Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2017/Failed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Failed

[edit]
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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire

[edit]
Nominator(s): FriyMan (talk)

Supermarine Spitfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this page is in a very good shape and I have been editing it over a course of four months or more and it is in a very good shape right now. Supermarine Spitfire is an important fighter for WW2 and I intend to bring it to Featured class. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Comments from FactotEm (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Quite a lot of overlinking throughout. For example, Rolls-Royce Goshawk, Rolls-Royce Merlin (piped as PV-XII), Duralumin, Longerons (piped as longitudinal stringers), and so on. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is your friend here. -  Done

Criteria A1

  • Many cases throughout of uncited paragraphs and sentences at the end of paragraphs, for example, the 1st para in section "Manufacturing at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham" and the last sentence in the 3rd para of the same section. -  Done with the examples.

Criteria A4 I've made a few copy-edits myself, which you are of course free to challenge, but I suspect the article will need a better copy-editor than I before you take it to FAC. Some points here...

  • In the lead, ...about 54 remain airworthy, while many more.... "While" is generally deprecated as an additive link. Better to use "and".
  • Section "Origins", 1st sentence, beginning R. J. Mitchell's 1931 design to meet Air Ministry specification F7/30... has a number of problems resulting in awkward and ambiguous prose. We get half-way through before we find out the subject - the Type 224 - and ...large fixed, spatted undercarriage powered by the 600 horsepower (450 kW) evaporatively cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine is not conveying what I suspect you intended due to some missing commas. I would suggest something along the lines of "The Supermarine Type 224 was designed in 1931 by R. J. Mitchell in response to the Air Ministry specification F7/30 for a new and modern fighter capable of 250 mph (400 km/h). It was an open-cockpit monoplane with bulky gull-wings, a large, spatted, fixed undercarriage and a 600 horsepower (450 kW), evaporatively cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine."
  • Same section, 3rd para, ...construction of Mitchell's improved F7/30 design F7/30 was the Air Ministry specification, not Mitchell's design. Don't you mean Type 300 design here?
  • Section "Initial Production", ...did not roll off the Woolston, Southampton assembly line... needs a comma after Southampton, though as Woolston is linked I'm not sure you need to specify Southampton at all.
  • Same section, 2nd para, repeats a lot of information already presented in the 1st para.
  • Same section, 3rd para, Production aircraft cost about £9,500. Think you need "each" at the end.
  • Section "Manufacturing at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham", 1st para, Austin was given the task of building nine new factories, and to supplement the existing British car manufacturing industry... The first comma leads the reader to expect a different sentence construction than actually appears. Maybe better written along the lines of "Austin was tasked with building nine new factories and supplementing the existing..."?
  • Same section, 2nd para, ...the Air Ministry bought a site consisting of farm fields and a sewage works... Do we need to know the site's original usage? In fact, there's all sorts of problems with this para. I'll copy edit it and when done note it immediately below. You can then see what you think, and revert if you don't agree.
    I've rewritten it now. How does it look to you? I took a bit of a punt on the beginning of construction of the CBAF - the original said only that the site was purchased - so maybe you need to check the sources to confirm that construction did actually begin in 1938. FactotEm (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In section "Production Dispersal", the list is introduced with the statement Four towns... but has 5 bullet points. The last two items end with a full-stop, the first three don't. I believe the correct syntax is to end each line with a semi-colon, except for the last which should end with a full-stop.I think it would be clearer if you wrote the list as <airport(s)> at town. Saying, for example, "Southampton and Eastleigh Airport" reads like there are two airports, one at Southampton and another at Eastleigh, and using "with" as an additive link is also a stylistic no-no, apparently.
  • Section "Airframe", 1st para, The French Dewoitine D.520[49] and Germany's Messerschmitt Bf 109... mixes the adjective "French" and the possessive "Germany's", which my nitpicky eye finds slightly inelegant. Equally nitpicky are the lack of comma between "new" and "high-powered" and the use of "and" instead of the more correct comma between "low drag" and "all-metal" - in fact, that clause should really end with "fully enclosed cockpits and low-drag, all-metal wings..."
  • Same section, 2nd para, bomber interceptor and fighter aircraft... is confusing. I think you mean an aircraft that intercepts bombers, and a fighter aircraft, but is there a need to distinguish? Wouldn't "fighter aircraft" be enough?
  • Same section, 3rd para, ...fuselage featured a large number of compound curves built up from a skeleton of 19 formers, also known as frames... but later The U-shaped frame 20 was the last frame of the fuselage proper...???
  • Same section, 5th para. With the exception of the wing forward of the main spar, was standard dome-headed riveting used throughout, or were there three types of riveting used? It's not clear from the way the sentence is written.
  • Section "Elliptical wing design", 5th para, The trailing edge of the wing twisted slightly..., but in the 1st para An elliptical planform is the most efficient aerodynamic shape for an untwisted wing...??? Also, washout is a redirect. The correct page is Washout (aeronautics).
  • Same section, 7th para. More of a heads-up than anything else, but the {{convert}} template isn't used for the wing measurements. The syntax {{convert|36|ft|10|in|m|abbr=on}} will get you 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

That's all for now, I'll be back with more later/tomorrow/some time this week FactotEm (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments (Sorry it's taken a little longer than planned to get back to this).

  • Still some uncited statements, e.g. 3rd para in section "Armament" and 5th para in section "Service operations"
  • In section "Service operations", 4th para, is it normal to refer to tallies as "e/a"? I'm used to seeing them referred to as "kills".
  • Same section, 6th para, abbreviation "PRU" is used without prior explanation. I assume it means Photo Reconnaissance Unit?
  • The bibliography includes publications that are not used in any references, e.g. Flack, 3 of the 4 books by Green (only the 2007 publication is used), Gueli, and maybe more (haven't checked them all). Also, in some cases different publications by Price are dated to the same year, but the refs do not make it clear which is being used, e.g. 11, 44, 46, 129, 152
  • Given that the elliptical wing is one of the things that make the aircraft iconic, is the any information in the sources about why the clipped wing was adopted in some versions?
  • Is there any information about how the Spitfire performed against the Me109 in the Battle of Britain? I seem to recall they were quite closely matched, and as the war progressed the two leap-frogged each other in capability as each new variant came on-line. Also, I think it's only a matter of time before someone tries to insert the mis-understood statement about Galland requesting a squadron of Spitfires during the BoB, so maybe worth covering that pre-emptively. FactotEm (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for working on this very important article. I have the following suggestions (I mainly just looked at the referencing): AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this needs a citation: the paragraph ending "...potential for reorganisation to produce aircraft and their engines."
  • this needs a citation: "CBAF went on to become the largest and most successful plant of its type during the 1939–45 conflict. As the largest Spitfire factory in the UK, by producing a maximum of 320 aircraft per month, it built over half of the approximately 20,000 aircraft of this type."
  • this needs a citation: "To this end, the British government requisitioned the likes of Vincent's Garage in Station Square Reading, which later specialised in manufacturing Spitfire fuselages, and Anna Valley Motors, Salisbury, which was to become the sole producer of the wing leading-edge fuel tanks for photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, as well as producing other components."
  • this needs a citation: "If one cannon seized, the recoil of the other threw the aircraft off aim. Nevertheless, 30 more cannon-armed Spitfires were ordered for operational trials, and they were soon known as the Mk IB, to distinguish them from the Browning-armed Mk IA, and were delivered to No. 19 Squadron beginning in June 1940."
  • this needs a citation: the paragraph ending "...provide an almost continual flow of valuable intelligence information throughout the war."
  • this needs a citation: "To counter the Zero, Spitfire pilots had to adopt a "slash and run" policy and use their superior speed and diving superiority to fight while avoiding classic dogfights."
  • this needs a citation: the paragaph ending "...fully feathering Rotol propeller was fitted to prevent overspeeding."
  • this needs a citation: "After hostilities ceased in Asia in 1945, a number of Spitfire Mk.XIVs were reportedly buried, after being greased, tarred and prepared for long-term storage, in crates in Burma."
  • there is some inconsistency in whether emdashes or endashes are used for parenthetical statements, e.g. compare "included "Johnnie" Johnson—34 enemy aircraft (e/a) shot down[101]—who flew" with "...tanks of various sizes[64] – a feature patented by Vickers-Supermarine in 1938"
  • a number of the entries in the Memorials section are also uncited
  • same as above for the Notable appearances in media section
  • this needs a citation: "Several small manufacturers have produced replica Spitfires, either as complete aircraft, or as kits for self-building. These range in scale from ¾ full scale to full-size, although most use wooden construction, rather than the original all-metal monocoque design."
  • this needs a citation: "The Isaacs Spitfire is a homebuilt 60% scale replica."
  • in Note 2, suggest turning "See Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History, 1991, p. 165-166" into an inline citation in the same way as Note 1
  • watch out for double full stops in your citations (for instance Citation 24, 41, 70, 87, 152, 153, 155
  • Citation 126 (Ted Powles) should have more bibliographic details such as author, publisher, accessdate etc
  • some of the citations use clickable refs and some don't (e.g. Citation 149 "Green 2007, p. 91" v. Citation 150 "McKinstry 2007, pp. 379–80". Either style is fine, but for A-class the style should be consistent

Comments:

  • The last para in Origins needs to be broken up somehow. I didn't try because it had too many cites and I was sure I would screw it up.
  • Initial production has significant amounts of duplicated text about the Walrus and Wellington. I assume this is editing cruft but again I didn't know how to fix it. The second duplication seems more detailed and seems like the one too keep.
  • "for a price of £1,395,000" - I think that means "for all 310"?
  • "In 1935, the Air Ministry approached" - no cite.
  • "original estimated cost of £2,000,000 " - what orginal estimate? the only estimate mentioned to date is the 1.7
  • "Although Morris Motors," ... "it was funded by government money. " - why "although"?
  • "their Cowley plant could" - this didn't seem to actually happen, but it's not clear
  • "by the Luftwaffe to destroy the main manufacturing plants at Woolston and Itchen" - wasn't Castle Bromwich the main one? It just said so a few lines earlier. It seems there is a bit missing in the earlier section about the setting up of the initial production outside Woolston. Generally, in the spring of 1940, was it just those three plants producing spits?
  • "would avoid possible aileron reversal, stopping pilots throwing the aircraft around and pulling the wings off" - these are two separate statements. Either there is an "and" missing where the comma is, or they are not related. I personally find it difficult to believe they were worried about aileron reversal at this point, given that it didn't show up for some time.
  • "Flight tests showed the fabric covering" - this bothers me too, it seems to be suggesting that they had planned for the ballooning to occur to make the controls stiff, but that is definitely not the case.
  • "The airflow through the main radiator" - move up under other part about the radiator.
  • "developed by National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics" - the Spiteful article states these were developed by "A D Young of the R.A.E". Which is it?
  • There's also a number of overlong paragraphs, but we'll look at them later.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Germanicus

[edit]
Nominator(s): SpartaN (talk)

Germanicus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article as a step toward FAC. I know I left Wikipedia in the middle of the last A-class review and it won't happen again. I have a different job now that doesn't involve leaving home and driving for extended periods. It was at the end of the last review when I did so it shouldn't be much that has to be done this go around. SpartaN (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Harv error: link to #CITEREFTacitusBarrett doesn't point to any citation.
  • Harv error: link to #CITEREFAndo2016 doesn't point to any citation.
  • P/PP error: Swan 2004, p. 239–241;
  • P/PP error: Gibson 2013, pp. 82;
  • Radman-Livaja, I.; Dizda, M. (2010), Missing ISBN;
  • Simpson, Ch. J. (1981),Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed harv errors and p/pp errors. The last two don't have ISBNs, because they aren't books. And neither seem to have ISSNs either. SpartaN (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're wading into at least a little more challenging territory when you start citing conference papers from Germany. Here are three rules: 1) Google scholar is your friend 2) Google scholar is really, really your friend, and 3) very very cautiously, google translate can perhaps be your friend too. So OK I go to google scholar and google the English title, returning "Archaeological+Traces+of+the+Pannonian+Revolt+6–9+AD%3AEvidence+and+Conjectures".&btnG= this page. Look below the title and authors. There are a blue star, blue quotation marks, blue "cited by 8" and blue "related articles". All of those are useful, but the most useful for our present purpose is "Cited by 8". Now wait, the two blue quotation marks return a citation, wow, great, right? But no, google scholar often gets those kinda wrong. Click "cited by 8" and find an html or pdf you can see, then find there citations and copy their answers. It's best to look at 2 or 3 'cause other scholars might get it wrong too, and you might get unlucky and find the incorrect one first.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: I see. I was going about it all wrong, then. I was treating it like a book using the google books search and then found the pdf with incomplete information. Ordinarily I try to just stick with books with isbns, but in this case it was extremely difficult to find even this source that goes in depth into the Pannonian War of AD 6 to 9 (that also mentions Germanicus and isn't just a commentary on Dio). Thanks for your work. SpartaN (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think you wanted me to replace the "-" with "–" in those harvrefs - it's unclear). SpartaN (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • a prominent general of the Roman Empire known for his campaigns in Germania. suggest a prominent general of the Roman Empire, who was known for his campaigns in Germania.
  • a prominent branch of the patrician gens Claudia. suggest change of prominent, since it was just used. Perhaps influential or powerful?
  • Germanicus was a favorite of his great-uncle Augustus who comma between Augustus and who.
  • been given full independence of action. suggest been given full operational independence.
  • That is all my suggestions. Support promotion to A-class. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions implemented. SpartaN (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67

[edit]

I reviewed this article during its previous run at ACR, and supported its promotion, and I am still of the same view. Support from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem

[edit]

It seems to me that the article needs quite a thorough copy-edit before it will be ready for FAC. To be honest, I'm not sure it's quite up to scratch for A-Class, though I don't know how much of a problem issues with prose are in terms of assessing A-Class. I would be happy assist if you want me to have a crack at it myself, otherwise WP:GOCE would be your friend. For now I'll comment on just a sample of prose issues I find. But first...

Comments on content:

  • Section "Name". Is it relevant that Claudius adopted the agnomen Germanicus? It doesn't appear to come up again in the article.
It is only because Claudius accepts the title after Germanicus' adoption into the Julii in order to represent his father who earned it. In other words, Germanicus adoption, which causes him to change his name, also affected Claudius' name.
OK. Is it correct to say that Claudius became the sole legal representative of his father? The latter is dead by this stage. Maybe better to say that "...his brother inherited the agnomen Germanicus as the new head of the family"? This will also underline the fact that Germanicus has left the gens Claudia.
Yeah. He becomes the head of household is what I meant. Done.
  • Section "Family and early life, 2nd para, On his mother's side, he was the great-nephew of Augustus, and the nephew of Tiberius (the first and second emperors respectively). This sentence says his relationship to Tiberius was on his mother's side, but by my reckoning it was on his father's side (Tiberius was the brother of Germanicus's father). But see also my comment on prose below about this sentence.
It means he's just his nephew in general. Will explain that he's related on father's side (I assumed it was already made clear so it is a poor assumption that resulted in this).
  • Same section, 3rd para, Germanicus was a favorite of his great-uncle Augustus who for some time considered him heir to the Empire.[8] In AD 4, persuaded by his wife Livia, Augustus decided in favor of Tiberius, his stepson from Livia's first marriage to Tiberius Claudius Nero. Are you sure this is faithful to the source, in particular the "for some time" statement? IIRC, Augustus's grandsons Gaius and Lucius were his favoured heirs, and it was only when they died young in AD 4 and AD 2 that he turned reluctantly to Tiberius. I believe there was a history of Augustus using Tiberius when he needed him, but preferring his own bloodline for the succession. In the light of this, do you think it's worth adding a statement on why Tiberius was required to adopt Germanicus, particularly as at this stage Tiberius had his own son, who he would presumably favour as his heir?
It is meant to say that he was the favored after their deaths. Also, the adoption of Germanicus gave him precedence over Tiberius' son because Germanicus was older. The fact that his adoption was intended to make him supplant Tiberius' son in the line of succession is evidence of some modicum of favor Augustus held for him, and it is stated in Salisbury, Levick, and the primary sources (who the secondary sources interpret; Dio, Tacitus).
I'm still not sure that's correct. Augustus's favourite up to AD 4 would still have been Gaius, until he died that year. Only then would Germanicus have become Augustus's next choice(?) (unless perhaps Germanicus had replaced Lucius after his death in AD 2). By starting the next sentence with "In AD 4..." there's an implication that Gaius was a favourite before that time. It's been decades since I studied this period, I was never all that good a student anyways, and I may be way off the mark, but I feel like something important is missing here. You have the sources. Is it possible that Germanicus was considered too young and inexperienced, and was placed under Tiberius's 'guardianship' in order to prepare him for the succession? Are you sure you are not missing the opportunity to set some context about Germanicus's relationship to Tiberius, given that there was so much suspicion later? Again, you have the sources and I may be remembering this wrong.
Clarified. This is meant to say that Germanicus was the preferred choice after Gaius but before Tiberius and was still among the favorite as evidence of him becoming second in line after the latter. The "for some time" refers to the brief interval before he decided on Tiberius (an interval of about 4 months). The "In AD 4.." is just clarifying the date in which the events took place for the readers because it's the first mention of the date in that section because it comes after two paragraphs that aren't necessarily in chronological order.
I was worried it might come of as OR, because it's not explicitly stated to be brief or for a few months but it is stated that he didn't start looking for new heirs until Gaius' death and so of course that is brief (in terms of history) four months between February and June. Let me know if you think it is and I'll fix it.
OK. How about "After the death in AD 4 of his chosen heir, Gaius Caesar, Augustus turned to Tiberius and Germanicus as successors. He adopted Tiberius, whom he required to adopt Germanicus in turn, thus elevating Germanicus to the level of Tiberius's own son, Drusus, in the line of succession."? It's still not the best writing, but encapsulates the succession. If you need a ref for that, use Scullard's From the Gracchi to Nero, 5th edition, ISBN 978-0415025270, pp. 218 & 445. Factotem (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I adapted some of it. However, Germanicus was elevated above Drusus in the line of succession (on two counts; he was older than Drusus and Augustus' preference which was then honored faithfully by Tiberius - even to the extent that Germanicus' sons were advanced above his own grandchildren into the late 10s and 20s AD).
@Factotem: By the way, I appreciate the source and am familiar with Scullard. He says the same thing as the existing sources though is why I didn't see the need to cite him specifically (I think Levick cites him actually). Anyhow, I think that's everything for real this time. If you think it still needs more copyediting in that paragraph I'm happy to do it and I don't want to seem unreasonable. SpartaN (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose:

