it in this article. I'll work on incorporating the See also section over time as well as the redundant links. Thank you for the feedback. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding read. I linked the CXAM term to our article on the CXAM radar, but otherwise have no further suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

List of German World War II jet aces

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because taking this FL-Class article to A-Class hopefully is just little more than a formality. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment when I do my FLs I usually comment on statistical trends and I think it's a good thing to do, eg "This type of aircraft was more successful <stats>" or "This unit was the most/least successful <Stats>" rather than just the bald table YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - made a few copyedits and changes, and it now looks good to me. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Not being familiar with the FL criteria is a handicap here, but I think everything looks good. I would like to see more cites for the uncited pilots in the graph though. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Another article of quality well done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good list, comprehensive bibibliography. But what graph? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Rupert Downes

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Another article on a an Australian Army general. Also another one on a doctor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets the A class criteria in my opinion. Just a small point (and it doesn't affect A class), could an image be added in the Inter war years section to break up the text a little? Also, probably needs to be checked for endashes in the citations before it goes to FA. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - per WP:CREDENTIAL, postnominals of academic degrees should not be used following the subject's name. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support

• I'd recommend changing all the mentions of the Great War to First World War, I think that's generally more accepted.
  • Done.
• "With so many people and horses, sanitation was a challenge, a discipline in this area was initially slack, as it had been with disastrous results at Gallipoli." Huh? Please rephrase that.
  • Done.
• "Downes repeatedly clashed with the British medical officers of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF), whose attitudes Downes regarded as endangering his troops,[21] especially the DMS EEF, Colonel A. E. C. Keble.[22]" Please rephrase, it implies that the attitudes endangered Col. Keble.
  • Done.
• "Atr the same time," An extraneous r, perhaps?
  • Corrected.
• Can you explain the bit about his appointment that didn't happen because Blamy had already appointed someone else? How would that happen, were two people in charge of it and acting without communicating? That confuses me.
  • Done. Let me know if you are even more confused now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, makes more sense than before. – Joe N 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please fix these, all relatively minor, and it will be ready for A-class. – Joe N 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All look good now. – Joe N 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support w/Comment One disambiguous link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is extremely long and could do with some culling.
  •  Done.
• Ranks should be decapitalised unless attached to a name (or in the infobox).
  •  Done.
• Mentioned in Despatches is spelt with an "e" not "i".
  •  Done. I don't know why that gets past the spell checker.
• Is there any further information you would be able to add on Downes' CMG and six four Mentions in Despatches in the First World War?
  •  Done. Added London Gazette references.
• When the official histories are mentioned they should be in italics.
  •  Done.
• Terms or phrases should only be linked the first time they are mentioned. A few things have been linked multiple times.
  • The MOS says "avoiding duplicate links in the same section of an article".
    • Well, I tend to think major general doesn't really need to be linked six times. ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done!
• Endashes are required between page ranges used in the citations.
  •  Done. A bot will convert them all to Unicode. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

