Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2021/Promoted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

H2S (radar)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

H2S (radar) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

My first addition in a while. This article has been in good shape for some time now, I did some GR touches and a read-over. I think it's good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I think this is a great article, and a magnificent effort. Just a few comments:

  • Jones (1978) and Rowe (1948) are not used as references. Suggest moving to the Further Reading section. (Also: link Reginald Victor Jones)
  • Typos: "kilometers", "center", {{sfn|Lovell|1991|p=225} (missing brace)
  • Don't abbreviate sergeant as "Sgt" (or WWII)
  • Should "Doppler" be capitalised?
  • Should "windspeed" be two words?
  • Link RPM since the kids have never seen a record player
  • and de Havilland Mosquito so they don't think you're talking about an insect
  • Stirling is used before it is linked. As is Halifax.
  • Link Würzburg and Zuiderzee
  • In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric. (MOS:METRIC)
  • 'One of the dead was Alan Blumlein, and his loss was a huge blow to the programme." How so?
  • "The H2S team also protested that it would take the Germans two years to develop a centimetric radar once the cavity magnetron fell into their hands, and that there was no reason to believe they weren't working on the technology already. The first concern would prove correct; the second would be proven wrong." As written, it means that there was reason to believe the German were working on the technology already. I'm not sure that is what you meant though.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Gebus Hawk, I totally forgot about this nom. All of the above are addressed, and a few "realized" as well. If there are still kilometers that's the convert template's fault. The METRIC issue is historical, these units were imperial at the time and I avoid changing units in these cases to avoid double conversion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was still one "kilometer"; the problem was an sp=us parameter which I have removed. Also there were still three "center"s, all corrected too. The order of appearance can be changed using the convert template order=flip parameter so no double conversion is required. I made a set of changes. [1] MOS::METRIC is not required since MOS conformance is not mandatory. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Don't know much about radar, but I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Move the link for Luftwaffe to the first mention
Magnetron debate
  • It's implied, but it might be best to state that the magneton is apparently a form of military technology the Brits developed before the Germans
  • "In the midst of the debate, Isidor Isaac Rabi of the American Radiation Laboratory visited the TRE offices on 5 and 6 July 1942. He stated that the H2S device provided to them during the Tizard Mission was "unscientific and unworkable" and expressed his feelings that the only use of it would be to hand the magnetron to the Germans" ... "Years later, Lovell attempted to discover the reasons for this negative report, but he found that no one recalled Rabi being so negative" - both sourced to Lovell. So if Lovell found that nobody recalled Rabi being so negative, then you'll want to find a source independent from Lovell to support what Rabi stated. Or at least attribute that to Lovell. Because Lovell stating that he couldn't find corroboration for his memory casts doubt on that.
Emergency relocation
  • "In retrospect, this decision seems particularly odd given that it was even more exposed to the enemy than their original location at Bawdsey Manor" - Needs attribution, we can't really say that something is particularly odd in retrospect in Wikipedia's voice
Operational use
  • ", and there simply weren't enough to go around" - Rewrite to avoid contractions. I've seen at least one other contraction in this section, so keep an eye out for it
Rotterdam Gerat
  • "and it was also realised that building a complete radar system using it would take some time" - where in ref 48 is this found?

Stopping after the Rotterdam Gerat section, will continue soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war
  • "After VE day, all models earlier than the Mk. IIIG were declared obsolete," - You'll want to link VE day, as not everyone will know that, unfortunately
  • "The last use in combat was made by the Vulcans of the Operation Black Buck flights in 1982, which used the system as the primary navigation and bombing aid throughout the 7,000 miles (11,000 km) round trips to and from Ascension Island" - In the lead, you directly refer to this as an action of the Falklands War, so you'll want to name the Falklands War in the body, to match
References
  • Bob Shaw (DAHG) is a wordpress site. What are Shaw's credentials to pass WP:SPS?
  • Publisher and date needed for "British Air Intelligence report on 7./NJG 2 Ju 88G-1 night fighter"
  • Goebel appears to be a victim of domain squatting