I have Scullard in front of me, and he states specifically, in the footnote on p. 445, that "...B. Levick, Latomus, 1966, 227 ff, emphasizes that the adoption of Germanicus was to make him the equal of the younger Drusus, a wish of Augustus which Tiberius continued to respect as shown by the parallel careers of the younger men. But G. V. Sumner, Latomus, 1967, 413 ff, who discusses the ages of Germanicus and Drusus, concludes that Tiberius in the period of his developing ascendancy towards the end of Augustus' reign, did accelerate the career of his son Drusus." If your sources do not specifically state that Germanicus was elevated above Drusus, then your sentence "As a result of the adoptions of 26 June AD 4, Germanicus became the heir of Tiberius in place of Tiberius' natural son Drusus Julius Caesar." should go. It's removal would also fix the fact that you state the exact date of the adoptions twice. I'm not going to push the 'briefly' bit any further; you seem to insist on that, and I accept that you're more knowledgeable than I on that issue. Factotem (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm only using one colon so it doesn't push to far to the right). That just means they progressed at the same rate (they achieved the same ranks at the same ages and because Germanicus was older he achieved those ranks first is all). By virtue of being the older male he was ahead of Drusus in the line of succession. Being "equal" does not mean they would both become emperor, only one of them could and it would have been the older of Tiberius' sons, adoptive or natural. I did repeat the date thinking I accidentally removed it. I know Swan says so explicitly, that Germanicus was progressing ahead of Drusus by virtue of achieving ranks ahead of his younger adoptive brother. And I know multiple other sources do which I will return with momentarily, but I don't see how this is complicated at all. In short: "Equal in rank" means they were both Tiberius' sons after Germanicus' adoption, but one of those sons were older and only one (at this stage in the Empire) could become emperor, and it couldn't have been the younger son. SpartaN (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove the contentious sentence in the meantime. SpartaN (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it and you are right about Scullard, and for me to assume he is in agreement where none is explicitly stated is being unfair of me. Usually he and Levick are in agreement and that is what I was going off of without even first seeing your source (I have seen Scullard, but not the page you pointed me to when it mattered). It's not like either of them lived to succeed him in the first place so placing such emphasis on the succession is kind of pointless in itself. Removing the sentence doesn't take anything away from the article and including it would involve a large amount of attention to the succession of Germanicus and his ancestry that really belongs in the article Julio-Claudian dynasty. SpartaN (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note on possessives. A recent change to MOS:POSS requires us to add 's to the singular possessive, even where the possessor ends with an s, so throughout, the articles needs to state Germanicus's, Tiberius's, Augustus's etc.
Done.
  • Section "Name". Given the new section, I think you should repace "His" with "Germanicus's" at the start of the sentence.
Done.
  • Same section. ...or possibly Tiberius Claudius Nero after his uncle Tiberius Not sure you need to state "Tiberius" at the end.
Done.
  • Same section. In 9 BC, the agnomen Germanicus was added to his full name when it was posthumously awarded to his father in honor of his victories in Germania. Germanicus held the title as he was the head of his family after his father's death. I think this could be written more concisely as "He took the agnomen Germanicus, awarded posthumously to his father in honor of his victories in Germania, when he became head of the family in 9 BC."
Done
  • Same section. By AD 4 he was adopted as Tiberius' son and heir. As a result, Germanicus was adopted out of the Claudii and into the Julii. Because the actual date of adoption appears to be ambiguous, and to avoid the too-short sentencing, I think this would be better written as "By AD 4 he had been adopted as Tiberius' son and heir, and as a result, Germanicus became a member of the gens Julii." I don't know if Romans could only be a member of one gens at a time, but I don't think we need to specify that he left the gens Claudii. Also, in the lead, it's gens Julia and gens Claudia, whereas here it's gens Julii and gens Claudii. Is there a reason for the difference?
Grammatically I think it would be plural, because in the sentence that says "..Germanicus was adopted out of the Claudii and into the Julii." - He is being removed from the many members of the gens Claudia and entering the ranks of the many Julii.
  • Section "Family and early life", 1st para. I find there's always some mental gymnastics required when it comes to family trees, especially Roman. What do you think about "Germanicus was born in Rome on 24 May 15 BC to Nero Claudius Drusus and Antonia Minor, and had two younger siblings: a sister, Livilla; and a brother, Claudius. His paternal grandmother was Livia who, by the time of his birth, had divorced his grandfather, Tiberius Claudius Nero, and was married to the emperor Augustus. His maternal grandparents were the triumvir Mark Antony and Augustus's sister Octavia Minor."?
Beautiful.
  • Same section, 2nd para. What do you think about "Germanicus was a key figure in Julio-Claudian dynasty of the early Roman Empire. As well as being the great-nephew of Augustus, he was the nephew of the second emperor Tiberius, his son Gaius would become the third emperor Caligula, who would be succeeded by Germanicus's brother Claudius, and his grandson would become the fifth emperor Nero." as a more concise narative?
Done.

Taking a break now, back with more later. Factotem (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another tranche:

  • Section "Family and early life", 3rd para, If Tiberius had not adopted Germanicus before his own adoption, and had Augustus adopted Tiberius first... The second clause repeats the meaning of the first clause, and is not necessary.
Will remove. When I elaborate on things I'm not always sure the reader will be able to follow.
  • Same section, 4th para. Caligula wasn't emperor at the time of his birth. Suggest "...Gaius the Yonger (the future emperor Caligula)...". Similar for Agrippina the Younger. Also, was "Empress" actually used as a title in the Roman Empire? If so, suggest "...Agrippina the Younger (future empress)..." and if not, then "...Agrippina the Younger (future wife to the emperor Claudius).
Done. No, but she is commonly referred to as empress in lieu of an official title, although "Augusta" is often equivocated.
  • Section "Batonian War", 1st para. If the slaves were manumitted, how could they, as freemen, be bought?
They were bought by Augustus so that he could free them and incorporate them into his army (the sources don't really elaborate on why - a shortage of Roman manpower I guess).
OK, but I think you need to write that the slaves were bought and then manumitted.
Done.
  • Same section, 2nd para, Not long after Germanicus reached Pannonia, Severus was attacked in Moesia, but successfully repelled the rebels. By the time Germanicus arrived... It's not clear whether Moesia is part of Pannonia or not, so this sentence appears to repeat Germanicus's entrance twice. Maybe the second sentence should read "By the time Germanicus arrived in Moesia..."?
Moesia is further west - Germanicus doesn't enter that region throughout the entire conflict. Severus was attacked on his way to Pannonia shortly after Germanicus' arrival there. Will clarify in the article.

You've now got "Not long after Germanicus reached Pannonia..." and "By the time Germanicus arrived in Pannonia..." starting two consecutive sentences, which just jars. Maybe the second should be "By the time of Germanicus's arrival, the rebels had..."?

  • Same para. Tiberius appears to have been conducting... and Tiberius may have been hoping... come across to me as a bit weaselly. Is the uncertainty reflected in the sources?
There is great uncertainty and modern sources elaborate on primary ones to come to a conclusion as to his activities and motives.
  • Same section, 3rd para, AD 8 saw the collapse of the rebel position in Pannonia: a rebel commander, Bato the Breucian, surrendered their leader Pinnes to the Romans and laid down his arms in return for amnesty from the Romans.. Maybe rewrite as "The rebel position in Pannonia collapsed in AD 8 when one of their commanders, Bato the Breucian, surrendered their leader Pinnes to the Romans and laid down his arms in return for amnesty." This removes the passive voice at the start of the sentence, which is maybe not such an issue, but certainly the colon is wrong, and the party giving amnesty is obvious and doesn't need stating.
Done.
  • Same para, As a result of the surrender of Pinnes and the death of Bato the Breucian, the Pannonians were divided against each other, and the Romans attacked, and conquered the Breuci without battle. I think that technically Pinnes was captured. Also, if there was no battle, is it correct to write that the Romans attacked?
Now "As a result of the betrayal of Pinnes and the death of Bato the Breucian, the Pannonians were divided against each other, and the Romans conquered the Breuci without battle."
  • Same section, 4th para, Tiberius divided the forces into three divisions, two under Silvanus (south-east from Sirmium) and Lepidus (north-west from Siscia), and the third led by himself with Germanicus in the Dalmatian hinterland. I tripped on this, thinking that of the three divisions, two were commanded by Silvanus. I also read the last part as meaning that the third division was led by Tiberius, and that separately Germanicus was in the Dalmatian hinterland. Finally, I don't understand what is meant by "south-east from Sirmium". Was that division advancing in a south-easterly direction from Sirmium, or was it based in the south-east in the area of Sirmium? Similar problem with "north-west from Siscia".
Clarified (the confusion was just sloppy copy editing on my part)
  • Same para, While Tiberius negotiated the terms of capitulation, Germanicus went on a punitive expedition across the surrounding territory in which he besieged the fortified town of Arduba, defeating it and obtaining their surrender and that of surrounding towns. The previous sentence states that the fortress was overwhelmed and the defenders killed, so why would he need to negotiate a surrender, and who was there left to negotiate with? Also, the defeat and surrender of Arduba is basically saying the same thing twice, isn't it? And anyway, aren't towns captured rather than defeated?

More to come. Factotem (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified.
I'll wait until your done so I can address all the issues (some are related to each other so I don't want to start if the next one is related to a preceding one). Many of them are simple mistakes in terminology, i.e., I'm pretty sure in the same sense nations can be defeated so too can rebellious towns. SpartaN (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last tranche:

  • Section "Interim", 5th para, ...Tiberius held a triumph for their victory over the Pannonians and Dalmatians, that... I would query the use of "their" instead of "his" here. I believe that triumphs were a special thing in Rome, and it's more correct to say they were granted (you certainly write this further down, in the "First campaign against the Germans" section). I think that technically the victory belonged to Tiberius as commander. The fact that Germanicus received only triumphal regalia, and not a triumph himself, seems to confirm this. I'm not sure. Certainly the "that" at the end there should be a "which", and that will be my last nitpicky prose comment. That's not to say that there aren't more issues of prose, but I don't think it's very productive for either of us to list them all individually here.
I meant that the triumph celebrated the victory over the Pannonians who they both fought against, but you are right and I fixed it.
  • Section "Commander of Germania", 1st para, ...and more importantly, to grant him proconsular imperium. Why "more importantly"? What's the relevance of him receiving this authority?
It's not really (nothing that doesn't require a lengthy explanation in the article as to having proconsular imperium is superior to being a mere general). It made his rank superior to that of even the consuls is why. Removed "more importantly".
  • Section "Third campaign against the Germans", 4th para, The Roman soldiers involved on the battlefield hailed Tiberius as Imperator... Tiberius?
changed to "honored Tiberius" - the gesture of hailing an emperor after a victory was done to show respect. Though the sources don't elaborate on why, it was probably Germanicus' idea to strengthen the authority of Tiberius in his legions. Saying they honored him with the gesture seems equally valid, though.
  • Section "Recall", 3rd para, Tiberius gave money out to the people of Rome in his name, and he was scheduled to hold the consulship next year with the emperor... Ambiguous use of personal pronouns makes this sentence confusing. I think you mean that Tiberius gave out money in Germanicus's name, and that Germanicus was scheduled to be consul, but that's not what the sentence actually says.
Clarified.
  • Section "Command in Asia", 1st para, ...Germanicus was sent to Asia to reorganize the provinces and kingdoms of Asia, which were in such disarray that the attention of a domus Augusta was deemed necessary to settle matters. I wonder if it's worth clarifying the distinction between senatorial provinces, which I assume is the type of province Germanicus was being sent to here, and imperial provinces?
I'm confused. He was sent to reorganize provinces as a general use of the term. The only imperial province in the region is Egypt at the time. The distinction isn't made until the section "Egypt" as far as I can tell.

Got carried away with this comment. Ignore it.

  • Section "Egypt", 1st para, The move upset Tiberius, because it had violated an order by Augustus that no senator shall enter the province... But Germanicus was not simply a senator. Maybe flesh out the reason why this was a problem?
He was operating in his capacity as proconsul (his rank, officially; imperium maius does give him authority over other proconsuls, but it does not exclude him from the Senatorial Order) and so it was a problem because he had not first asked permission of the emperor to enter Egypt. Clarified.
  • Same para, ...although this action was probably beyond his authority. How so, given that you state earlier that he was given imperium maius?
It was done by a senator without the emperor's permission; imperium maius does not advance him beyond the Senatorial Order.
  • Same section, 2nd para, Tiberius feared the people of Rome knew of the conspiracy against Germanicus... The wording seems to confirm that there was a conspiracy, but wasn't it only ever speculation that Piso had poisoned Germanicus, and scuttlebuck that Tiberius was involved?
Clarified. It was Tacitus' theory that Tiberius was responsible and he provides motives that he believed were responsible for Tiberius's decision to kill his nephew.

That's it for now, but I may come back with some more general comments. Factotem (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late response. I'll ping you after I've made the changes. It will be a few hours. SpartaN (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Sorry it took so long. I had to crack the books back open, but I've responded to all queries. SpartaN (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on those changes. Some additional comments to your responses above. No rush. Likely won't be able to get back to any further updates 'til Monday. Factotem (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I responded to all queries. SpartaN (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but please do get this article copy-edited before taking it to FAC. Factotem (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to as soon as the assessment is complete. Thank you for being patient with me. SpartaN (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, though I think it was you who was being patient with me. I would be happy to work with you on the copy-edit if you want, and would understand if you don't. Factotem (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. You seem to be good at copy-editing and the article would really improve from it. SpartaN (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Missed this. I'm busy for a few days. Will make a start on it next week. Ping me if you don't hear anything from me by the end of the week. Factotem (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord note: this one seems like it might be heading towards closure soon, but it still needs an image review, I think. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look at this one? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: "For objects from countries without freedom of panorama,.." Are these images separate from the two mentioned for the US PD tag, or are those two the one you are referring to? SpartaN (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Separate - everything that is in three dimensions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added PD-US to the two images referred to above. SpartaN (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I somehow didn't notice your reply until now. I see what you're talking about, but do I address them by nation of origin or is the copyright status by itself good enough? SpartaN (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. For images hosted on Commons, they need to be free/PD in their country of origin as well as in the US, and the factors in determining that will vary from country to country. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added the right tags. Photographs of statues and ancient buildings are not allowed to be sold without a license, which the uploaders appropriately followed with their share alike licenses. The statues are old enough that they are public domain due to being in publicly funded museums/areas. SpartaN (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Depictions of ancient works of art are allowed to be transmitted freely so long as you do not charge money unless they are privately owned, which they are not. That is what I meant. Please let me know if I added the wrong tags for them. SpartaN (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we still have five images needing amendment. File:MSR_-_Germanicus_Inv._30010.jpg needs a tag for the original work, per above. File:Hermannsdenkmal_statue.jpg needs a publication date to verify the US tag, and I don't think monuments qualify as official decrees. For both File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg and File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg, the wording of the Italian tag suggests it would not apply in this situation. Finally, File:Idistaviso.png needs an author to verify the life+70 tag - an 1895 publication would make it quite possible for the author to have died more recently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Idistaviso.png - Dr. Paul Knotel (d. 1934).Deutsche Nation Bibliothek
They are all appropriately tagged now. The Italian ones - File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg and File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg are PD after extensive reading because they are not cultural heritage sites (buildings) and so they apply. File:MSR_-_Germanicus_Inv._30010.jpg is protected for the same reason (and Freedom of Panorama is protected there). File:Hermannsdenkmal_statue.jpg is protected as it is a public statue on public property. Thank you for being patient. SpartaN (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: G'day, Nikki, can you please let me know if all your concerns have been addressed? If so, the review is probably ready for closure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion on my talk, we're probably okay to use the Italian sculptures; however, I think Template:PD-EU-no_author_disclosure would be a better fit, assuming in both cases the sculptor is unknown. Also, per above File:Idistaviso.png needs an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SpartaN (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Are you happy with these changes, Nikki? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SpartaN: File:Bronze_statue_of_Germanicus_at_Amelia_April_2016.jpg should use the EU tag as well, then this is good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. SpartaN (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli Campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Stingray Trainer (talk)

Gallipoli Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Submitting this article for A-Class review. It is an extremely comprehensive, well written and well researched article that covers a major campaign of the First World War. It is a high traffic article, being viewed more than 800,000 times in the last year and is likely the starting point for many thousands of peoples research. It has recently undergone a Peer Review process (Gallipoli Campaign) that made some good changes and is ready for further analysis. Hopefully one day it may be ready for FA nomination. Stingray Trainer (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'll ask the question which doomed the recent FAC Stingray Trainer started for this article: do the editors who have worked on this article the most support the nomination, and are currently in a position to follow up on comments? I note that Stringray Trainer has never edited the article, nor started a discussion of these nominations on the article's talk page so this may also be out of process. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I'm sorry, but I am not really keen to work on an ACR at this time. Not sure if AC or Keith are interested, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interest in the article Stingray Trainer. For what its worth I am willing to assist with this review where I can but won't be able to make any guarantees due to other demands on my time and enthusiasm. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • File:G.C._18_March_1915_Gallipoli_Campaign_Article.jpg should include tags for all included images, particularly those that are not independently on Commons
  • File:Landing_French-Gallipoli.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Cape_Helles_landing_map.jpg: what is the source of the data in this image?
  • File:AE2_(AWM_H17538).jpg: that URAA tag requires a publication date. Same with File:Lone_Pine_(AWM_A02025).jpg
  • File:OttomanBatteryAtGallipoli.jpg: if this was created by a news service, why is it a government work?
  • File:French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg: where was this first published and what was the author's date of death?
  • File:Gallipoli_Battlefield_(15399670914).jpg: what is the copyright status of the statue itself? Same with File:Gallipoligrave.jpg, File:Çanakkale_Martyrs_Memorial_-_panoramio.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking over these, I've made changes where I can but most I cannot address as I didn't upload them and don't know much about their provenance save what is currently available in commons. In regards to each of the concerns though:
      • File:G.C._18_March_1915_Gallipoli_Campaign_Article.jpg should include tags for all included images, particularly those that are not independently on Commons
        • I've included tags where I know them but not all have been addressed. Anyone else with any clues about these?
      • File:Landing_French-Gallipoli.jpg: when/where was this first published?
      • File:Cape_Helles_landing_map.jpg: what is the source of the data in this image?
        • Unsure. I would only be guessing unfortunately as I didn't draft it.
      • File:AE2_(AWM_H17538).jpg: that URAA tag requires a publication date. Same with File:Lone_Pine_(AWM_A02025).jpg
      • File:OttomanBatteryAtGallipoli.jpg: if this was created by a news service, why is it a government work?
      • File:French_75_gun_at_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg: where was this first published and what was the author's date of death?
        • Added author details now. No idea as to when it was first published though.
      • File:Gallipoli_Battlefield_(15399670914).jpg: what is the copyright status of the statue itself? Same with File:Gallipoligrave.jpg, File:Çanakkale_Martyrs_Memorial_-_panoramio.jpg.