SS American (1900)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This article is about another of the steamers of the American-Hawaiian Steamship Company. This one was credited with sinking a ship in U.S. Navy service during World War I; unfortunately for the Americans, it was another U.S. Navy ship. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• "American-Hawaiian signed contract with the Tehuantepec National Railway of Mexico," Do you mean a contract?
  • *Sigh*. It's when I make silly mistakes like that one that really irk me… Yes, a contract is what I meant, and have changed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• "six men he had personally saved to a life raft" Perhaps escorted would be better than saved here?
  • I changed to escorted, but I wish the source were more clear: it almost read as if he had carried them, but, of course, it didn't explicitly state that. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, minor issues. – Joe N 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for another helpful review, Joe. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - feel free to disregard if you feel that the suggested change would not help the article.
  • This may sound dumb, but the thought just occurred to me...should "propeller" be linked?
    • Do you mean it is linked and you think it shouldn't, or it needs to be and isn't currently? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Should a short description of what the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is be included in the lead? I don't want to have to click on the link becuase I have no idea what it is, but I'm kinda forced to. :)
    • Valid point. Clarified. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Taken up for wartime service after the United States entered World War I in April 1917, [...]" 'Taken up' seems awkward to me...
    • Would expropriated sound better? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Should "round trip" be hyphenated?
    • In the one case where it was used adjectivally, yes. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "She was sold in 1926 and taken to Osaka where she was broken up sometime after her arrival there in November." - November 1926, 1927? What year?
    • 1926. I was trying to be succinct. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "However, when the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the entire American-Hawaiian fleet, including American, was requisitioned by the United States Shipping Board (USSB), which then returned the ships for operation by American-Hawaiian." - 'requistioned' -> 'returned the ships'?
    • Basically, the USSB requisitioned all privately owned ships over a certain size, which included the American-Hawaiian fleet. The USSB wanted to control what got shipped where, etc., with war cargoes and materiel given priority, but did not want to dirty their hands in the day-to-day operations. So, in the case of American-Hawaiian at least, the USSB let A-H operate the ships, but when and where the USSB told them to. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "American, which was lightly damaged by the collision,[4] [...]" - would '...was not heavily damaged...' sound better? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds like "six of one...". I'd rather go with a positive than a negative where possible. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments, Ed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support A-class alright. Nothing to complain about in the article, and nothing registers as problematic on the tool check links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Tom. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Henry Burrell (RAN officer)

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating for ACR because, as usual, believe it meets the criteria. Having pointed out at the Australian task force page that the ‘senior service’ was ironically the least well-served of the three branches of the ADF, biography-wise, it was about time I delivered my first contribution to helping change that situation with this Chief of the Naval Staff... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - no complaints or concerns on my part. This is a well written, illustrated and comprehensive piece. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a good article which meets the A class criteria. I have only a few minor comments:
  • Blue Mountains is linked twice, and in the first mention its part of Sydney while in the second its a region of NSW - I'd suggest that the second geographical description be omitted
    • Agree it doesn't need both, left Blue Mountains out of intro and kept the additional detail in Early Life - plus I think Wentworth Falls is probably classed as a town not a suburb... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a bit confusing to say that the FAA's fixed wing component 'remained a going concern until 1984' given that most units were disbanded in 1982 when Melbourne was decommissioned without replacement - 1984 was the year the last remnants of the FAA's fixed wing squadrons were dissolved after serving mainly in a fleet support/training role. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Quite right, generalised it now to fit with the facts without getting too deeply into it. Tks for that, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. – Joe N 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yorktown class gunboat

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This article is about the first class of steel-hulled gunboats of the United States Navy. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments:
  • "After a three-year hiatus from 1903 to 1906, ..." Define what you mean by "hiatus"?
    • It was three years out of commission. I've reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "After another stint in the Far East in 1894, Concord spent a year out of commission at San Francisco. In January 1898, Concord returned to the Asiatic Station, and joined Admiral George Dewey's fleet " What happened after she was recommissioned in 1896?
    • I reworded Concord's summary to explain that she was out of commission from May 1896 to May 1897, and that most of the rest of 1897 was spent in Alaskan waters. I was trying to be too tight with the summary, I think. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's alright; I just wanted to know what happened in those years without wading through the other article. :) Great article! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Images look to be appropriately licensed.
  • References and sources look good. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ed. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support.

• Can turtleback deck be linked in Layout?
  • From what I can surmise, I think it just means a deck with a crown in the middle (like a modern-day American football field with artificial turf with a slight slope to the edges). I don't have any source to back it up and would be reluctant to change the wording from the source.

• That's what I guessed from the description, but it'd be nice if there were some article on it if it's a common design. Oh well. – Joe N 23:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can you say who the Secretary of the Navy who Yorktown hosted was?