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: All are addressed. Goebel link updated. Bob Shaw is the author of several well known books on RAF history. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: - Anticipate supporting. Just got a couple wrinkles to iron first. The Air Intelligence report still needs the publisher/date, and just want to double check that Goebel meets SPS? Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Date added, Goebel lists all his refs so that's good on that front. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the comment that Goebel might be challenged further at a FAC source review, as those have gotten tighter lately. Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, I was going to do a source review, but am unsure if your comments above already constitute one? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I looked at sources a bit, but I wouldn't consider it to be a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Missing hyphens in ground scanning, S band cavity, 1950s era, time base, X band version, tail warning radar, magnetron based radar, Airborne Interception radar, dead reckoning calculations, target indicator operationsm, weather radar systems, moving target indication, V bomber force
@Sturmvogel 66: Not one single reference I have, including the wartime originals, puts hyphens in any of these terms, so I'm going with that :-)
Watson's Radar Origins Worldwide hyphenates all radar bands. I'll grant you AI radar, but the others are simple compound adjectives which are only hyphenated if they precede a noun. So V-bomber force, but an individual V bomber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither supporting or opposing as most of my list of words needing hyphens still have not been hyphenated, although some have been rewritten to not require a hyphen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thousands of Watts decapitalize
Done.
  • The Halifax V9977 pictured at RAF Hurn. This aircraft crashed in June 1942, killing several radar engineers, including Alan Blumlein.

Reword to emphasize that this was the aircraft carrying the prototype radar. And minimize duplication of info between the text and the caption

Done.
I'd delete the entire second sentence of the caption as redundant to the main text--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US was, at this time, deep into the development of an ASV set using a magnetron, so work on H2S continued as there appeared to be no reason to continue their own ASV when the US would soon provide one. Confusing since H2S and ASV were essentially the same, so wouldn't the logic apply to cancelling H2S as well?
I just removed this part, I was not entirely clear on what Lovell was saying in this passage.
  • Captions are considered sentence fragments and generally don't use full stops at their ends
Depends on the caption, note that ones that are fragments don't have the stops.
  • Is a cyclone of fire a British term? Because I've never seen it before. If not I'd suggest using the far more common firestorm
Fixed.
  • Link Staffel, Ju 88
Added.
  • In July 1944, Ju 88G-1, of 7 Staffel/ Delete the commas and "a" Ju 88G-1
Yeah, not sure who added those.
  • Several other units Units is confusing, just use radar
Fixed.
  • where the short local horizon would require guidance on smaller objects like particular buildings Confusing. Do you mean that longer-wavelength radars would have a shorter range at lower altitudes, or that the greater resolution of the K-band version would allow it to pick out individual buildings, or both?
The later, reworded.
  • Capitalize Lend-Lease and I suggest that you refer to it as the Lend-Lease programme
Done.
  • Not seeing a whole lot of value in using aircraft serial numbers
Just copying the style from other articles of the type.
That's an argument I've had with other editors as I consider it excessive detail in an encyclopedia unless the aircraft is notable in its own right.
  • and was eventually relegated to the status of purely experimental awkward
Fixed?
Not perfect, but I can't think of a better phrasing off the top of my head right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-war realities I think that you mean austerities
Fixed.

I see ones from the 29th? For clarity, can you re-list any open items? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to see my 30 April comments and respond to them, everything else has been addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury, a few outstanding comments above need a response. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I'm not seeing anything here still requiring a response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Hawkeye7, happy to defer to your view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Sturmvogel 66, can you clarify if you are supporting promotion or not here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day again Sturmvogel 66. Can you just clarify where we are here? Preferably in dot point form to ensure Maury understands what it is that needs to be done to address your outstanding comments? I'm going to archive this in a week if there are no further supports. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain baffled about why my first bullet point remains so hard for people to find. Maury feels no need to hyphenate words that I believe require them. Fair enough, but I'm neither supporting nor opposing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • Why are some cited works in "Bibliography" and some in "Citations"?
Items used once or in only one section are in the former.
Why?
The chosen style is up to the author. I like this one because it saves clicking twice for an item that is only used once.
  • Saward (1985): add the ISBN.
Has it? Someone else may have edited.
Please add the ISBN.
Added
  • Some works have publisher locations, some don't: be consistent.
I do not see any. Perhaps someone else edited.
Saward (1985) and Bowen, for example, have no publisher locations. Bowman and Brown, for example, do. Please be consistent.
  • Be consistent in how ISBNs are hyphenated, or not.
Fixed.
Jones' ISBN is hyphenated differently from other works.
Fixed.
  • External links: could both AP2890L and blunham.com Radar have more descriptive titles.
Did not add those.
  • Is AP2890L meant to be there?
Seems useful, its the original manual.
Perhaps that could be stated in the link description?
Added.
  • "Picture of an installed H2S unit" is dead, as is Picture of a Lancaster's Fishpond display and R1154/T1154 receiver/transmitter.
Both work fine for me?
Thay don't for me, and see [2], last two items.
Oh, I thought you referring to the actual images. Both links removed.
  • Note a is not referenced; Note b has a non-standard reference.
a is removed, b is fine.
  • Book titles should be in title case.
Please be specific.
For example Saward 1985, Longmate; there may be others.
Fixed.
  • Several works are missing available identifiers - eg ISBNs, JSTOR refs, doi's.
I added one isbn, if you can provide the rest I'll be happy to add them.
No, that is the nominator's role, not the reviewer's.
Can't find any additional ones.
  • What makes "Microwave Radar At War" a reliable source?
The general rule is that if the source lists is references, which it does.
Which policy or guideline are you relying on for this "general rule"?
SPS.
Where it states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Could you be more specific as to why and how "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" applies and why the second sentence doesn't? Thanks.
  • Green: I would expect to see all of the following: |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date=. See Template:Cite web.
It seems to have all those?
Are you citing a journal or a web page? The by line of the page - "The site for electronic design engineers" - would suggest the latter.
The article was published in print before the web site carried article content.