Coordinator note: This appears to be a premature nomination and the nominator is not actively involved in the article's development. Given that nobody else appears keen to adopt the article, I'm closing this review. Anybody with access to the source material who is in a position to address reviewers' commentary may renominate at any time; if you need help or advice, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page or at WT:MHC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

RAF Lossiemouth

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thx811 (talk)

RAF Lossiemouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include a comprehensive history of the station and it current operations. I have tried to focus on the station itself and its facilities rather than the units that were based there, as they are covered by their own articles, although both are obviously intrinsically linked. I have followed the structure of other articles on military airfields but hope that if considered acceptable that this article on what is one of the RAF's major stations could be used as an example to help expand other articles on UK military airfields.Thx811 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • regretfully oppose There are some issues here that are too substantial to allow upgrading to A-Class at this time or which could be reasonably resolved during an A review, namely:
  1. sections of uncited text - excluding the table and list of section commanders (both of which are largely uncited), by my count, there are six substantial factual assertions that have no sources
  2. some close paraphrasing - not much, but a few short passages could be restructured [5]  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. maintenance tag on the article
Having said all this, I think this is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is right on the verge of WP:GAN and, from there, could be improved to A-class with only a modicum of effort. It is, mostly, well-sourced to RS, well-written, well-organized, and well-imaged. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice and encouragement. The table of squadrons largely comes from Jim Hughes airfield focus book, with the exception of those entries post 1993. Would it be better to have a in-line citation for each entry or would it be better to have them only for those which don't come from the book (which is referenced at the top of the table)? In terms of the paraphrasing I think the original article was largely a copy of the RAF's own information on the airfield - those paragraphs identified must be leftovers from then. I'll make the recommended changes and resubmit as a nomination for good article - thanks again. Thx811 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page range you could provide for the Hughes book? If so, and if it isn't too large a range, the current solution seems okay to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)  DoneThx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here (as an admin) that DarjeelingTea has subsequently been blocked indefinitely as a sock. I'm sure that Thx811 has addressed their comments in good faith. This oppose should probably be discounted on that basis, because we don't enable socks and their activities, whatever the intent. I've stricken their "regretful oppose" on that basis. If a Milhist coord believes I've done the wrong thing here, feel free to revert. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your efforts. I have a few suggestions for possible improvements, but echo the comment above that it would be best to take this through GA, before coming back to A-class. Anyway, good luck with improving the article further: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When comparing the WW2 airfield map in Jim Hughes book on Lossiemouth with current satellite images its evident that above is the case. However I can't find any published sources to use as references. I'll remove for the time being and add the statement to the talk page in case anyone else can help. Thx811 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this needs referencing: "No. 5 Force Protection Wing HQ provides operational planning and command & control to the two field squadrons attached to the wing, No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment and No. 2622 (Highland) Squadron's (RAuxAF), whose purpose is to protect RAF bases at home and abroad from ground attack."  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • this needs referencing: "The RAF have also provided photo opportunities for aviation enthusiasts during exercises such as Joint Warrior."  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References there are quite a few "harvn" errors, which the clickable links don't link to the long citations in the Bibliography. If you instal this script, it helps more easily identify these errors: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js  Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • watch out for overlinking. The duplicate link checker indicates the following duplicate links: No. 44 Squadron RAF, Supermarine Seafire, Fairey Firefly, Hawker Hunter, No. 15 Squadron RAF, RAF Honington, RAF Marham, No. 6 Squadron RAF, RAF Valley, Quick Reaction Alert,  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is now the only operational RAF station in Scotland" I never trust "now" or "currently" or such. Better make it "As of 2017, it is ..." or even "As of July 2017" ... Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Thx811 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

  • I am closing this review as a fail due to the lack of comments over the extended period it has been open. The nominator should not be disheartened at the low interest at this time and I suggest renominating the article again in the near future. Perhaps consider a GAN prior to bringing the article back to ACR as that process can provide useful feedback for improving the article. Regards. Zawed (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

RTV-A-2 Hiroc

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

RTV-A-2 Hiroc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I got it to GA class recently, and I believe it is good enough to be A class, or at least can be improved until that point. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I get a 404 for the page it links to, did you find a non dead-link for the image? Not sure if it requires an active link or not, seems like it should though? Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Here is a direct link and here is how I got to it.

Oppose by Kees08 (Talk)
[edit]
  • Infobox
    • Propellant in the infobox should include both an oxidizer and a fuel, right now just has an oxidizer.
  •  Done? I know it used Liquid-fuel, but I couldn't find the exact type.
    No worries, I will make the edit, revert if you would like. Alcohol is the fuel, liquid oxygen is the oxidizer, and combined they make the propellant. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Believe this is capitalized incorrectly in the infobox - Prototype Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
    •  Done
      Sorry, should have been more clear. It should be Prototype intercontinental ballistic missile, since it starts with prototype and since intercontinental ballistic missile is not a proper noun.
       Done
    • Makes more sense to me if Newton is spelled out or if lbf is used as an abbreviation for pounds-force, so they match - 2,000 pounds-force (8,900 N) each
    •  Done
  • Lead
    • This does not seem appropriately capitalized: High-altitude Rocket
    •  Done
      If we are going with the actual capitalization, it should be high-altitude rocket. If we want to show how the acronym is formed, we should do HIgh-altitude ROcket. I prefer the first, but am indifferent. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Same comment on lbf/Newton
    •  Done
    • Expand the lead to include a brief description of the rocket test failures.
  • Design
    • Consider rewriting this sentence:
      • From: Gas pressure support reduced the empty weight but made the missiles very fragile and dependent on being pressurized continuously.
      • To: Having gas pressure provide rigidity to the structure reduced the empty weight by requiring less metallic components for structural reinforcement, but made the missile very fragile because it required continuous pressurization
      •  Done
    • Consider rewriting this sentence:
      • From: The nose cone, which contained the ordnance was separated from the rocket.
      • To: The nose cone, which contained the ordnance that would impact the target, would separate from the rocket booster.
      •  Done
    • Try adding in more detail on this, the fact that less heat shielding is required, and that heat shielding is a lot of weight - This made the rocket lighter as only the nose cone and its ordnance had to be able to survive re-entry, rather than the rocket.
    • The Hiroc engines had a specific impulse of 210 s at sea level, not the Hiroc itself - The Hiroc had a specific impulse of 210 s at sea level.
    •  Done
    • Rewrite:
      • From: such as the gimbal engines
      • To: such as the gimballed engines
      •  Done
  • History
    • What does MX stand for? - and test ten MX-774 Hirocs.
    • Some real long sentences here. Maybe it makes sense to break up the sentences and to have a paragraph for each test?
    •  Done
      Initial concern is resolved, but you should add the sources to the end of each of the newly generated paragraphs. Kees08 (Talk)
    • It is White Sands Proving Grounds, with an s at the end
  •  Done

The Google Book I link below says they are specifically swivelled and not gimballed engines. I am not sure what the difference is yet, I have not heard of swivelled engines (probably because I need to brush up on my engine history).

I believe that Gimballed engines can swivel, but swivelling engines are not necessarily gimballed.

I see multiple sources stating it used V-2 technology, which is important considering the Operation Paperclip scientists. Should probably mention that somewhere.

Sources with some additional information (and that make verifying without the books a little easier)

@Iazyges: I would like to see a lot more expansion based on the limited sources I have available to me. Some examples include, but not limited to: first missile to use gimballed engines instead of thrust vanes, had the nickname 'Old Fashioned', there is currently no mention of Karel Bossart, no mention that the fins were fixed, a future work section talking about how it led to the development of Atlas would be useful (including what features Atlas used from HIROC), a small background section that talk about MX-774 A and C would be useful to give a general feel for the whole program, no mention of the nitrogen pressurant in the vehicle, and no mention of the H2O2 that powered the turbopumps. I think all of that information is very important to an A-class article on a missile. I did not go through all the sources to gather all the facts, just went through a couple to cherry pick things I thought were important. I can go through the rest if you would feel more comfortable with that. Let me know if that all makes sense, thanks! (all information in this paragraph was found in the sources you have already provided) Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maury Markowitz
[edit]
  • This article is not suitable for A-class IMHO. I found a number of issues from minor to less minor in the existing text, some of which would make me question it for GA. But more broadly, this article is clearly missing most of the history of the design. I have added a few bits from other articles that touch upon these topics (like Navaho), but I suspect this could be expanded to roughly double its current size without breaking a sweat. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk), Hawkeye7 (talk)

John Glenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This will be my second nomination for the John Glenn article. This first nomination was closed as no consensus, since it did not have sufficient supports to be promoted. I then nominated it for FA, which received a substantial amount of comments towards the end of the nomination I did not have time to address. I intend to add those comments into here, and address them. The article did not pass FA. I would like to get a successful A-class review to make the FA-review a little easier. Kees08 (Talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I had a look at this last time it was at ACR. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is one too many per WP:LEAD; I suggest trying to merge a paragraph or two
    • Merged the last one w/ the second to last one, let me know if that is fine. Merger seems to make sense. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Jim Betts is dab link
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 13-16": the hyphen should be an endash
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 167-169.": same as above
  • "Wolfe 1979, pp. 41-42": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 111–117": should be a double p
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 180–184": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, p. 204–206": same as above
  • "Glenn & Taylor 1999, pp. 189": should be a single p
  • Citation # 131 should have more bibliographic information, e.g. publisher, author, accessdate
  • "James Dean" --> "Dean, James"
  • " Almost Heaven: the Story..." --> " Almost Heaven: The Story..."
  • "organisation" --> "organization"
  • "and two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point" --> "and after two and a half months of jet training at Cherry Point"
  • "specialisation" --> "specialization"
  • this needs a ref: "Metzenbaum won, 57 to 41 percent. In his 1980 reelection campaign, Glenn won by the largest margin ever for an Ohio Senator, defeating Jim Betts in 1980."
  • this seems like editorialising: "Predictably, there was some skepticism and concern about the effects of space travel on a septuagenarian, even though Glenn would not have to perform much in the way of physically or mentally exerting activities on the mission, and what would happen if he were to experience a medical emergency in orbit? NASA assured the public that Glenn was not merely being given a free seat on the Shuttle, and he would have to pass the same physical exam as the other crew members."
    • Removed that, not sure why that was there. When I glanced at that before, I thought it was part of the article, but it was not. Kees08 (Talk)
  • this needs a ref: "At the time of his death, John Glenn was the last surviving member of the Mercury Seven."

I believe you on the p vs pp citations, but out of curiosity, which guideline shows how to use them properly? Kees08 (Talk) 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of specific guidelines, but this has something on it: Wikipedia:Citation templates. I image that the various style guides (e.g. Chicago, APA, etc) also provide something on this, and the links here probably also have something: {{Wikipedia referencing}}. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Covered all those actions, make sure you are happy with them. Have any more comments? Kees08 (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unaddressed comments from FAC

  • Metzenbaum's eventual victory seems better suited to the next subsection, where its relevance is clear.
  • "Late 70s and 80s campaigning" has a lot going on, but is not clear. When did he run for president?
  • Why was there tension, and why did it thaw?
    • I removed all this. The answer is there was tension because they campaigned against each other; it thawed because they both eventually won Senate seats, but I do not think it is important enough to include in the article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why is Metzenbaum's 1988 election relevant?
    • Relevant because of bullet point above, removed though because of reason above Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Glenn introduced bills on energy policy to try to counter the energy crisis in the 70s." The trouble with politicians is that probably most senators expressed a desire to "counter the energy crisis". It's political hot air. What did the bill do to counter it? That is what is relevant.
  • " based on nuclear non-proliferation," perhaps better as "promoting nuclear non-proliferation"?
  • Also the subsection title is a bit strange: perhaps "Activities" would be more appropriate.
    • It is mostly about his committees, so I put that in there. Perhaps we can think of a better one yet. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "In 1979, another dispute Glenn had with President Carter was Glenn's stance on the SALT II treaty" Overly complex wording
  • Rather heavy use of the OSU source in that section...
  • "illegal foreign donations by China" is it possible for China to make either legal or domestic donations? Maybe better as "donations by the Chinese government to...At the time, foreign donations to political campaigns..."
    • I need to reword this better still, I have been reading about the scandal so I will be able to phrase it correctly. Kees08 (Talk)
  • "Considerable acrimony existed between Glenn and committee chair Fred Thompson of Tennessee." Why?Also didn't the article just say Collins was chair?
    • Yes, that was horribly written; the chair for something else. I need to split that off into another paragraph or just add more information about both committees. Kees08 (Talk)
  • We definitely need more detail in the savings and loans scandal section; not negative information, necessarily, but for the uninformed reader to have at least some idea of what he was accused of doing wrong.
  • "Aide Greg Schneiders" Presumably Glenn's aide, but the article should say so.
  • "He received all of his degrees in full in a Mason at Sight ceremony from the Grand Master of Ohio in 1978, 14 years after petitioning his lodge" To a person such as myself who knows little to nothing of the Masons, this is incomprehensible.
  • There's a picture of Annie here, but Annie isn't actually mentioned in the personal life section.
    • Moved her information to the personal life section, makes more sense there. Kees08 (Talk)
  • I find the formatting of the awards rather strange, but I know little about military article conventions, so I won't make any suggestions here, except to say that you could combine Awards, Illness and death, and the "retirement" section into a single "Death and legacy" section with three subsections; but that's not necessary, the current structure is okay.

@Vanamonde: You are not required to participate in this discussion, but I am going to address the rest of your points I did not cover during the FAC here. I think I grabbed most or all of them. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I did not co-nominate with you because I thought you might want to add comments, but I suppose co-nominating makes more sense. You want to be co-nom on this A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 00:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't comment because I wrote much of the military service section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case it looks like this is stalled, I am performing a major rewrite of the entire section on politics. I will ping reviewers again when I am finished in case they want to re-review that section. I am looking to address the comments above, which were numerous, and true. Kees08 (Talk) 07:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, I just finished a major rewrite of his political career. I mostly added information, everything was disjointed because there was not enough written about this portion of his career. Could you give that a once-over? Also, since it was not chronological, that added to the confusion. Additionally, could you look over the Legacy and Personal life sections? I am not sure what to do with the Freemason paragraph. That should finish addressing the comments that were above. I have been trying to get everything addressed as this is nearing the bottom of the queue, and I will be unable to edit for a short period in the near future. If you do not have time to work on those sections let me know and I will try to get it done. Kees08 (Talk) 05:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've checked the diff since I last edited this. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I rewrote his political sections, so you may want to take another look at it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Factotem

[edit]
  • Infobox. I haven't checked every detail, but there are some that are not supported by statements in the main narrative or a cite. Examples are Roth as preceding and succeeding Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Voinovich as succeeding Senator for Ohio, and the dates of tenure for these two offices. Everything that appears in the infobox must be supported by sources, either in the main narrative, or directly cited in the infobox.
  • Section "Early life and education", 2nd para. The last sentence kinda jumped out at me as irrelevant until I read the footnote. Maybe consider paraphrasing parts of that note into the main narrative instead?
    • Seem odd to have any of that in there at all, not very summary style. Removed it along with the note. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "World War II", 1st para. "Never called to duty". Is it just me or is that a bit too grandiose and puffy? I would have written something along the lines of "He enlisted voluntarily...".
    It's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. Seems odd to refer to "pre-flight training" when the previous section describes his first solo flight in a military aircraft, and to me "pre-flight" is a series of checks that a pilot makes before taking off. Does your use of the term here reflect how it's used in the sources? Would "initial flight training" be better?
    Error. Should be "flight training". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. flew R4D transport planes. Glenn was posted to the Marine Corps Air Station El Centro in California in July 1943 and joined VMO-155, which flew the F4F Wildcat fighter. This seems to be a bit of a leap in the narrative. Was it normal to simply transfer from transports to fighters?
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Looking up Distinguished Flying Cross, it's awarded for "heroism or extraordinary achievement", yet there's no information about the actions for which he was twice awarded this medal, which seems odd, especially when, to my layman eyes, so few missions were flown.
    That would be one way of doing it I suppose. Or you could just fly 20 missions over enemy territory. You can read his citations here. Added the link to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 3rd para. "shortly before the Pacific War's end" -> "shortly before the end of the war in the Pacific". This gets rid of the ugly truncated wlink caused by the possessive and, I believe, "Pacific War" is not a proper name so "War" should not be capitalisied.
    Pacific War is a proper name, so war is capitalised. Changed anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same para. Couple of nitpicky prose issues: "yet another Corsair squadron" and "He finally returned home in December 1948."
  • Section "Korean War", 1st para. I think a parenthetical clause explaining what (the rather obscure) K-3 is would be good here, rather than forcing the reader to click the link to find out. Also, it seems odd that the narrative begins with an application to fly F-86s but jumps to details about flying F9Fs without explanation.
    Chronological order; he checked out on the F-86, but was not yet seconded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, 2nd para. "which was faster and better armed more heavily armed still"?
  • Section "Selection", 2nd para. NASA is already linked and abbreviated in the previous para, so you could just go with NASA here.
  • Same section, 3rd para. First mention of Shepard should be full name and linked. This is actually done 2 paras later.
  • Section "Friendship 7 flight", 2nd para, There were eleven delays during the countdown due to equipment malfunctions, improvements to equipment functioning properly and the weather. "...improvements to equipment functioning properly..." is an odd construction, and repeats the word equipment. Could this be written as "There were eleven delays during the countdown due to weather and equipment adjustments and malfunctions"?
  • Same section, 3rd para. Note b is unsourced, and 17,500mph is repeated.
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt", 1st para, ... that he run for the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1964... for Ohio?
  • Section "1964 Senate attempt". Hyphenate "re-election" (or is hyphenless acceptable in AmEng?).
    • Looked it up, it looks like non-hyphenation is acceptable in AmEng. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Section "Awards and honors". There's a large amount of linking in the 2 paras of text. I can understand that links for awards and institutions are useful, but not so sure about linking Staten Island, Manchester, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars or Smithsonian Institution (both are detailed and linked in the article Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service), NCAA (detailed and linked from the Theodore Roosevelt Award article), Cleveland, Dayton and Seven Hills.
  • There are a large number of duplicate links, for example, World War I, Marine Corps, United States Air Force. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is your friend here.