• The Secretary of the Navy present at the Great White Fleet's entrance into San Francisco was Victor H. Metcalf. Ref: Albertson, Mark (2007). U.S.S. Connecticut: Constitution State Battleship. Mustang, Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 1598867393. OCLC 173513595. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Added. I also added the proper cite for that fact (which was not attributed to DANFS), so thanks for suggesting that and allowing me to catch my error. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Bennington was attached to the Squadron of Evolution and for its cruise to South America." Awkward.
  • Removed the extra and after "Squadron of Evolution" (and some other tweaks). — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Few more comments than normal, but still good. – Joe N 17:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments are good, though: they make the article that much better. Thanks, Joe. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article, no additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted by the_ed17 [15]

Albert Kesselring

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Wiki-historians from three countries with totally different views of the subject team up to tackle one of the most famous generals of World War II. You decide if the result is a masterpiece or a mess. The Field Marshal is optimistic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification is needed about his transfer to the Luftwaffe. I read that part to mean that he was part of the civilian ministry, not the Luftwaffe proper, despite the colonel's rank. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no Luftwaffe proper. The Air Ministry was established as a civilian agency to control both civil and military aviation. This was similar to a number of countries. The twist in Germany was that the Treaty of Versailles forbade German from establishing an air force, so there was nominally no military aviation. The Luftwaffe was re-established as a separate military entity in 1935 when Hitler repudiated the Treaty. Then Göring was both Air Minister and commander of the Luftwaffe.

I have updated the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The WW1 section is very short but do you believe this should be included it seems to be very trivial;

  During the war, Kesselring frequently smoked up to twenty cigars per day but he quit smoking in 1925

  • It pertains to his getting throat cancer later in life. I can remove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I see it's still there in the article - I'd be happy to see it left where it is, but you could also move it to the part where his cancer is diagnosed, for context. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• There are a mixture of languages used in the ranks English up to General and German thereafter it may be better to use the German titles. I don't know what the MOS for this requires ?
  • MOS:TEXT says "use foreign words sparingly". Consistency therefore was not the primary consideration. So we used German where there was no English equivalent (SS ranks), or where that might confuse or mislead (general officer ranks). There was a bit of debate about Generalfeldmarschall as Field Marshal is a good English equivalent. Originally the article used both interchangeably; I decided to settle on one. The Wikipedia article is called Generalfeldmarschall rather than Field Marshal (Germany) and this was the rationale behind that choice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• In the Italian campaign the images seem to have no connection with Kesselring can you explain there inclusion
  • No picture was included just because Kesselring was in it except for the one at the top. Each adds a bit more to the text. The text mentioned the attack on Robert Rowan so I included a picture. The one on Salerno was to illustrate the fighting, as there was concern that too many pictures just showed people standing around. I took my cue from the Featured Article on Walter Model, which contains a number of such pictures. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Changed to neutral for now, pending added details on the Italian campaign. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose on criteria A2. The article as it currently stands is very good, it just has a few issues that I've outlined below:

• Of the sources listed in the "References" section, not all of them appear to actually be used in the article. I don't see the Atkinson, Belote, Bloxham, Dulles, Ford, Friesler, Goldensohm, Kesselring's A Soldier's Record, von Lingen's Kesselrings letzte Schlacht and Conspiracy of Silence, Murray, Silveri, and either Williamson sources used anywhere in the article. The sources which aren't actually used need to be removed from the "References" section and placed in a separate "Further reading" section.
  •  Done. Removed. Except for Friesler, who is used by footnote 34. In most cases, the references were used in earlier versions of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps because some of these sources aren't used, some important details from Kesselring's leadership in the Italian campaign are omitted, such as his use of air power to try to defeat the Allied invasions of Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio, his orderly withdrawal up the Italian peninsula after the Sicily evacuation, his brilliant surprise Air Raid on Bari, and his defeats of several attempts by the Allies to crack his defensive lines during the winter of 1943-1944 which caused severe problems for the Allies' strategic plans. Atkinson's would be a valuable source for this information.
  •  Done. That would be unlikely. However, I can and will expand the Italy section. I was actually more concerned about the Soviet Union section. But I think you are right on this point, because it is Italy that Kesselring is most associated with.
• The "Cassino and Anzio" section needs some dates included in the text so that the reader knows when these events are happening without having to click over to those particular articles.
  •  Done. I included a date in response to the when tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the copy edit. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