@Gog the Mild:?

Sort those out and ping me and I'll do some spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pings only work if they are signed.
@Gog the Mild: Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longmate should come before Lovell.
Moved.
  • What system are you using to order works without a clear author? Eg Sitzungsprotokolle der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rotterdam, AP1903D, Introductory Survey of Radar, Part II and the External links.
None.
  • I have added a number of comments and queries to my origanal comments, above.
Commented.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury, this one needs to be addressed for the source review to be completed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all references to Goebel. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, Maury, I have a few minor comments; apologies if any of these have already been mentioned: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are a few instances of overlink reported by the tool: Tizard Mission, Handley Page Halifax, night fighter, Monica (radar), Air Interception Radar, antenna (radio), Pathfinder Force, RAF Defford, Vickers Wellington, dead reckoning,
Got them all I think.
  • at five paragraphs the lead technically has too many paragraphs per MOS:LEAD; suggest merging if possible
It was, but people keep separating out the last part.
  • "didn't", "weren't", "hadn't" and "wasn't" --> probably best to avoid contractions in formal writing
Removed all except hadn't, which was the original term.
Sorry, I don't understand your rationale here -- are you saying it is a quote? If so, it should appear in quotation marks, surely? If not a quote, then you have the artistic licence to rectify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there page numbers that you could add for citations 37, 48 and 54?
37 is basically the entire book, 48 has no page numbers, 54 has them but they are not part of the original report.
Please see below for my follow ups: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for ref 37 - how long is the book? I think you will need to provide some sort of page range ultimately unless it is very short
for ref 48 - you could probably provide the relevant paragraph number as they are numbered (you could use the |at= function in the template), or you could use the page numbers while making it clear you are using a facsmile edition/digitised copy of the report (not the original edition)
for ref 54 - as it is only four pages long, it is probably ok not to provide page numbers for this work
  • I think that the first entry of the Further reading section is technically an External link
I'm not sure I understand the difference in this case?
G'day, yes, I agree that it can be hard to differentiate but IMO the further reading section tends to be related solely to books, I believe; I can see an argument that the minutes are a further reading item, so I won't die in a ditch over it, but I suspect you would be asked to move it if you took this to FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding page ranges for Campbell's chapter in Grande
  • not sure about this link for Campbell's chapter: [3], I couldn't find where it leads to the book. Am I missing something?
Trying to get this to work.
  • title case caps: "Bomber" Harris, the authorized biography" --> "Bomber" Harris: The Authorized Biography"?
Fixed.
  • suggest removing publication locations from Bowman and Brown for consistency of style (as you haven't used them for others)
Removed.
  • title case caps: "The bombers : the RAF offensive against Germany, 1939-1945" --> The Bombers: The RAF Offensive Against Germany, 1939–1945"?
fixed
  • -ise or -ize consistency: I don't mind either way, but I see "stablized" and "realised". Suggest consistency
And I keep suggesting it to my spelling checker, but it continues to change this on me. I will do a run-through for these at the end of the process.
  • "Cherwell related to others (including R.V. Jones)" --> just "Jones" at this point as he has already been introduced
Fixed.
  • "It was noted on even the earliest flights of V9977": suggest stating who noted this
Not recorded in my sources. I assume this is "the operators".
  • "This led to concerns that the Germans might repay the favour in kind" --> "This led to concerns that the Germans might launch a similar raid on British installations"? (a bit more formal?)
Fixed.
  • "magnetron to the Germans. Churchill's": full name and link on first mention?
Not sure it's REALLY needed for "this guy", but added.
  • "Unfortunately, more rigorous testing": probably best to avoid the term "unfortunately" as it can be seen to imply a point of view
Removed. @AustralianRupert:
Sorry, I missed this ping originally; I don't think it worked because it was not signed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Anything more to add? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for the ping, Hawkeye. I have added some follow ups above. Sorry for the delay -- have been in an an area without secure internet due to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe everything above, with the exception of hyphenation, has been completed in my last series of edits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day AustralianRupert, when you get a chance mate, can you check if you are happy with Maury's responses? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: G'day, apologies but no, at this stage my concerns have not been fully addressed. The issues outlined in dot points 3 and 4 above with regards to page numbering and use of contractions remain (albeit the citation numbers have been updated - now # 4, 28, 61 and Campbell in the Bibliography). The link for Campbell is still problematic also, IMO (dot point seven in my original post) and Longmate should appear before Lovell in the Bibliography (alphabetical order) - new point, sorry, I think I missed this earlier. That said, maybe I am in the minority here in stating these as issues? If the source reviewer doesn't think it is a problem, then maybe it isn't. Regardless, I am not able to specifically support at this time; I will not oppose on these nitpicks, either though, as my review isn't a full review anyway, so an oppose would not be fair. As such, if you wish to close it as successful on the basis of the earlier supports, then please do so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Maury Markowitz. It seems to me that you either need to address AustralianRupert's outstanding comments, or Sturmvogel 66's outstanding comments (or both preferably), to obtain the minimum three supports so it can pass. We have already left it open far longer than we would normally. If either changes to a support, I will promote it. I'll give you a week to address one or the other, or I'll have to archive it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