That's all from me. Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Would you mind cleaning up the military history section (and whatever sections you please)? I have added you as a co-nominator. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: I think I addressed all your points. I did a massive rewrite of his political sections, so you may want to take a look at that again. Kees08 (Talk) 01:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still some, to my mind, unnecessary linking in the Awards and honors section, which you haven't addressed either by removing them from the article or explaining their rationale here. Apart from that, looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a couple of overlinked terms. Not sure if that addresses your concerns, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's still to my mind some MOS:OVERLINKing. I don't see the need to link to Tokyo, for example, when the Nihon University article also provides that link, and Tokyo is in itself not relevant to this article's subject. The same goes for Staten Island, Manchester, Woodrow Wilson International Center and Cleveland. Factotem (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: Took another stab at it, let me know if it is still too much. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

[edit]

It is an intresting article, i hope this'll help you, goodluck. Cheers CPA-5 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the references refer to the U.S. Senate, shouldn't they remain capitalized? Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i did not realise it was a name of a kinda organisation my bad. By the way the "candidacy for the U.S. Senate" line needs to be unlinked cause there are two "U.S. Senate" in just one section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7: Hey there, I have limited time to edit for a couple of weeks, so I want to make sure I focus it well. What do I need to specifically do to finish this up for A-class? Kees08 (Talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the article probably needs an image review. @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • John_Glenn_Low_Res.jpg: source link is dead. Same with John_Glenn_Signature.svg, File:Carter_vp_buttons.jpg
    • Not sure the rules on John_Glenn_Low_res; it is his official Senate photo so PD. I have an email conversation ongoing with a Senate historian, they should be putting an OTRS ticket in for all of his official Senate photos and hopefully we will get some additional committee photos. Is it required that this is done though? Since it is his official Senate portrait? Kees08 (Talk)
      • Well, without a source, how do we know it's his official Senate portrait? The now-dead link is not to a Senate site... Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair, I had a similar thought when I saw the URL. I will continue discussions with the historian. Kees08 (Talk)
        • @Nikkimaria: I received word back from the historian; unfortunately, they did not express interest in using OTRS and I neglected to CC OTRS on the emails. They sent me three photos and said they were all PD. One is a black and white version of the photo in question, for some reason with the flag edited out of the background. If you would like, I can forward you the email chain, depending on the level of WP:AGF you are at with me. I can verify the image in question is PD, but can provide the additional evidence if you would like. I believe one of the other photos is not on Commons as well, so I will work to get that uploaded if that is the case. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wonder if OTRS would be willing to accept the email chain if it was forwarded by you. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to the person I checked with, unfortunately no. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, can you add some elaboration to the image description as to why your contact believes the image to be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I changed the credit to be what the historian requested; the tag would remain the same though, as the historian asserts it is public domain, and that the credit goes to the U.S. Senate Historical Office (the change requested on the image page). Therefore it would be PD due to work of U.S. government as the tag states. I am trying one last ditch effort to get it OTRS confirmed (I forwarded the message back to the historian and CC'ed OTRS, asking them to confirm they are PD). I will let you know if that works (usually gets back to me in 3-4 business days). Kees08 (Talk) 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not positive I had to fix the signature file, since it is PD either way, but I found an archived link. Kees08 (Talk)
    • Found the source archived Kees08 (Talk)
  • Per the NASA tag, use of logos, insignias, and emblems is restricted - is this usage compatible?
  • Ohio_US_Senate_Election_Results_by_County,_1992.svg needs a source to support the data presented
  • File:Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_(ribbon).png should have the same tag as File:SpaceFltRib.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I believe correctly (over the previous license, which I think would be invalid). Kees08 (Talk)

@Nikkimaria: Addressed the comments, let me know if addressed well enough. Kees08 (Talk) 05:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on NASA to get back to me, let me know if we are good on the Senate image. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I have not heard back from either group; how should we move forward? Kees08 (Talk) 01:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, keep the Senate portrait and ditch the insignia. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done for both this article and Neil Armstrong. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle

[edit]
Nominator(s): Randomness74 (talk)

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is my first shot at an A-class review and the first in (hopefully) a long series of World War II tanks, which I'm trying to make into a good topic. This article has passed GA review, and I firmly believe this article meets A-class standards. Regards to all reviewers, Randomness74 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see a detailed article on one of the the under-appreciated workhorses of armoured units. However, I think that this article currently needs a fair amount of further work to reach A-class status. I have the following comments:

  • "It was phased out after the introduction of the M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle" - can you provide an approximate date range here? Done
  • I think that the 'specifications' section should start from first principles in describing this vehicle. For instance, the reference in the first sentence to its length "when the boom was fully extended" is confusing as it's not previously indicated that the vehicle had a boom, or what it was used for. Done
  • "the engine varied between which variant of the M4 Sherman it was based upon" - ditto - please explain why these variations existed (because the M32s were diverted from the standard M4 production lines?)  Done
  • "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles for the D-day Invasion. However, they did not desire to use the British armored recovery vehicles, because they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made with M4 Sherman tanks, such as the AVRE or the BARV" - the grammar here is awkward. Also, the US Army didn't procure vehicles only for the D-Day landing: its entire operating model was to ruthlessly standardise its fleets, with vehicles intended to be general purpose and suited for varying conditions across entire campaigns. Presumably the M32 was intended to support the fleets of M4s in European conditions, and presumably also built on lessons learnt by the US Army in North Africa as well as British combat experiences Done
  • Why was the M4 selected as the basis of this design? (presumably to simplify its production and ensure commonality and the availability of spare parts in combat zones) Done
  • What was the role of the M32: was it intended to support units equipped with M4s, or was it used more widely?
  • "They also converted 298 M32B3s" - what vehicles were converted? Done
  • The service history section should discuss how successful this vehicle proved to be: what were its good and bad features? Did it prove suitable for its intended purpose? Do historians regard it as having been a success?
  • Please explain the purpose of the vehicle's armament: this was presumably for self defence only as the M32 wasn't a combat vehicle. Done
  • Was the US Army the only operator of the M32, or were they exported to Allied countries? (as was common with M4 variants)  Done

--Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

Oh dear.

  • "The M32s were used after 1944, such as during the D-Day and the European Theater" makes no sense. Done
  • "It had between 0.5–2 in (13–51 mm) depending where the location of the armour is" makes no sense either. Done
  • "they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made" ditto  Done
  • "However, some remained in service during the Korean War after the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954" but the Korean War ended in 1953.  Done
  • "The M32 had a 30-ton winch, 18 ft boom, and an A-model jib." Add convert template to convert feet to metres. Done
  • "It weighed either 64,300 lb (4,590 st) (M32, M32B1, and M32B3), or 67,600 lb (4,830 st) (M32B2) depending on the model" Why on Earth are we converting from pounds to stones? Convert to kilograms. Done
  • " It had was equipped with an A-frame jib, a 30 short tons (27 t) winch" Use adj=on in the convert template, and delete "had" Done
  • "The armament were used only for self-defense, as it was only a recovery vehicle and was not to be used in combat" This could be phrased better. Done
  • "They served in the Italian Campaign (World War II), Operation Overlord, and many other battles during the European Theater." Disambiguate the Italian campaign, and change "during" to "in" Done
  • "They also converted 298 M4A3 Shermans into M32B3s from May to December 1944." Delete "also" and change "from" to "between"  Done
  • "the horsepower of the engine were insufficient to pull large tanks" Change "were" to "was" Done
  • "it was never put on the production line" should be "it was never put into production " Done
  • FN 12 is incorrect, and missing a closing parenthesis  Done Fixed this one for you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link A-frame, synchromesh, winch Done
  • Change category "Armoured recovery vehicles" to "Armoured recovery vehicles of the United States" Done
  • Delete category "Military recovery vehicles" Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes, including adding locations where they were missing, adding some links, and correcting the spelling of Ian V. Hogg's name.

  • The infobox says that 1,582 were produced, but it doesn't say this in the article. The numbers in the Production history section add up to 1,670, which indicates that something is wrong. Correct the error, and add the total to the Production history section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox says "In service: July 1943 to May 1945", however, it seems it should include Korean War service also? Equally, the body of the article provides 1944 as the in service date, so it is inconsistent with the infobox Done
  • provide an indicative date here: "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles in order to use in combat..." Done
  • "because they did not prefer the modifications the British": what was their objection to those variants?
  • this seems quite awkward: "The reason the engines varied depending on the variant of the M4 Sherman the vehicle was based on because M32s were either directly converted from M4 Sherman models or were made from M4 Sherman chassis before the turret was added."
  • "OCM 21553 standardized..." what is OCM 21553?
  • seems awkward: "They instead made another variant of the M4 Sherman, so the Ordnance Department made several prototypes." Done
  • seems repetitive: "The M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle replaced the M32B1A1s after the Korean War[8] after the production of heavier tanks such as the M46 Patton. They remained in service during the Korean War. Soon after the war, the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954." Done
  • in the lead "used by the United States during World War II and the Korean War", but the infobox says it was also used by UK forces
  • the crew should be mentioned in the specifications, mentioning their roles
  • "The M32 entered service with the US Army in 1944": what units was it issued to, and on what scale?
  • To clarify, I'm hoping for something like: "They served in the Italian Campaign, Operation Overlord, and many other battles in the European Theater of Operations, being issued to X type of unit (for instance maybe an armoured regiment) on a scale of X per X (sub unit e.g. coy)" ... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, from what I can tell they were issued at company and battalion level. I found a few sources on Google Books. For instance, this provides something in relation to the Korean War: [6]. This has something about armored infantry battalions in World War II: [7]. And, this has something regarding cavalry TO&E: [8]. This mentions some Marine Corps usage up to around 1958, I think: [9]. There is possibly more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the See also section is probably redundant as the M74 is already linked in the body of the article Done
  • the Production history section should mention the total number produced, as Hawkeye has suggested above Done
  • I did some copyediting, but to be honest I think it still needs work. I will try to come back with fresh eyes later, but suggestion maybe placing a request at the WP:GOCE

Comments by EyeTruth

[edit]

Lede

  • 〜 Pending. Lima Locomotives started production of the vehicles in June 1943, with five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s. Pressed Steel Car produced 163 M32s and 475 M32B1s in 1944. They also produced 298 M32B3s. Baldwin Locomotive produced 195 M32B1s, while 398 M32B1s were produced by Federal Machine before the end of the year. This block is a bit problematic, especially given that it's in the lede. Let’s try and unpack it below.
  • Lima Locomotives started production of the vehicles in June 1943, with five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s. Currently the text says that all five M32B2s and 46 M32B3s were produced in June 1943 when production started. But the body of the article says otherwise. Consider reworking the lede for clarity.
  • The production of the M32 was started by Lima Locomotive, which converted five M32B2s in June 1943. They also intermittently produced 26 M32B3s in May 1944, followed by 20 more vehicles in the summer of 1944.--Randomness74 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also produced 298 M32B3s. When? In 1944? If it's in 1944, why not list it along with the others in the preceding sentence? Without a date, that piece of information is not very useful.
  • while 398 M32B1s were produced by Federal Machine before the end of the year. What year? With the year for the last sentence being ambiguous, this sentence becomes less meaningful. Fixing the preceding sentences should automatically fix this one.

Body

  • ✗ Unresolved. These designs competed against the T2 and T7 designs at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The T5 was declared superior to the T2 and T7 designs after several weeks of testing. This excerpt is practically everything we know of these T2 and T7 designs. They appear to have been serious competitors, so consider providing some more context for them? Some introduction should be beneficial.
  • 〜 Pending. Why did Lima Locomotives discontinue production for almost a year, while Pressed Steel Car went on producing during roughly the same period? Currently the article gives the feeling of a major gap in information. See if you can plug this gap. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • 〜 Pending. Hunnicutt, R.P. (1971). Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Novato, California: Presidio Press. ISBN 0-89141-742-7. The ISBN seems to be for a different book by Hunnicutt, Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked Vehicles. Please verify. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomness74: Hi, have you been able to look into these comments? EyeTruth (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-ordinator comment: - @Randomness74: are you in a position to action some of the outstanding cmts here relatively soon? If not we will probably need to close this review as no consensus to promote at this time. Procedure is for ACRs to remain open for 28 days, although we regularly exceed that nowdays due to the limited number of reviewers we sometimes get. This review has now been open for three and half months though. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello again all. This is a re-nomination (previous here). The last one took so long (mea culpa but will not happen this time on my watch) that editors left the project and others had moved on (and who can blame them!). I think most points were addressed by the time it was closed, although I look forward to more. Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna

  • Comments Support – this article looks in good shape to me, a few relatively minor MOS points:
    • There are a lot of duplicate links that should probably be removed per WP:REPEATLINK.
I removed most of the dups from he body, but considering the size of the article, I thought per WP:MOSLINK, keeping "the first occurrence after the lead"?
Yes that is right. Anotherclown (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the dead King's brothers- John, Duke of Bedford and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester- would..." I think the hyphens here should be longer emdashs per WP:DASH but I’m not a 100 percent certain on this so please check (there are several instances of this in the article that may need adjustment).
I'm flattered that you think I understand dashes any better than you, Ac  ;) but it's not the case I'm afraid- I am completely lost and will have to take some advice elsewhere (if that's OK?)
    • "...although the centrepiece of Buckingham's estates..." is this meant to be a new sentence or should the proceeding full-stop be a comma?
Yes it should be; now is.
    • "...The latter also included the title of earldom of Buckingham, which bringing a further £1,000..." consider instead something like "...which brought a further £1,000..." or something like that.
Well caught, done.
    • "...Stafford also had major estates on the Welsh Marches..." The link to Welsh Marches should be moved from here to its first use.
Done.
    • Is there a missing word somewhere here: "...and that Buckingham's influential voice was used a vote for action in the King's camp..."?
I think so- can't remember- but "vote to do X" seems more likely that that.
Ah, thanks- the list follows in the next para, this is just to introduce "seven boys and three girls."

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up maps
Right, I did St. Albans by 1.5 and Northampton by 1.3- better?
  • Suggest revising Brecon Castle caption
Agree; specified date, made it a proper sentence too.
I'm not sure to be honest- but it's almost certainly user-generated- at least, the fact that the author references W.H. St John Hope's book on Garter Stalls suggests it's lifted from there. Although of course it could be a recoloured touched-up sscan couldn't it. How do I check? -or just ask the author?!
You could try asking, see if you get a response. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yeeeas- they haven't edited for ten months, so I'm not hopeful- but left a nice message on their media.wiki page, which hopefully they'll see at some point. — fortunavelut luna 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: To finally answer your question, in the creator's own words, "As to the designs, they are my work based on originals or illustrated from various rolls of arms where only a blazon is available." — fortunavelut luna 10:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, then we should be good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: thanks for your efforts. The looks quite good to me, but unfortunately I can't comment on the content. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this appears to be unreferenced: "They had 10 children: seven sons and three daughters."
    • Well: This was really just meant to summarise the following paras, where those ten children were individually referenced.
@AustralianRupert: I guess I'm finding it a little tricky because something as smple as that is almost too simple to be in an 'academic text' (where they launch into details), but likewise he's not famous enough to have a 'Janet and John' book about him which would summarise such a thing. Now, the ODNB entry does sort of source it- but my text would really have to be tweaked to say (to align precisely with the source) "They had 10 children: seven sons, and three daughters who married well" (changes in bold)- because according to the ODNB there, they actually had five daughters! I'm guessing the other two either died young or took religion- she doesn't say. Can you see the slight difficulty I'm having in parsing the details! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 05:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I'd suggest maybe adding an explanatory footnote in this case, to help explain the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of citations, for instance compare Citation # 26 (Gundy) with Citation # 27 (Carpenter). Citation # 5 (Walker) and # 21 (Curry) also seem inconsistent with the main style used in the article
    • Done, all sfns etc now.
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that could be added for the McFarlane 1980 source?