• In the lead where you say he resigned as Chief of Staff because of arguments with "his superior" it would be nice if you mentioned who that was (Milch, based on the main body).
  •  Done
• Watch over-linking, for example, Luftlotte 2 is linked over and over, and there are many, many other things which are linked several times through out the article.
  •  Done When the article was written, there was no articles on the Luftflotten. Looks like somebody created them and used a bot to link them in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd still check over the linking again, for example, Rommel is mentioned 13 times before he is introduced, linked, and his first name and rank given. Hopefully this can be fixed in the copy-edit, though. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The bit in Africa when he was fired upon confuses me. Was he fired upon by Germans, Italians, or British from the ground, and who were the planes attacking?
  •  Done. Re-worded.
• Please redo that passage. It also links badly to the next part; the reader's mind is thinking about the attack and then the article goes back to Bir Hakeim.
  •  Done.
• The prose can be a bit choppy in places, I'd recommend a copy-edit.
  • Good idea.
• Don't call the Soviets the Russians, they're different.
  •  Done. I've check both the English and German versions. Kesselring refers to "Russian" every time.

• It's fine if it's in a direct quote, but if you're paraphrasing you can change it to avoid the fallacy. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't call the Eastern Front the "Russian Front", that's just wrong.
  •  Done.
• "Known as Operation Sunrise." Fragment.
  •  Done. Corrected.

These issues need to be resolved before it's ready for A-Class, but they shouldn't be too hard. – Joe N 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Better, few more comments. – Joe N 22:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I've done some grammar and MOS cleanup. Further issues:
• Allies should be wikilinked in the lead.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• The lead should probably mention his Knight's Cross, and both the lead and the text about it later in the article should also mention the specific grade he received as it was quite rarely given, wasn't it?
  •  Done. There were only 27 recipients of the Knight's Cross with oak leaves, swords and diamonds. It hadn't occurred to me that Kesselring might qualify for an article on that basis alone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Italics for foreign-language words need attention throughout. The lead both italicizes and plain-texts Luftwaffe. The infobox plain-texts Generalfeldmarschall but italicizes Luftflotte.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Pick a style for year ranges (both "19xx–19yy" and "19xx–yy" are in use just within the infobox).
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Why does the infobox link his birthplace as being in the Kingdom of Bavaria whilst the Early life section merely links to Bavaria?
  •  Done. Two different editors. The infobox editor was probably influenced by the need to cite different "allegiances". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• The inline external link for the "Royal Warrant of 18 June 1945" will be a no-no at FAC.
  • Removed. I doubt if it can ever be a FAC though - it is too controversial. As it stands, there has been no support for an A so far. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• There are many places where it appears that direct quotes are given without a clearly correlating citation (such as the quotes from Kesselring in the Later life section).
  •  Done. The source is right there. Put the reference in triplicate.
• The Battle of Gazala image is tagged PD-USGOV but sourced to a USMA page which wouldn't load for me. Can the specific source of this diagram be clarified?
  • The site is probably down for maintenance. I took it from the Gazala page because another reviewer had trouble following the description of the battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• The diagram captioned "German defensive lines south of Rome" is tagged as GFDL-self but lists no sources. The specific sources used should be clarified, both for attribution and to avoid OR.
  • I took it from the Italy page. The best I can do is ask the author. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation/reference formatting is spot-on; well done. Interesting article! Maralia (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support It certainly seems well researched. For a group effort, this is very well organized and very well presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Major improvement since the last time I read this, one of the most detailed bios I've seen. Apart from very minor style and grammar tweaks that I took care of, I've nothing but praise for this great endeavour - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)