1) Page numbers; 

 #4 is Cunningham? I do not have the book and did not add that section.
 #28 is Green? It's three screens long and searchable, so I'm not sure what value this adds, but I have added sections anyway.

2) the URL for Campbell was missing a "f" and is now working. 3) I have moved the references to be alphabetic. 4) There appears to be a dangling issue with Further Reading above, but I just read the page on that and see no claims about it having to be a book. 5) Sturm's 30 April entries, which read 29 April on my screen BTW, have been addressed with the exception of the hyphen in radar bands and the second sentence in the caption. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is everything? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think I've given you a "bum steer" in relation to the citation numbers (sorry) - they keep changing, so I am clearly confusing myself. Let's move away from me quoting numbers and move to author/work names for clarity. Green is fine - you are correct about it being short enough; sorry, not sure what happened here (uppercut self administered). Cunningham, Shaw, the ADI K report and the British Air Int Report are the citations that concern me in relation to page numbers. If you did not add Cunningham, potentially you can get someone to check the page numbers over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I confirm that the Campbell link now works, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Maury Markowitz, it isn't clear if AustralianRupert will support if these area addressed (perhaps he could clarify), but Sturm isn't. Therefore if AustralianRupert supports once his final comments are addressed, this can be promoted. If he doesn't, I'm archiving this because it doesn't have the requisite supports. It has been open far too long. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, PM, to clarify my original review did not look at the article as a whole, so I cannot support at the moment regardless of what is done regarding the page numbers. I would need to read through it more thoroughly to do so as it has been a long time since I read it the first time (June). I am happy to do this, if Maury wishes, in the interests of getting it over the line, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment -- travelling home at the moment after spending the majority of the year away from the family. Mentally I am not in the right space to read and fully comprehend an article like this one at the moment. I am sorry. When I finally get home (which is potentially in a week or so), I may be able to do so depending upon family commitments, but I would probably prefer to wait until the issues with the page numbers have been resolved. Incidentally, if other reviewers disagree with my request for page numbers, I am more than happy to strike my concerns and move on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added section numbers instead of pages. The only exception is the reference I did not add. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Shaw, the ADI K report and the British Air Int Report (per my comment at 14:43 on 16 Oct 21)? Have you asked at the the Resource Exchange if someone there can help with Cunningham? Regardless of what I said about waiting for this to be resolved before re-reading, in the interests of trying to get this review closed, I have gone through the article again and will post my comments/suggestions below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have had time to re-read the article. Overall, I found it to be well written and informative, although a little colloquial in places. Nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "over large cities like Berlin" --> move the link for Berlin to the first mention
Added.
  • in the lead, " In this form, H2S was last used in anger" --> " In this form, H2S was last used operationally"?
hmm, ok.
  • in the lead, the year 1993 is mentioned in relation to the Victor, but this year does not seem to appear in the body of the article
Added.
  • Etymology section, perhaps clarify what role Jones and Cherwell played (very briefly -- possibly all that is needed is a subordinate clause for each)