Yes, and done.

  • in the Bibliography, the title of the McFarlane 1980 source should use title case caps for consistency
    • Done, cheers.
  • in the Bibliography, for the journals, suggest adding either ISSN or OCLC numbers (these can usually be found on worldcat.org)
    • Good idea, done.
  • in the Early career section, Normandy is overlinked
    • Delinked.
  • in the Family section, Humphrey is overlinked
    • Rather, unlinked.
  • "One estimation of his estates..." --> "One estimate of his estates..."?
    • Done, well spotted.
  • there appears to be a typo here (but I wasn't quite sure what to change it to): "He was already describing himself as "the Right Mighty Prince Humphrey Earl of Buckingham, Hereford, Stafford, Northampton and Perche, Lord of Brecknock and Holdernesse'Holdernesse" (specifically the "Holdernesse'Holdernesse")
    • Yes tih was bizarre. I removed the second mention of Holderness (a stray duplicate I guess?!), but the somewaht archaic spelling comes from the fact that Rawcliffe s citing the original letter (so it's the Ye Olde version). Should it have a 'sic'?
  • in the Family section, this isn't a complete sentence: "Third husband of Lady Margaret Beaufort, daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, and Margaret Beauchamp."
    • Fixed- a full stop instead of a comma.
  • @AustralianRupert: Thanks very much for getting involved AR! Especially in the technical stuff which I tend to miss. Right, as you can see I've fixed most of what you suggested- just those couple of thoughts remain. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 04:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cinderella157

  • The Family section requires a little attention.
  • There are two unresolved tags which are both matters of ambiguity.
  • The last sentence of first para is out of place. Suggest should go to para 2.
  • There is no ref for the number of children as 10 and the ODNB says 12? An explanatory note would certainly be in order, to effect: "The available sources report the marriages of three of his daughters but is silent on the fete of the remaining two."
  • The second para is a little disjointed and out of place, in that there is detail repeated in the next and (particularly) the last. In all, I suggest a bit of shuffling to make this section work better.
  • Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility. Copy editing could address this issue without compromising accuracy. I note particularly (as an example but not the sole means to address these concerns), the use of the semicolon. The article might be better served by breaking to separate sentences at such points. Having said that, the article reads well.
  • "says one modern historian". It is probably better to attribute them by name.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Cinderella157. Unfortunately, it's not in my powers or desires to re-write the article  :) but I think I have addressed the bulk of your concerns. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited to move the problematic parenthetic clause: "This marriage cost Buckingham 2,300 marks, and he "took a long even time to pay that"." It was this clause that made the sentence problematic to read.
  • In the course of tweaking this section, I followed a couple of links and online references from these. See John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, William Beaumont, 2nd Viscount Beaumont [10], [11] and [12]. This version of the ODNB is the 1898 Vol 53. The ODNB1898 gives names to the five daughters. It reports that Catherine (elsewhere Katherine) and not Margret, married Talbot. In the ODNB1898 Joan is styled Joanna. It might be useful to compare the two versions. The infobox is unsourced per the full details of his childrens' names (viz, they are not all given in the main text nor is there a source for the additional names appearing in the info box. The seventh son is either unnamed or his name is unknown. Such details should be reported rather than omitted. Differences between sources should also be acknowledged and (if possible, reconciled). These sources indicate that only Anne was married before his death (and possibly Joan[na] - a date before March 1461) while the article suggests otherwise. The marriage to Talbot was in 1467 and the birth year of Margret (or Catherine) appears in error cw Anne, the eldest daughter? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. I wholly dispute and reject any necessity for using a 100+ year-old source which has been deliberately updated and reissued. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of using it or even mentioning it. Thank you. — fortunavelut luna 07:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, WP:NOOFFENCE of course 🍔 🍟 🍦 — fortunavelut luna 08:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you might "look at" and "compare it" (not intended as direct quotes) with the more modern edition. I did not state (or insinuate) that it should (or must) be cited. Having said that, the ODND1898 and other later sources indicate some of the afore issues - but not all. Age of a source is not, of itself, a reason for discounting it per se. I would though, point to the degradation or destruction of primary sources in the mid-20th century UK (WWII) as a reason why these might be considered - particularly for matters of fact, as opposed to opinion. My own experiences have uncovered errors in fact (made in good faith) in a relatively modern source that has been perpetuated by more recent writers ("copying" the original error - taking it as "fact" in good faith) where the primary sources are available and clearly indicate the initial error. This comes to my broader point (I was not being specific WRT the ODNB1989) that sources should be acknowledge and (if possible) reconciled. This is a matter of maintaining a WP:NPOV. This does not apply to sources that are "obviously" unreliable and with no credibility. This is not the case here.
I note that brief communication at a distance (such as this) can be easily misinterpreted. If my comments and assessment style has caused umbrage (as it appears from comments elsewhere), I appologise for any error on my part. My comments have been objective and reasoned (I hope). Regarding the matter of writing style, I can provide sources. This was a critique made of me (for similar reasons) in my initial endeavors here. I have embraced the critique, not as a personal criticism, but as a way of making WP more accessible. On the otherhand, my "critic" proposed changes to my amended text that were marginal or unsubstantiated by objective measures of readability. I have not crossed this threshold.
Per your immediate comments, I note that they do not address the "greater substance" of the concerns I have raised. WP:NOOFFENCE is a redlink and the closest I can find is Wikipedia:No offense intended; however, I will Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I note citations to: Beltz 1841, Cokayne 1912, Cokayne 1913 and Baugh 1933 (yes, I did read and understand what you wrote - in full). Tertiary sources are subject to something akin to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (my own observation) - entries in such sources are subject to a third "determiner", which is neither "fact" nor biased POV but editorial decision and "hover" about the "intricate" details. A "good" tertiary source (as we strive to be) should cite its sources. I note that the ODND1898 does this (though perhaps not to the same extent we do here). I cannot comment on the more recent version, as I do not have access.
I have neither required that you cite the ODND1898 nor have I wholly relied upon it in making my comments. Rather, that it is supportive and indicative in conjunction with the other sources. You will note that I have taken it upon myself to make minor "corrections" rather than to "pass the buck". I have also researched some citations, and, where initial searches did not support statements made, I investigated further. This was both in my assumption of "good faith" and my "due diligence", where I might have reasonably raised such questions as a challenge of verifiability without taking the time to invesyigate further.
I also note (at this time) your revision to "a massive chunk of the Midlands" and would cite WP: slang in this respect.
This is an article that deserves promotion save for some "minor" issues that should be easily addressed and that we might work togeather to resolve. I sincerely hope that this might be the case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, and apologies for misunderstanding you: you are not telling me what to do after all. However, I have... changed "chunk" to "swathe." I will also AGF, about trying to stitch me up below 😆 🧀 🍞 🍸 Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 08:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to confirm a quote as part of my due diligence and the link provided only a snippet view and did not find the quote. I was eventually able to find the quote but it caused me some concern. As you will see from below, I was uncertain on this point and have sought opinion on this matter, to which I have deferred. My only intent has been the objective assessment of the article. Yes, "swathe" is better. If you can address the substance of my comments, I will have no issue with supporting the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but what are they? — fortunavelut luna 07:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all indicated at my previous dot point however, ...

  • The names of his children appearing in the infobox do not all appear elsewhere in the body of the text. As such, this is not (apparently) supported by a citation.
  • The list of children absents one son and one daughter. This "appears" to be an error of omission and not (at least for the son) an absence of information.
  • In the family section, the dates given indicate that Anne is the youngest, and not the eldest daughter.
  • The text suggests that his three daughters married before his death. Sources indicate that only one definitely did, with one marrying close to the time of his death (before March 1461) and the third, in 1467.
  • There are conflicting reports as to whether Catherine or Margret was the third daughter to marry.
  • I note that Catherine is sometimes Katherine. This is not exceptional for the time, when spelling was not as ridgid as it is now. I also noted that Joan has been reported as Joanne. Only the matter of Joan[ne] and that the names of all five daughters is available arise specifically from the ODNB1898. The other apparent conflicts are from sources cited in articles on the husbands. They appear to be online compilations of Cokayne that are referenced to him (see hyperlinks above).
  • I indicated that conflicting sources should be acknowledged and, if possible, reconciled. More specifically, it is not up to us to make judgements about sources (thought we might rely on the judgements of others to reconcile differences). This last comment is not specific to any source or issue but a general observation, as it might assist in addressing some of these issues.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, @Nikkimaria, @AustralianRupert, as commenters here, your opinions are sought. I am uncertain on this point. Links to google books in the references might imply that all or part of what is cited can be sourced online, either in full or in part, whether free or by "purchase" (IMHO). This is not necessarily the case. Specifically, a the link to google books provides a "snippet" but no access to the fuller work (with or without purchase). In effect, it is nothing more than a source of bibliographic detail in which the ISBN is provided in any case, as well as in the article - so it is redundant? Is this misleading? I don't suggest it is intentionally so. Is this an issue, either in this assessment or for higher elevation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guide is WP:PAGELINKS - generally if no preview is available we wouldn't include the link, but keep in mind that what is available can vary from person to person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nikki here. I've no dramas with courtesy links. Access to Google Books can change from region to region. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "He spent the last few years of his life attempting to mediate between the Yorkists and the Crown" As he eventually took one side, maybe "He spent much of the last few"
  •  Done
  • "the King had made any last words" I would say "the King had spoken any last words"
  •  Done
  • "Humphrey was born at Stafford, Staffordshire," You should give the date here.
  •  Done -but actually, I couldn't find a source for that precise date, and themost comprehensive RS says Dec not August! Adjusted accordingly.
  • "Stafford was later granted livery of his father's estate by parliament, in acknowledgement of the dead King's verbal promise" What does this mean - that he was granted the right to wear the badge of his father's estate? Also, as you have not previously mentioned the promise, I would say "which he had been verbally promised by Henry V".
  •  Done your change of wording; also, linked to "suing one's livery" which is a legal term rather than a heraldic one.
  • You have linked to livery, which is mainly about the heraldic meaning and refers briefly to "suing one's livery" at the end". I think it would be clearer if you just said that his minority was ended and he was allowed to take possession of his father's estates. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dudley Miles to the section- I think it's important to link to such detail since we have an article for it, but I agree with explaining its meaning in the text. Reworded the sentence slightly on account of this.
  • "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced of the conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested into the defence of the region." This does not sound right. Maybe "Since Perche was a frontier region, and experienced conflict at this time,[23] whatever income the estate generated was probably invested in the defence of the region."
  •  Done -been a bug bear from the beginning- cheers!
  • The section on estates is confusing. You say his potential income was £6,300 in 1447-48, then in the next paragraph go back to his mother's death in 1438, then estimate his income in the late 1440s as 3,700 to 5,000.
  •  Done At least, rearranged and shuffled around- better?
  • "often tenants for soldiering" What are tenants for soldiering?
  •  Done clarified.
  • "In 1442 he was appointed Captain of Calais[1] and of the tower of Risbanke, and was indented to serve for the next decade." How long did he stay in France?
  •  Done
  • "his "offensive behaviour" towards Jeanne d'Arc at her trial" You have not previously mentioned this.
  •  Done D'oh!
Standardized both mentions of her name, delinked the second one per OVERLINK.
  • You are inconsistent in how you cite DNB articles.
  •  Done-unnecessary panic, just think the page needed refreshing! Someone ballsed them right up for me, is why :) I've tried to change them, but no luck yet.
Ah. "Then I should retire to my estates and give my lands over to my sons"  :) thanks for your help wiith this, Dudley Miles. — fortunavelut luna 19:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Vanguard (1909)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Vanguard (1909) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. I've significantly expanded the article over the last few months and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Will review the article itself later. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]

Comments by Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • "war-time" should be "wartime"
  • "relaid" should be "re-laid"
  • "As might be expected the wreck" insert comma after "expected"
  • Link Paul G. Halpern and Antony Preston

Looks pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

[edit]
  • in the lead sentence, battleships
  • in the lead "in May 1916 several months later" - what was several months later?
  • suggest stating in the lead that she was salvaged before she was designated as a war grave and when that occurred
  • suggest linking St Vincent class in the Design and description section
  • suggest "ranged in thicknesses"
  • link Battle of Jutland at first mention
  • the eighth ship
  • suggest "such as that onethis"
  • do we know when Dick took command? Would be good to insert it in the appropriate spot in the narrative.
  • the casualties don't match the lead, 843 in the lead, 840+2 Aussies in the body. Unless the Japanese officer is also counted, which should be made explicit.
  • I think Lieutenant-Commander should be Lieutenant Commander
  • thrown out by the explosions
  • I think war-time should be wartime
  • suggest "As might be expected, the wreck,"
  • sources all appear to be reliable.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Kodandera M. Cariappa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Kodandera M. Cariappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I nominate this article for A-Class review. It passed the GA review by Sturm, and I believe that the article is comprehensive enough to meet the A-class criteria. I eventually want to be it a featured article. Coming to the intro, Cariappa was the first Indian commander-in-chief (C-in-C) of the Indian Army. He led Indian forces on the Western Front during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. He is one of only two Indian Army officers to hold the five-star rank of field marshal; the other being Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Hello there. I reviewed the images for copyright tagging. I believe File:Field_Marshal_of_the_Indian_Army.svg may be improperly tagged, it does not match its peers, and really the way it is tagged is vexing. If it is 'own work' as the author states, the copyright label should match the other images I think. Kees08(Talk) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Fixed. Sorry for the delay. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, nice work so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...DAQMG of 10 Indian Division": move the link to the 10th to here from the later link
  • "He served in Iraq, Iran and Syria in 1941–1942 and then in Burma": link the various campaign articles here
  • this needs a citation: "In June 1923, Cariappa was transferred to the 1/7 Rajputs, which became his permanent regimental home."
  • "the courses he attended in Small Arms School (SAS) and the Royal School of Artillery (RSA)..." --> "the courses he attended at the Small Arms School (SAS) and the Royal School of Artillery (RSA)..."
  • the use of ordinal suffixes is inconsistent in the article, for instance "10th Division", but also "52 Rajputs" etc.
  • "...and the Fourteenth Army was placed under it": link Fourteenth Army
  • there is something missing here: "was appointed as deputy chief of the general staff with..." (after "with")
  • "worsening situation in Kashmir": link the conflict here
  • "... three subsequent attacks – Operations KIPPER, EASY and BISON": is there an article that could be linked here for these operations?
  • "...capture the Naushera, Jhangar, Poonch, Zojila, Dras, and Kargil areas": link the areas if they haven't already been linked.
  • "... Cariappa, Shrinagesh, and...": remove the link to Shrinagesh here as it has already been included in an earlier paragraph
  • "Though the National Cadet Corps was already formed in 1948..." --> "Though the National Cadet Corps had already been formed in 1948..."
  • inconsistent caps: "the Army" v. "the army"
  • "spread over an unscathed period...": I'm not sure what you mean by "unscathed" here
  • "During the 1965 war, his son K C Cariappa": remove the link to the son (as it has already been included earlier, but add a link to the article about the 1965 war
  • "General Ayub Khan himself contacted Field Marshal Cariappa": Cariappa was not a field marshal at that time
  • are there references/citations that could be added for the Awards and decoration section?
  • in the Citations (for example Citation # 9), "London-gazette.co.uk" should just be The London Gazette as that is the title of the work (i.e. it should be the same presentation as that used for instance with Citation # 7)
  • Currently the only book cited is that by Singh. For an A class article I would like to see more diverse sourcing. Is it possible to work in citations to some of the books in the Further reading section?
Will check on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Citations, is there a publisher that could be added for Citation # 1?
  • in the Further reading section, is there an ISBN for the Seshagiri book?
  • in the Further reading section, Field Marshal Cariappa: The Man who Touched the Sky --> Field Marshal Cariappa: The Man Who Touched the Sky (title case capitalisation)
@AustralianRupert: Really sorry for the delay. I did not get a notification. Will work these up in a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, nice work. Most of my concerns have been addressed, but I remain concerned that the article doesn't utilise most of the literature on the topic. It still appears like there are quite a few books that haven't been reviewed (i.e. the books listed in the Further reading). Is it possible to order maybe two or three of them through your local library and add some refs to these? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose by Peacemaker67 Good work on this so far, but I'm afraid that, to be comprehensive and therefore meet the A2 criteria, this article needs to utilise the full range of sources available on the field marshal, some of which are in the Further reading section. Setting aside the biography written by his son, the other books in the Further reading section need to be used. I am also a bit concerned that this article is pretty hagiographical at present. Obviously he was an outstanding officer, but surely not everyone thought highly of him? I'd use FM Thomas Blamey as an example. If there is criticism of him, I'd expect to see it. Also, there are quite a few fragmented paras. I'd consolidate them into meaty paras of a reasonable length. I haven't gone through this in any detail, as I think the comprehensiveness issue means it doesn't meet the A-class criteria at present. I'd been keen to look at it in more detail once it has been expanded with the other sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert and Peacemaker67: As of now I don't have access to any of the sources. Please archive this discussion for now. I'll get back to this, once I gain access to the sources from Further reading section. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Hurricane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Hurricane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The next article in the British nuclear series, something of a spin-off from High Explosive Research, but interesting in its own right I think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Having just passed to GA there's not a lot to criticize. Nothing needs DAB'ing, all ALTs on images look good, images otherwise appear viable, Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, everything is referenced and references are high-quality, no redirects or dead links. Some minor critique - At five paragraphs I think the lede is technically out of compliance with WP:LEDE, however, the paragraphs are short so I think it meets the spirit of law. Under "Outcome" the sentence that begins Writing in 1951 ... needs, I believe, to move the period outside quotes as per MOS:LQ. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reorganised the lead into four paragraphs. Per MOS:LQ: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material. It is, so I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - looks good to me in that case! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support re prose and sources/ auntieruth

This sentences is confusing.

The study noted that what was required was an isolated site with no human habitation 100 miles (160 km) downwind, from which fallout would be blown out to sea but away from shipping lanes. It had to be large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years, and ready by mid-1952.
The study noted four site requirements: no human habitation within 100 miles (160 km) downwind; from which fallout would be blown out to sea and away from shipping lanes; large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years; and ready by mid-1952.
checkY It's like the Spanish Inquisition. Re-cast it in point form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
caption of radio tower photo: should be was erected, not is erected.
checkY I'm used to picture captions in the present.Changed to past tense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
souvenir relics  ??? you mean collect relics as souvenir? Use of souvenir as a verb is very informal.  :( Maybe I'm a snob.
checkY More likely me thinking in French instead of English je pense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

auntieruth (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why is the Compagna listing so heavily? auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just an optical illusion caused by the anti-U-boat camouflage paint. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- great to see this old article, which I've linked to more than once in my Australian military bios, redeveloped to this standard...

  • Copyedited, so pls let me know any concerns there; outstanding (minor) points:
    • "There was political advantage in demonstrating that the United Kingdom was not a satellite state of the United States." -- I feel you've effectively said the same thing the para before with "political advantages to demonstrating that Britain could develop and test nuclear weapons without American assistance" so do we need both?
      checkY Removed, merged paragraph with the previous one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some men were transferred from Campania by helicopter" -- not particularly vital but since we mention types and operators of other aircraft do we know what sort of chopper and who operated it?
      checkY Campania carried three Westland WS-51 Dragonfly helicopters. Added. I don't know what NAS they belonged to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two helicopters flew in to gather a sample of contaminated seawater from the lagoon" -- ditto.
  • Although I only know the bones of this story, the article seems comprehensive to me but not overly detailed, and structure is straightforward and logical.
  • I'll try to do a source review before I finish up.
  • Prefer to see Nikkimaria do the image review as we're talking post-war Australian pictures, so PD-1996 wouldn't apply to them.

Well done in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comment: looks excellent to me. The only suggestion I have is to convert the Hill and Maryan & Bush citations to sfn refs like the others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Bengal famine of 1943

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lingzhi (talk)

Bengal famine of 1943 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

No one is really certain how many innocent Indian peasants died, but the most recent and authoritative estimate (2.1 million deaths) is more than double the total combined military and civilians WWII deaths of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. No one agrees on what caused it – some blame a cyclone and floods, fungal infestation, the fall of Burma, or Winston Churchill personally. What scholars do agree on, however, is that the Bengal famine of 1943 is emphatically a wartime famine.

The article is large, but it merits the size. Thank you for your time and trouble.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Bengal's rice output in normal years was barely enough" (and other quotes): WP:INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important to mention who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank, as I mentioned on your talk: There are some quotes that I strongly think should be left as quotes. The example that comes immediately to mind is about not being able to bury the dead, but others are that type as well. But there are other quotes that are not so...personal... that I feel could be converted to paraphrase. I gave two examples (copied from Clarrityfiend's comments) on your talk page as well... As a rule of thumb, think "vivid, personal" versus "dry, impersonal".... I can try to convert a few to paraphrase, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Dank, I tried to chop down the thicket of quotation marks a little. May do more tomorrow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "24–Parganas", "24-Parganas", "24 Parganas": consistency.
    • fixed tks
  • "This killed 14,500 people": I'm not sure what "This" refers to.
    • fixed tks
  • Check throughout for repetition.
    • yes, the famine codes bit.
  • In reviews where I can't sign off on INTEXT, I also can't sign off on the use of quote marks in general.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank, so forex we have:We couldn't bury them or anything. No one had the strength to perform rites. People would tie a rope around the necks and drag them over to a ditch." So are you saying I need to add One survivor said, before the quote? Or even give the survivor's name (it was just a survivor, non-notable otherwise)? And if so, do you think that helps...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lingzhi:@Dank: I've only just become aware of this. I have some general advice. This article is certainly very well written, and I don't expect many issues of syntax and style (beyond some prose niggles). I have only very, very, cursorily read the article. My first thought is this: It was developed in a sandbox and introduced into mainspace in one edit. It took the author a year to write it. The others who were editing the article earlier, who, granted, were doing a poor job, need to be given a chance to criticize it on the article's talk page for a reasonable length of time, a couple of months, perhaps. It needs to be advertized in WT:INDIA and WT:BANGLADESH. Should it really come first for a military history review, and so soon after it was introduced? In an academic field as contentious as the Bengal famine of 1943 (BFo1943), there are many salient issues, which are not likely to receive scrutiny in such a venue. This is in part because BFo1943 is only obliquely military history. In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility. My second thought is: it is packed with details, but yet strangely sanitized in both in prose and pictures, making the article vulnerable to accusations of missing the forest for the trees. If I were to use an image pattern recognition program to guess the article's topic, it is unlikely to come up with "famine." (Aside: I've lately been adding images to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule which I created some ten years ago (as I did all the famine articles in it, with the exception of the two Bengal famine articles); contrast some of the images in the timeline with the ones in this article.) It is the same with the prose. I perfectly understand Wikipedia NPOV, DUE guidelines, but, still, we are looking at a famine in which there were at the very least an estimated 1.5 million Indian deaths, a significant proportion from starvation. Yet not a single Briton died from starvation. I've lately been struck by this fact. It is the same with all the other famines between 1770 and 1943: some 50 million Indians died in famines. That's a lot of millions. Yet not a single Briton in India did. It could not have happened in a European settler colony of Britain (Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa, or for that matter these here the United States). I'm not suggesting even remotely that the article take on the polemical tone of a Mike Davis or Nick Dirks, or even the quantitative slant of an Amartya Sen, but I have the sense that your tone is too muted. I could very well be proved wrong upon a more detailed reading, but that is my first reaction. Lingzhi, you've done an admirable job, and I congratulate you, but I think this is not the time for any review that assigns an imprimatur of Wikipedia quality. It really needs to simmer for a while, and it needs to be advertised in other venues. I'm sure we can take care of the occasional IP trolls. Again, I'm thrilled that you've done this, and I'm looking forward to reading it in the coming weeks when I find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are reasonable concerns. FWIW, it almost never happens that people get upset when an article is promoted to A-class; it's just not a process that a lot of people care about. Input is always welcome. Promotion here tends to take a long time, longer on average than at FAC, so there's lots of time for input. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility": For myself, I'm just a gnomish copyeditor, and even if I had a POV, it wouldn't generally make a difference to my work, but I can assure you this is not my POV, and judging from what I read here, it isn't Lingzhi's POV either. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping| I deeply appreciate your lengthy comments. I also disagree strongly, even vehemently, with most of them. This article has been allowed to sit for a very, very long time as one of the most firmly and even outrageously POV-driven chunks of propaganda text in mainspace. I suspect that that is because the topic is just too huge for... pretty much anyone, except for people who simplify the topic by slicing and dicing things according to their POV. The article should have been deleted or blanked years ago, with only 3 or 4 sentences left as a placeholder. I'm very disappointed that you have swung the door wide open for the POV warriors to return and claim legitimacy.
  • You mentioned images, but images are a desperately huge problem. [You can ask Nikkimaria how much I've agonized over them]. Forex, I had to reprimand one well-meaning contributor who added two images from the previous century, and one from the Direct Action Day. here [13] All the images that people urgently wish to add are very, very dodgy, either in veracity or in copyvio problems. I did add the Chittaprosad sketch, which hardly looks sanitized, and the diseased child, and the dead/dying children and sorrowful woman in the infobox atop the page.
  • Speaking of "not sanitized", please rad the whole section about "Increased vermin and unburied dead" ("we just threw the corpses in ditches") or "Social disruption" ("...children picking and eating undigested grains out of a beggar's diarrheal discharge"). Etc.
  • And to say this is only obliquely a MILHIST issue is to fly in the face of every single source. Even Tauger, who might perhaps be described as (perhaps indirectly) a British apologist, asserts that British aid was sharply restricted by wartime shipping concerns.
  • In short, I disagree with almost everything you wrote. They are not reasonable concerns. Did I miss anything? I'll look again later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. :) I see that you have spent a lot of time on writing this, and are understandably keen to see it become the stable version on Wikipedia. I wrote down what were my first reactions, allowing very much for the possibility that I could be wrong. When I said it is "only obliquely military history," I was referring to the contrast between 1 and 319. Any one who claims it is essentially military history has to explain the contrast in the keywords of the sources. To point to "a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility." is not to imply that "it was not a wartime famine." To say that I've swung the door wide open is to sell your own exceptional contribution short. I won't get into any other issue at this time, given Dank's time frame, and the distinct likelihood that I will be opening instead the "trapdoors to a bottomless past." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the pictures had faulty licenses (or wrong information). I have removed them. That is not a bad thing because I believe there are much better and more relevant pictures around. It may take some time to find them though. The edit summaries explain the issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added new sourced, public domain, pictures (see Talk:Bengal_famine_of_1943#New_images) which speak to the context with as much precision as pictures will do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is poorly written. It presented itself in this shape a few hours ago. I have made the first three sentences smoother, docked the excesses and hopefully enlivened the prose.[14] Famine articles typically first tell us where the famine struck, in what parts of where it struck, and among whom and how many in where it struck. (The author has given us very little of that in the lead.) Only then do they venture into guessing how many it killed. The last sentence of the lead paragraph: "Millions of families were impoverished as the crisis disrupted and overwhelmed large segments of the economy and social fabric, accelerating pre-existing socioeconomic processes generating poverty and income inequality."I have tagged incomprehensible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • TEXT: Oddly enough, three experienced Wikipedians – two of whom are well-known as copy editors – gave the text a once-over. [That would be Ceoil, Dank and Clarityfiend]. I'm extremely certain that at least one of them would have noticed this alleged incomprehensibility. I won't remove your {{incomprehensible}} template; it would be much easier for everyone if you foresaw the eventual result and removed the template yourself.
    • Images: From my perspective, there are 3 or 4 problems with your edits to the images. The biggest by far is that removing all the British military images is (presuambaly, according to WP:AGF, due to completely inadvertent oversight) POV. Second, most of the images you added are markedly inferior to the images you replaced them with. Third, and alas this will take a few days, apparently your goal is to emphasize and emphasize and emphasize the victims. <strikethrough>Well then, I have two images that are superior to yours. You will like them</strikethrough>.... It will take a few days to get to them. They are at work... Fourth, as for your licensing complaints, I suspect some complaints are valid and some are not. I was fully expecting the img with the TIME/LIFE watermark to be removed, forex. No problem with that removal. Perhaps I should have rmvd it myself, but it shows what are obviously "prioritized classes" (tho I wasn't gonna ssay that explicitly)... But many of your complaints will need to be scrutinized very carefully. Forex, the complaints about "this isn't a rice boat". That is... I have no words. I will quit now before I become {{incomprehensible}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guys, per my standard disclaimer, I try to stay out of the kind of usage questions that people are most likely to disagree on. Language changes every day, and this is how it changes, by people disagreeing over it. Let's wait for more reviewers to help sort it out. Ceoil, feel free to jump in here. - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Have not looked into the specifics here, but Fowler&fowler is an editor whose opinion I highly respect, and has some expertise in this area. He can be blunt, yes, but we are adults and I would take him IGF. Only answering with generalities because I was pinged; will look later in more dept tonight. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good morning everyone!  :) I see I've been writing mean things, and creating ripples that are reaching faraway shores. Let me reiterate again: Lingzhi, I have great admiration for your rewrite. Is it great? Yes. Is it perfect? No. All my remarks are meant to push it farther down the road to perfection. We have had a decent relationship on Wikipedia thus far (I think). Let us not set it back over a few images and parts of speech. I haven't had my coffee yet, so I won't bother with the image stuff yet, but what I meant about the sentence, which my enfeebled condition last night prevented me from clarifying, was this: the reduced relative clause "generating poverty and income inequality," is an elliptical form (shorthand) for something. It is not clear to the reader what that something is: Is it "that generate," (i.e. referring to a general- or more permanent state) or to something more timebound, such as "that were generating," "that had been generating," ... even "that had generated." In the absence of that clarity, the reader is unable to figure out what sense of "pre-existing" is meant: "existing" (i.e. present earlier and continuing to be present) or "present before a certain time in the past." In general, as the sentence becomes more complex, reduced relative clauses create more ambiguity. Now I have to get some coffee, feed the animals, and (only then) take the first fledgling steps toward waking the better half. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. You have "The Bengal famine... was a famine", redundant surely ("The red ball was a ... ball"). Perhaps somewhat worse, people seem to be dying twice: "people died in the famine, first from starvation and then from diseases". This seems as though we have a zombie attack on our hands, doesn't it?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good catch. Have fixed, I hope. Yup there is repetition, but the second is a major famine, similar to Britannica: East India Company (was) an English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East ..." My point was about smoothing out the prose. I don't know what WP policy is about this sort of repetition. Will defer to whatever is the wisdom. Not even attached to my rewrite of the first three sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know whether i should put this comment on this page or on the article's Talk, but it seems we are discussing the lede's text here and the images there, so I'll mention this here and... images... there.. So about the lede: at one point it was a freaking monster that had (I am certainly not kidding) more than twenty cites in it. I made it that way for two reasons: first, nearly every single statement is controversial! Seriously! The only noncontroversial thing you can write is that "The bengal famine was a fmine. At least 1. million people died." So I cited everything. And as for length, apparently many people read only the lede, and this famine has many many many many important details. Even which details you choose to leave out is an exercise in POV-ness. I am not kidding. Every editing decision is hazardous. So... OK I chopped it down somewhat to a medium-sized (but still much longer than current) version here. If you thing anything is missing from the current lede, there is a good chance you can find it there.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I dont like the wholesale change in image selection, and would urge a reversion. Ceoil (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: But also for the record, you have no problems with the inexorably wholesale change wrought when lingzhi did a top-to-bottom rewrite in one fell swoop, against everything that I know the spirit of Wikipedia to be about. Are you aware what sort of task it is for a reviewer who has to check these edts for reliability, and not just of facile grammar? I already see statements here and there that don't jibe with my overall knowledge of Indian history (and I wrote the history section of the FA India), statements that will need to be checked not just for reliability but also for DUE. Seriously, Ceoil, he had supposedly worked on these images for a year, and came up with doozies; I appear less than a week ago, and find properly licensed public domain images, and lingzhi is hemming and hawing about now finding the images on Monday? I wasn't born yesterday. And we haven't even got to article content yet, the sentence by sentence check of the edits, of whether they represent some kind of consensus view or are just using a source here or a source there to make a blanket statement. Those are the things I typically worry about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The images I added are not blurry, they had been deliberately magnified because I was trying to get rid of half-tone effects, which I have now. Here they are: File:FatherSonCowRummagingFoodBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg, File:BelongingsSoldAwayBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:BengalSpeaksJackalsVulturesEatingCorpsesBengalFamine1943a.jpg (only the last one, I haven't been able to fix properly yet). They are a lot more in focus that Lingzhi's: File:India and daily life in Bengal (1912) (14596006410).jpg, which is currently in the article, which is not only blurry, not only has full-blown half-tone effects, but is also nonsensical and incorrect. It shows a boy herding cattle in Bengal in 1912! What is it supposed to illustrate? Well, it is supposed to illustrate the section October 1942: Unreliable crop forecasts The other pictures present earlier either had bogus licenses, as I've already stated above, or were also wildly out of context. It is the same with the picture File:Smallpox child.jpg which is supposed to somehow tell us something about the diseases rampant in Bengal in 1943. The picture is taken from the CDC's website in Atlanta, but says nothing about which county the girl is from, which year the picture was made. It could be a Pakistani girl from the 1990s. So, what gives us the gumption to think that she is a legit illustration for the 1943 famine in Bengal, but that our own midwestern herding boys a man from the US midwest, also from 1912, as seen in File:SmallpoxvictimIllinois1912.jpg, is not? Do we really need a token South Asian looking face (anon in place and anon in time) with smallpox to illustrate the smallpox epidemic in Bengal in 1943? That's pretty shameful, and an insult to people from Bengal who will spot such subterfuge from a mile away. You're a good guy Ceoil, and I respect you, but seriously the pictures that were present in this article earlier were a sorry lot. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just read Lingzhi's attempt at lame sarcasm in the divination of my POV, in the Images post above. For everyone's information, I had removed the earlier images because they were either completely off-topic (i.e. File:Royal Air Force Operations in the Far East, 1941-1945. CI444.jpg showing a pilot in the Northwest Frontier province on the border with Afghanistan, at the opposite end of the subcontinent, attempting to illustrate the military buildup in Bengal in 1942-43) or were abysmally poor in quality, not to mention without proper license (e.g. File:HMS Cornwall - 1942 - WWII.jpg) (PS I have just discovered from other evidence that the RAF pilot may have been training to be deployed with Chindits support in Burma. We still can't use that image, but we probably can another which I will soon upload. In any case, it is not my job as a reviewer to uncover this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)) When I was able to find time, I did add the pictures, some good ones too: three from the Imperial War Museum and one from the US National Archives:[reply]

If you think I am getting irritated, you are right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • Finally, I have just taken a look at the history of the page Bengal famine of 1943. Lingzhi claims that the page is full of POV, and that it left him with no option but to do the top-to-bottom, one-fell-swoop, rewrite. For someone who is railing against the longstanding POV on the page, Lingzhi made his first edit there only on 2-5-16. On the talk page? Also on 2-5-16. Is there any indication that he attempted to work with any previous author there or at least call them on a POV? Nope. People can look at the pages themselves. Where is the evidence of criticism of POV or of making small probing edits that we all make? There one set of dozens of small edits on 2/5 and 2/6, and thereafter only a few chunky additions (5K or greater), which were obviously prepared beforehand somewhere else. There is nothing of the sort of engagement with other editors that you will see me make on Talk:India, Talk:British Raj, and a host of others. There is also, as far as I can tell, no history of Lingzhi making India-related edits earlier, not even India-famine-related edits. There are a host of India famine pages (see Timeline of major famines in India during British rule). Of course, that shouldn't matter, but it does seems to be going against the grain of Wikipedia. However, since the time he made his all-at-once edit in April, Lingzhi has been busy like nobody's business on that page. I am not saying that what he has done should be reversed, or that his edits don't deserve our admiration, but I am saying that what was there earlier, if legitimate, needs to be incorporated. We can't take his word that he has done that, for there is no history of his working with anyone else on this page. In other words, an article this new, written by someone with no history of editing in the area, written all at once in a manner for which we are being asked to assume good faith, but not assume it for the others before him, and reviewing which places an inordinate burden on any reviewer who wants to take his job seriously, needs to simmer for a while outside of a review setting, where other people need to be given a chance to challenge the individual edits. As far as I see, this review is dead in the water in Milhist. Besides, it is not clear it is military history anyway, for it's a long way from here to Tipperary. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I suppose i could scare up a few specific points of POV in the previous version of the article. let's see this version:

  1. "Bengal’s winter 1942 ‘aman’ rice crop, the most important one, was well below average." POV. This is fiercely debated, but Wikipedia lays it out as a flat and unchallenged assertion. This is the opening shot of the POV volley. The two POVs are (technical term here) 1 FAD (food availability decline) and by extension 2) limited British responsibility.
  2. "... a fungus infection...believed to have had more serious effects on supply than the cyclone. The only evidence by an expert in the subject concludes, 'The only other instance [of disease damage]that bears comparison in loss sustained by a food crop and the human calamity that followed in its wake is the Irish Potato Famine of 1845. POV = FAD. This is presented as an uncontested "probable truth", with an expert as an appeal to authority. In truth, the degree of fungal damage is fiercely debated.
  3. "Carry-over stocks of grain, the stocks over and above the new crop, usually a protection against food shortages, were well below the normal two months' supply," POV (FAD again). Highly contested again, and yet presented as an uncontested fact again.
  4. "The Famine Inquiry Commission showed in detail that the people who stated that Bengal had plenty of food dominated the political and administrative decision-making up to mid 1943 at least, losing influence as the evidence accumulated that their assumptions were contradicted by observations on the ground, as their policies proved ineffectual, and as it became clear that a major famine was in progress. " This is a long sentence but it's POV again, flatly asserting that there was a grain shorage, and that people who said there was no shartage were just wrong. Again, it's FAD, and presented in Wikipedia's editorial voice.
  5. "The Famine Inquiry Commission was damning about the policies, actions and failures to act of the Government of India, of the Bengal Government, of other provincial governments and of the rice trade. It also called attention to the general corruption." POV the Commission has been highly criticized as a whitewash job. Many assertt hat their goals was to lay out just enough truth to be persuasive, then skirt around any and all blame on the UK (by extension, blaming the provincial government to some degree, and blaming catastrophe as well). FAD POV, exonerate Britain.
  6. "Inaction of the British Indian Government" section. That sounds very much like like it's gonna blame Britain.... but... it doesn't, not really. Does it mention the denial Policies' Nope! Not even word one! Does it mention inflation? there's a section about inflation later that is embarrassingly POV; e'll get to that. But the point is, if yo read the "Blame Britain section carefully, it only comes down to "No one officially declared a famine". But it is the Provincial government's role to declare famine, not Britain's. So again, even though the section heading looks like we're gonna blame Britain, we actually blame the provincial government.
  7. Let me repeat: Zero-point-zero discussion of the Denial Policies, which came from the UK.
  8. "It was widely believed by politicians, the Government of India, the Government of Bengal, other provincial governments, some administrators, some public servants and some of the general public that Bengal had plenty of food available and food shortages were due to hoarding, speculation and inflation " And some still substantially believe that (or believe that any shortage was minor), although the key culprit "inflation" is omitted. Why does Wikipedia's voice choose sides by tut-tutting one side?
  9. I'm still reading this section and it says some things that are true and some that are debated, but never does it really do anything to point at Britain. perhaps it suggests that Britain should not have permitted the provinces to set interprovincial trade barriers. Is that what it's saying? If so.. it's not making anything resembling a clear or coherent case. I actually think it isn't making any case at all.
  10. section: "Role of the British Government of Bengal" Here we finally have some clear assertions of blame! but wait, it's blaming the... provincial government. Precisely as the famine Commission report did.
  11. Section: "Hoarding" the section concludes there was no hoarding and no rice shortage."When these drives continually failed to locate large stocks, the government realized that the scale of the loss in supply was larger than they had initially believed" This is FAD POV.
  12. Section: "Speculation" Again Wikipedia casts doubt on the possibility that there was sufficient (or nearly sufficient) food. FAD POV. Forex, "Only if speculators had stored more than usual, and not released it during the famine year, would they have increased the number of deaths: there is ample evidence that they did not" Why is Wikipedia choosing sides in a debate and presenting only that side's evidence?
  13. Section: "Inflation" Oh God, read this and then read the current. They are worlds, worlds, worlds apart. Please. That section is a disgrace.
  14. Alas I have to go now! I will try to list more later. Bye.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am about half done listing examples of POV. I can list more (did I mention there's not even a single mention of the Denial Policies? Oh wait, I did), but just for now, let's do a thought experiment, please. If it took me an entire year (yes I worked on it for about 14 months, with a 1-month break... and I actually worked during all that time) to rewrite the article unmolested, undisturbed, undisputed, how long would it have take if I had tried to work with POV editors? The answer, of course, is that it simply would NOT have taken place. In this alternate, counterfactual thought-experiment version of reality, the article would at this moment have 2 or 3 changes from the version that existed just before I copy-pasted the userpage version in (the page with POV described above, and that's only about half the POV-ness). This article is just too darn big and too darn complex and has too many darn moving parts and every moving part is a potential POV trap... You say piece by piece is the only wiki-way; I say in this case only (as far as I know; there may be other similar exceptions to the general rule) that path does not exist...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it my friend. Why should we take your word that it was all POV then, and all NPOV now? Why are you pointing to the old POV now, when you didn't lift a finger to discuss it on the article's talk page? It is not in the record. There is no evidence anywhere on Wikipedia that you showed interest in any famine, anything Bengal related, anything India related, before you appeared on Bengal famine of 1943 claiming to be the purveyor of 100% NPOV and dumped your text. Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not that stupid. Please also don't list any more points. I am not paying attention and others will not understand. I have nothing against you, nor is my admiration for such an attempt diminished. I am happy to work on the article with you—as I see we already are, after a fashion, on the article's talk page. At least I'm not reverting it to the previous version, nor pasting a version of my own, which I could whip up, over yours. (For the record I had not edited this article until a few days ago, so there is no POV of mine it formerly embodied.) Moreover, I'm watching the article, so no blatant POV pusher can undo anything valuable you have done. But this review is over. As I already said, the article needs to sit, figuratively speaking, in the Bengal sunshine and rain unshielded by a review process. The privilege you are asking for yourself needs to be given to others. You attempted to take a short cut. But there are no short cuts, no free lunches, no free kittens, no undisturbed writing or rewriting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given the article's history, and the discussion of the re-write at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 (where several editors expressed concerns over the process), I don't think that this can be considered sufficiently stable to be assessed as A-class. Moreover, I echo the concerns above over whether a Military History Wikiproject A-class review is an appropriate place to assess these changes: while the famine was closely related, and probably a consequence of, the Second World War War, British colonial policies and various intra-Indian issues were more significant and indeed are the focus of the article. Importantly, these issues are all highly contested, and there's a risk that military history-focused reviewers will in effect endorse this version of the article despite not having the background knowledge to assess how well it balances the competing arguments. I'd suggest a peer review as a first step here. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D:, @Fowler&fowler:, @Ian Rose:,@AustralianRupert:, @Auntieruth55:. Also ping all Milhist coordinators. Please close this review. I was nice and didn't take issue with the fact that Fowler&fowler's Oppose (this wasn't done according to my opinion of the "Wikipedia way") could be used as a dictionary definition of non-actionable. Now Nick's Oppose is of similar stripe. "risk that reviewers will endorse this version" is non-actionable. By the way, there IS no "this version". This one has zero-point-zero POV, unlike (as I wrote in great detail, and was not half done writing) the previous version. No Peer Review; peer review is a long process that offers very very little help. I'll go straight to FAC within minutes of this A-review being closed. Please do feel free to follow me there, but please consider the word "actionable" before you write.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this meets the A-class criteria or is close to meeting it. If it isn't meeting it, I will improve it so it meets the A-class criteria. This article is about a Soviet mechanized corps that was formed three times and which fought in WWII. Kges1901 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Nice work, thanks for your efforts with this article. It's not really an area that I know much about, but I made a few minor tweaks here and there, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead: "disbanded in late August" --> suggest adding the year here;
  • what's a chemical tank? Is there a link that could be provided here?
  • "...the corps was converted into the 15th Tank Corps": do we know why this occured?
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Istomin source?
  • I wonder about whether a list of commanders and a structure or orbat section might be added to the added as separate sections?
  • "Perechen No. 4 Part III" website: can publisher and accessdate details be provided for this ref?
  • the paragraph beginning "On 1 October the corps..." is quite long. I wonder if it could be split somewhere?
  • "Spas-Demensk Offensive" (and similar constructions) should use an endash instead of the hyphen per WP:DASH;
  • "...and the corps achieved "limited success" with its own attack..." (probably best to clarify whose opinion is that they had "limited success")
  • "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-090-3916-30, Russland, zerstörter sowjetischer Panzer.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the white bar was cropped off
  • {{Soviet Union corps}} seems to draw the eye away from the article a little; I wonder if it might be better to present it in its collapsed form?

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Year ranges need to conform to the new requirement of MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • The space between the commanders in the infobox can be removed by changing the breaks to bullet points like I did with the years of formations.
  • Done
  • Link Komdiv on first use.
  • Done
  • On 11 June 1934 the corps delete the years since we know it from the previous sentence.
  • Done
  • Vickers 12-ton!? I think that this is a typo for the Vickers 6-ton which was sold to the Soviets.
  • Done
  • Can you explain Crossing 76 and 77 a little. I suspect that they were related to the Trans-Siberian RR, but would like a bit more info.
  • Done
  • Link flamethrower,
  • Done
  • On 1 July the corps was still with the 16th Army and consisted of the 13th and 17th Tank Divisions and the 109th Motorised Division We already know the composition of the corps from the previous paragraph.
  • Done
  • On the same day, the corps was reported to be fighting in the Liady and Syrokorenye region, 60 kilometres (37 mi) west of Smolensk. It was reported to be retreating to the Gusino crossing, 45 kilometres (28 mi) west of the city. This is kinda confusing, what's the sequence here?
    • Still needs clarification
  • Done
  • The 1st Motor Rifle Division was attached to the corps in the Smolensk Pocket Is there a date for this, if not, then delete "in the Smolensk Pocket" since we already know that it's there.
    • And this.
  • Done
  • German encirclement line delete line

@Kges1901: It's been nearly three weeks; any progress on addressing Sturm's comments? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • city outskirts. The corps was thrown back by German reinforcements This last sentence should probably be tied in directly to the preceding one by replacing the period with a comma and "but"
  • It fought in Operation Gallop Link this better to the preceding sentence to make the text flow better. Try something like "Almost immediately afterward, it was committed to fight in..." Also be sure to note that Gallop happened in 1943.
  • What happened to the 49th Mech Brigade between 1 April and 1 May?
  • and in the Spas–Demensk Offensive of the battle This bit links back to the 2nd Battle of Smolensk immediately before it.
  • It was relocated from Kirov to the 10th Army's sector of the breakthrough towards Vorontsovo. The corps became part of the 10th Army. Combine these two sentences.
  • By the time it attacked, the German troops' resistance had stiffened. It engaged in heavy fighting in the Tyagaevo area, subject to air attacks which destroyed many of its Lend-Lease tanks. Until 16 August, the corps advanced 5–10 kilometres (3.1–6.2 mi). On that day there was a heavy air raid which caused significant losses resulting in the transfer of the corps to front reserve. These are awkward with little to no transitions between them. Recommend consolidating them into two sentences.
  • The corps was moved back to Ukraine after being replenished from Naro-Fominsk in December 1943. what does this mean, replenished?
  • You have a bad had of saying "the corps did this, and then the corps did something else" Mix it a bit by rewording things and using pronouns.
  • Only in a couple of places. And you chose in one place to use "they" rather than "it", which reads very oddly to me. You need to go through the entire article and systematically mix things up. Perhaps someone from the WP:GOCE could help with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901:

  • Link self-propelled gun
  • Shubennyi Stav, which was to be taken on 26 January with Zvenigorodka what does this mean? Sound like Zvenigorodka is to be used to take Shubennyi Stav, which can't be right.
  • Some maps of the various battles would be very helpful.
  • On the next night the Dniester had been crossed and awkward
  • Not fond of lists of commanders; I think that they should be covered in the main body of the article.
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book template for books with multiple authors to match the use of ampersands in the Notes section.

comments by Auntieruth55

[edit]
  • I'm close to supporting this. A couple of questions?
  • I'm not sure about the mechcorps.rkka. etc a reliable source. I don't read Russian, and I cannot tell
  • Should "corps" when it refers specifically to this unit be capitalized?
  • Shouldn't the distance template turn on abbreviations after first use?
  • I'm a fan of maps.  :)
  • The 5th Mechanised Corps was reformed on 8 September 1942 on the basis of the 22nd Tank Corps. what does this mean?
  • I'd be happier if there were fewer simple sentences. X was this. X was that. X was something else. Makes it sound so much like one darn thing after another. What did this Corps actually do? auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Closing note. A this point, I don't think this review is accomplishing anything. It has well and truly stagnated and the prospect of promotion in the near future seems slim. Kges1901, I suggest carefully going through and addressing the outstanding comments at your leisure and perhaps asking the reviewers for advice, and then re-nominating it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of frigates of India

[edit]
Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

List of frigates of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. After my first list, List of destroyers of India, has passed the A-class review, and eventually a featured list. This list of frigates from the Indian Navy is constructed on par with the destroyers list. The GOCE edit was also complete, so I think there wouldn't be much MoS issues. Kindly suggest any further improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indian Navy is overlinked in the lead, and the duplicate link script reveals a number of other examples which should be reduced
  • per MOS:LEAD there should be a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead
  • "File:HMIS Hindustan SLV Green.jpg" needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one, and the source link should be adjusted to link to the image if possible
  • the Reference list should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname
  • in the References, is there a date of publication for the Raymond source? Also, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that can be provided?
  • is there a place of publication for the Conway sources?
  • is it "Conways" or "Conway"?
  • is there a citation for Hooghly being scrapped?
  • the sentence ending "... capable of countering modern Western naval assets" appears to be unreferenced
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...was the only Anchusa-class sloop used by India"
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...two Godavari-class frigates in service are scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years."
  • same as above for "...Eight ships of this class served in the Royal Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "...Two ships from this class served in the Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "The Type 41 or Leopard class was a class of anti-aircraft defence frigates built for the Royal Navy (4 ships) and Indian Navy (3 ships) in the 1950s.
  • same as above for "A total of ten ships from two different projects, Project 17A and Admiral Grigorovich classes, are expected to be commissioned into the Indian Navy. Most of these ships are in the planning phase."
  • are there decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships?
  • hyphens should mostly be endashes when spaced, for instance in citation # 4 and others
  • is there a citation for Baluchi being sold for scrapping?
  • is there a citation for Elphinstone being wrecked on the Nicobar Island
  • there are minor inconsistencies in the referencing format, particularly around the publisher/newspaper/website names displayed in italics
@AustralianRupert: I have addressed all your comments from 1–9. Regarding 10–14, is it necessary to cite these sentences as they are the summaries of the immediate tables following them, anyway, if it is a must, I'll add the citations. Unfortunately the decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships are unavailable. Regarding the last one, respective templates are used for news sources and web sources differently. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they should be added. Regarding the citations, I would suggest at least converting the "colledge" template to the "citation" template for consistency then, or the "citation" templates to "cite book/web/journal" etc as there are subtle differences with commas and full stops. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: All done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I've cropped one of the images for you and added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • Starting a list article "This is a list" is generally discouraged as it just repeats the information in the title. The second and third sentences are vague. I suggest deleting this paragraph and starting the second paragraph with something like "Frigates, which are naval vessels intermediate between corvettes and destroyers, have had a significant role in the naval history of India." Other information could be relegated to a note.
  • The fact that sloop is the former name for a frigate is too important to be relegated to a note.
  • "Later, sloops of the Black Swan," It would be better to specify the period - in the 1930s? A similar comment applies to "Last" in the final sentence in the paragraph.
  • "The Shivalik class is the heaviest of the frigate classes presently serving with the Indian Navy." "with the Indian Navy" is superfluous.
  • "stealth warship" Could this be linked? (I see stealth is linked below but it should be when first mentioned).
  • Comments about ships still being in service should specify as of 2016 as they will become out of date.
  • 'Ships currently in commission' 1. It should be "in commission" as of a date. 2. The comments in the first paragraph of this section are repeated below. It should be deleted (or revised to avoid repetition).
  • "currently being developed" and "are projected" As said above, comments which may become out of date should be as of a date.
  • "reduced radar cross section" Could this be linked?
  • No date for when INS Tarkash was laid down. Is this not known? If so, it would be better to say "unknown" as you do elsewhere.
  • ""Flower class" (which were also referred to as the "cabbage class", or "herbaceous borders")" This is stated under Anchusa and repeated in Aubretia.
  • "The two Godavari class frigates in service are scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years." Another comment which will become out of date.
  • No decommissioning dates are given for Whitby and Leopard class.
  • No information on Godavari class?
  • There are two error messges in the references. 1. Colledge is not used in the references. 2. Access date wrongly given for Conway as this should not be supplied for print sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert and Dudley Miles: Sorry for the delay. Done the edits. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some "as of" dates have been added, but there are still several places where they have not been added to comments such as "currently" and the vague "scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years". you need to check through the article thoroughly. Also you have not dealt with my last comment about error messages. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Done, thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

  • "Later, during World War II, several frigates of the River class were commissioned." You just said that the first frigates were commissioned in 1945 and later transferred to the Pakistani navy, so how can WWII be later? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • have had a significant role in the naval history of India, have had a significant role in the naval history of India. typo
  • Link frigate, sloop, corvette, destroyer, lead ship, Kolkata, cruise missile, Shivalik Hills, CIWS, torpedo, sonar
  • Though the Maratha Navy, the naval branch of the armed forces of the Maratha Empire, used Grabs and Gallivats to project naval power, the concept of frigates or sloops (Earlier, frigates were called sloops, and only later were reclassified as frigates) was introduced by the British. I do not understand this. AFAIK, the Marathas aren't really relevant for this list and the parenthetical note needs to clarified to cover modern warships only.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • The Royal Indian Navy was expanded significantly during the Second World War. HMIS Clive, HMIS Lawrence and HMIS Cornwallis of the Aubretia class, which served in World War II, were some of the early sloops commissioned into the Royal Indian Navy during the 1920s. This needs to be chronological; start out with the introduction of the RIN ships in the 1920 and '30s and then mention the expansion of the RIN during WW2 with the wartime classes like the Black Swans and Anchusas.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • Fold the second para into the first one and be sure to mention the ship classes in the order that they were put into service by the RIN.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • Be sure to talk about the shift from British ships to Russian/Soviet ones in the lede. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still need to explain why the IN shifted to Soviet designs.
  • The Shivalik class is the heaviest of the frigate while technically correct, we think of ships in terms of size. Change heaviest to largest.
  • Mazagon Dock Limited, Mumbai, change to "in Mumbai" delete the commas and do the same for the builder in Kolkhata later in the paragraph.
  • Hyphenate VLS launched and guided missile frigate.
    • Throughout the list.
  • What kind of missiles are Barak 1s? and what kind of rocket launchers are the RBU-6000s? It's always useful to tell the reader what the function or type of a weapon is when mentioning it for the first time. Same thing for ships.
    • Specifically for the Igla-E and RBU-6000 rockets. What is their function? Same with the Shtil-1. Make sure that this is handled throughout the entire article.
  • 8 × VLS launched Klub In the interest of saving space, consolidate these a little by using "8 × VLS-launched Klub, anti-ship cruise missiles or BrahMos..."
  • 1 × OTO Melara 76 mm naval gun slightly redundant, delete "naval" More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Done, thanks for the review. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate and link surface-to-air missile; hyphenate medium-range missile
  • Delete "naval" every time you see "naval gun"
  • Link cruise missile, torpedo tube
  • Move "BrahMos, anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles" to the first mention.
  • This is kinda frustrating as I'm citing specific examples as problems and you're not realizing that I mean that they're only examples of larger problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Firstly sorry for the trouble, actually this list was copy edited by guild, but all the issues were not taken care. Anyway, changes done, have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Once again, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology in the lede is still messed up. Why hasn't this moved to the second para? The sloops HMIS Sutlej and HMIS Jumna, of the Black Swan class, took part in Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Sicily.
  • And this contains some redundancies: The Royal Indian Navy was expanded significantly during the Second World War.[4][5][6] In 1945, HMIS Dhanush and HMIS Shamsher, of the River class, were the first frigates, so-called, commissioned into the Royal Indian Navy. During World War II, several frigates of the River class were commissioned.
    • Still not done. And the whole middle paragraph isn't in a logical order either.
      • @Sturmvogel 66: Please check the commission dates and the dates of the battle, they are in order. If you don't feel so, please elaborate.
  • Still need to briefly discuss switch from British designs to Soviet ones.
    • I don't agree; this was a significant change done in the 1970s and needs to be explained.
      • Sturm, I don't know how do you get that. I can't find anything from sources, nor any significant reason. Did you read about the change somewhere, if so please provide me the link, so that I can add.
  • And why does the Talwar class get special love in the third para? If exceptionally important, then that needs to be explained.
  • This is redundant to the last sentence of the lede: As of February 2017, Fourteen frigates from four different classes are in active service with the Indian Navy
    • done.
  • I'm going to oppose until these issues are fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for the trouble. I've done all of them, but except the about switch from British designs to Soviet ones. Because there is no significant reason for that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you want HJ Mitchell. I have supported. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, somehow I missed that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Parsecboy: I have attributed the images, have a look whether it is in the place. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm opposing

[edit]
  • HMIS Clive, HMIS Lawrence, and HMIS Cornwallis, of the Aubretia class, which served in World War II, were some of the early sloops commissioned into the Royal Indian Navy during the 1920s. The chronology here is messed up because the ships served during WWI and WW2, but the sentence then goes onto mention the 1920s. So move that last bit to the middle and then add the bit about WW2 service. BTW, this exact sentence is used in the sloop section.
  • The sloops HMIS Sutlej and HMIS Jumna, of the Black Swan class, took part in Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Sicily.[13] The Royal Indian Navy was expanded significantly during the Second World War.[4][5][6] In 1945, HMIS Dhanush and HMIS Shamsher, of the River class, were the first frigates, so-called, to be commissioned. Several frigates of the River class were also commissioned.[14] Some of them were later transferred to Pakistan during partition. The chronology here is all messed up.
  • Later in the 2000s, the Indian Navy acquired six Russian-built frigates under Project 11356, designated as Talwar-class. Project 11356 is the first Indo-Russian collaboration. Missing a decimal point in the project number. These two sentences should be combined.
  • All of these ships were delivered to the Indian Navy by 2013. This sentence needs to be deleted as it's better covered in the Talwar section.
  • "hyphenate medium-range missile" still got a lot of these unhyphenated
  • INS Shivalik, which is named after the Shivalik hills, is the lead ship of the class and the first stealth warship built by India. The namesake of this ship is redundant to info in the section on the class
  • The lead vessel, and thus the class, is named after the Shivalik hills, and the subsequent vessels in the class are also named after hill ranges in India.

The class and the lead ship, INS Brahmaputra, are named after the River Brahmaputra. Subsequent ships of the class, INS Betwa and INS Beas, are also named for Indian rivers.

  • The lead ship, INS Godavari, and the class, are named after the Godavari River. The subsequent ships in the class, INS Ganga and INS Gomati, also take their names from the Indian rivers.
  • The lead ship and its class are named for the Nilgiri Hills. Subsequent ships in the class are also named for hill ranges of India

Each of these should be consolidated by saying that they are named for rivers or hill ranges or whatever. No need to specify which ones; that's what the class or individual ship articles are for.

  • Be consistent about using WW1 or First World War, etc.
  • Abbreviate the Royal Indian Navy after first use.
  • Provide Imperial conversions for metric weapons like the Bofors and Oerlikon guns.
  • However, this made the Whitbys more sophisticated and expensive to produce in large numbers in the event of a major war, and so the Type 14 "utility" or "second-rate" anti-submarine frigate was developed to supplement the Type 12. Since the Indians never operated the Type 14, there's no need to mention them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: I request a week to fix all the issues raised. Will ping one I'm done. I request the coords for the same. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: I think I've fixed all of them, please go through. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that you've made these fixes, I still believe that the quality of prose is not up to A-class standard and no one's done a source review. Forex, what makes the Leander-project, rediff.com, weaponsandwarfare.com, Leander Class General Purpose Frigate (Type 12 Improved) reliable sources? They just look like websites put together by some guy(s). I would also recommend replacement of naval-history.net and globalsecurity.org as I've found numerous errors in both sources. Uboat.net is a reliable source, but not a highly reliable one since nothing is documented therein and it should also be replaced. The various editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and the relevant volumes of Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships should be able to replace these sources. I'm going to recommend that this nomination be archived to allow you the time necessary to replace the questionable sources and improve the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Auntieruth

[edit]

I realize I'm late to the party and I know absolutely nothing about ships except that they float, to my mind miraculously. That said, I fixed a stray comma and I agree with Sturm that there are some prose elements that could be cleared up for the sake of readability. auntieruth (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, archive it for now. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 - HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sam Manekshaw

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Sam Manekshaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The article recently reached GA status, and was copy-edited by GOCE after that. The article is about the first field marshal of the Indian Army. He was the army chief during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh in December that year. He was also awarded Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award. I welcome comments to take the article to A-class status and eventually to FA status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Field_Marshal_Sam_Manekshaw.jpg: suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}}
  • File:Autograph_of_Manek_Shaw.JPG does not qualify as own work - what is the copyright status of the signature?
  • The ribbons should include details of the original design and its status, as should the flag.

Oppose pending image cleanup as most of them have issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Autograph is photographed by the uploader, so I believe it is an own work. Also the ribbons must are own works, what is the problem? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia follows US law, according to which reproducing a 2D work does not result in any copyright for the reproducer - thus, the uploader has no claim to the signature, we only consider the status of the original work itself. Similarly, the ribbons are based on a pre-existing design - more likely than not they are PD, but we should say so explicitly and provide a source for the design. Same with the flag, which may or may not be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've removed the ribbons, but haven't changed the signature or flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Also removed the signature. Which flag you're talking about? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Flag_COAS_India.jpg, which is in one of the templates at the bottom of the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, I've focused mainly on the ref presentation for the timebeing. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 "Anwesha Madhukalya" should use "surname, first" and is missing details of the publisher or wider work
  • Ref 11 "Tarun" is missing the first name of the author and the details of the wider work (e.g. Times of India)
  • Ref 13 "Compton" should use the same format as Singh for consistency
  • Ref 14 "Times of India" should be in italics
  • Ref 16 "Accessed on 3 June 2011" --> should be "Retrieved 3 June 2011" for consistency of style; "London Gazette" should be in italics also
  • Ref 31 "Manekshaw". Indianarmy.nic.in" is missing publisher and access date information
  • Ref 41 "Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw dead". ibnlive.in.com." is missing an access date
  • Ref 44 "Colonel Anil Athale" should be "surname, first" for consistency (I'd drop the rank too, as it is unnecessary);
  • Ref 48 "Lt Gen Sk Sinha" --> as above
  • Ref 49 "Nitin Gokhale" --> "surname, first"
  • Ref 49 "April 3, 2014" --> inconsistent date presentation
  • Ref 50 "PTI": what does PTI stand for?
  • Ref 53 "Ajai Shukla" --> "surname, first"
  • Ref 59 "15 Aug 2012" --> full date for consistency
  • Ref 60 "IANS": what does this stand for?
  • Ref 60 "18 Dec 2008" --> full date for consistency
  • Ref 60 "The Hindu group" --> "The Hindu Group" as it appears to be a proper noun

Continuing my review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • regarding the References, are there any other full length biographies of Manekshaw that could be consulted? For instance, Leadership, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw by Shubhi Sood (2006), or Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw: Great General by Kunwar Ishwar Singh Rathore (2016), or Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw: The Man and His Times by Behram M Panthaki; Zenobia Panthaki (2014). This search brings up a few: [16];
  • link 26th Infantry Division in the prose
  • same as above with 167th Infantry Brigade (even if it is a red link, as it seems notable enough for an article)
  • full name for "M.L. Thapan"? This says it was "Mohan Thapan": [17]
  • Where was the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots located when Manekshaw joined them?
  • Same as above for the 4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment?
  • "While handling the issues relating to Partition in 1947, Manekshaw demonstrated his sound planning and administrative skills": what was his role at this time?
  • "But due to the court proceedings, Manekshaw did not see any notable action during the war": did he see any action at all? If not, I'd suggest making this clearer
  • "first grade staff officer": link to Staff_(military)#British.2FCommonwealth_staff
  • "Razmak Brigade, stationed in Burma" --> are you sure that the Razmak Brigade was in Burma? My understanding is that it was a rotational brigade that served on the North West Frontier...I could well be wrong, though
  • "He did this with perfection, no cases of indiscipline or escape attempts from the camp were reported": be careful of words like "perfection" as they can seem to demonstrate a POV
  • "by tarnishing others on false claims" --> " by tarnishing others with false claims"

There are comments here that have been unaddressed for three weeks and there are no declarations of support after nearly two months so I'm closing this. Krishna, feel free to renominate whenever you have more time on the hands, but I would respectfully ask you to make sure you've addressed all the outstanding comments on your other reviews first. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 - Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Edward William Purvis

[edit]
Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Edward William Purvis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have found this subject to be such an interesting figure the more I researched into him. Edward William Purvis was British officers born in the Dutch East Indies who resigned his British army commission to settle in Hawaii where he was a major, a colonel and a vice-chamberlain. Even though the attribution has been doubted in recent years, his name is associated with the most well known Hawaiian musical instrument. I am confident with some suggestions and extra nudges I can get to A-Class quality. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we know what his parents were doing in the East Indies at the time of his birth? I assume his father potentially worked for the British administration?
  • This will be what the article will be after removal of the contents only found in the Purvis Family Tree. I am suspecting that may be the case. I went ahead and asked on there anyway. Beside this, there are no other sources I can find for his birthplace, exact date of birth, details about his British services (the Hindi, Bengal and Chatham parts), fact he resigned, education at the Royal Military College, why he settled in Hawaii, when he settled in Hawaii, first occupation in Hawaii as palace guard and government clerk, work in cattle ranching with Judd, his cause of death and etc. So those information will just have to be removed and the article access by the stuff we can find in the available sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we know why he transferred from the 31st to the 70th Regiment of Foot?
  • do we know why he received the Royal Order of Kapiolani? Perhaps this could be mentioned in the body of the article?
  • "File:Edward W. Purvis, ca. 1880.png": needs a US licence in addition to the current one. I'd suggest PD-US-1923 would probably be acceptable
  • "Honolulu Star-Bulletin" should be presented in italics as it is a newspaper title
  • also is there an OCLC or ISSN or similar for that could be added for the "Honolulu Star-Bulletin"?

comments auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Interesting article![reply]

  • I added some commas. It needs a grammar review that I don't have time for right now.
  • It was unclear to me without some additional digging what the relationships were between/among British, French, Hawaiians and Americans. In other words, why was this man actually commissioned as a major in the Hawaiian army, etc.It might be helpful to contextualize this a bit by weaving in a small amount of Hawaiian history.
  • I'm not understanding here. He settled in Hawaii and gain favor from the King. It had nothing to do with his national origins. He wasn't commissioned as a major in the Hawaiian army because of any relationships between/among British, French, Hawaiians and Americans. It's not explained in the source why he was commissioned and I only have speculations (which can't go in the article).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know. Cheers

Regretfully oppose. I'm sorry, I hate to oppose and rarely do so but I don't believe this article meets criterion A2 (comprehensive, neglects no major facts or details). It's a short article (just over 800 words) and while we don't judge articles on length, it's indicative of a lack of detail.

  • There's nothing at all about his British Army career apart from the regiments he served in. When did he join? Did he buy his commission? Why did he choose the 70th? Why and when did he transfer? What did he do in Bengal?
  • How did he gain his commission in Hawaii? Did he have any particular military expertise? There's no mention of him doing anything outstanding and his career in the British Army was short.
  • What were his duties as Vice-Chamberlain? Did he do anything in the post other than accompany the king on a trip to Europe?
  • I can't parse the sentence "he had resigned this office of vice chamberlain after his superior Judd was dismissed from his post and asked to resign by the king", and why did Purvis resign?
  • Was he proven to be responsible for the satire? What were his motives?

I noticed this edit and the talk page. It's a pity a better source couldn't be found for some of that information but even with it the article wouldn't be comprehensive in my opinion. I'm sorry to oppose because you've clearly put a lot of work into the article and it's a very nice piece of work base on the sources available, but there's just not enough material for an A-class article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 - Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

South African Navy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gbawden (talk)

South African Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it merits it and if not the review will give me guidance on what needs to be done to get there Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • for A-class, all paragraphs should be completely cited with inline citations at the end of each one
  • for such a broad topic, the lead probably should be expanded
  • the World War II section seems to stop at 1942, what happened between then and the end of the war?
  • suggest moving the "Decommissioned ships" sub-section to the Ships and weapons section. Additionally, for A-class some prose should be added to this section
  • for A-class, I think some more prose/commentary should be added to the Ensign and Ranks sections
  • in the References, "South Africa's fighting ships past and present" should use title case capitalization, e.g. "South Africa's Fighting Ships Past and Present"
  • in the References, there is a mixture of date formats, for instance compare: "30 June 2011" v. " 2010-12-15". For A-class, these should be consistent
  • in the References, "Pitta, Robert (1993). South African Special Forces. Osprey": is there a page number that could be added to this work?
  • "Command, control & organisation" --> "Command, control and organisation"?
  • link "Jan van Riebeeck"
  • "File:SAS Drakensberg (A301).jpg": as a non-free image, this needs a rationale on the image description page for its use specifically in this article
  • "File:HMSAS Immortelle.jpg": also needs a US licence
  • "File:Naval Ensign of South Africa.svg": is lacking author and date information on the image description page
  • inconsistent: "7,702 (Active) [and] 1,000 (Reserve)" (in the infoxbox) v. "6,104 active uniformed members augmented by 1,313 civilians and 1,000 reserve members" (body of the article)

Comment

  • Sort of a drive-by comment, but I'd expect all sections to have at least some prose in them. The empty decommissioned ships section with a link to the separate list is not sufficient, in my opinion. I'd to see at least a paragraph that provides a short run-down of the numbers and types of vessels previously used by the South African Navy (something to the effect of "In the course of its existence, the SAN operated X number of frigates, Y number of corvettes...").
  • If you have time to work on this and AR's comments above, I'll have a more thorough read - feel free to ping me if you do. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2017/Failed&oldid=816796978"