Added. Some re-work to make it read well.
  • contractions: "didn't" and "hadn't" -- if these are quotes, then they should be in quote marks, if not, IMO they should not be used in formal writing
Fixed.
  • "only one bomb in twenty was within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the target" --> "only one bomb in twenty was landing within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the target"?
Added.
  • "mathematical function that defined": link "function"
Added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "output thousands of watts of radio" --> link "watt"
This has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works.
  • "Blumlein's colleagues Cecil Oswald Browne and Frank Blythen; a TRE scientist Geoffrey S. Hensby": are these people wiki notable? If so, suggest adding redlinks -- if not, no worries
The only mentions I found of any of these was in relation to the crash.
  • "simply didn not show anything" --> typo
Fixed.
  • "-ize" and "-ise": currently there is a mixture in the article (e.g. prioritize and stabilizer, but also realise, suggest consistency
  • "The Airborne team moved" --> "The airborne team moved"
This is a proper name.
Fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved to RAF St Athan, about 15 miles (24 km) from Cardiff" - do we know the date of this move? Or a rough timeframe?
Late 1939, added.
  • " selection of Swanage on the southern coast of the UK": rough timeframe of this?
This is still outstanding as far as I can tell, but it is a minor point and doesn't diminish the quality of the article, IMO. Moving on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located in shacks located on the shoreline" --> reword to avoid saying "located" twice in quick succession
Added and re-worded.
  • "On 25 May 1942, commandos carried out Operation Biting to capture" --> not sure about Commandos here, it was a Para unit, I believe?
Changed to Combined Ops.
Ok. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "across the English Channel from Christchurch": link for Christchurch?
Added.
  • "but a navigation aid as well" --> " but also as a navigation aid"?
yes.
  • "hand-built to equip the Pathfinder Force": remove the link to Pathfinders as it is already linked earlier
Fixed.
  • "H2S had been fitted to Lancasters": remove the link here to Lancasters, already linked earlier
Fixed.
  • "the Mk. IIA versions" --> "the Mk. IIA version"?
Fixed.
  • "Late in April 1942" --> "In late April 1942"?
Seems correct as is?
Either is fine grammatically, but the second seems smoother, IMO. Either way, it is a minor point, so I will not labour the point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dudley Saward visited" -- what was Saward's role? I think you clarify it later "in charge of Bomber Command's radar efforts", but perhaps it should be mentioned on first mention?
This has been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seward" or "Saward"? Both are used
Both fixed.
  • "Seward supplied an electronics technician, Sergeant Walker" --> do we know Walker's first name? If not, no worries
Not mentioned anywhere I could find.
Ok, no worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the photos reached the desk of Robert Saundby": rank and role?
Added, hopefully correct as his position changed right at about this time.
Suggest adding his full military rank, not just his appointment, if known - I assume Air Vice Marshal? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two hundred of the prototype model" --> "Two hundred examples of the prototype model"?
Added.
  • "the bomber would change their heading" --> "the crew would change the bomber's heading"?
Reworded.
  • "Defense Research Board" --> Defence Research Board? (Canadian English variation?)
Fixed.
  • "calling their unit H2X, and was being deployed on American bombers by October 1943" --> "calling their unit H2X. It was deployed on American bombers by October 1943"?
Reworded.
  • "and any still equipped with Monica was told to turn it off" --> "and the crews of any aircraft still equipped with Monica had been told to turn it off"?
Reworded.
  • "By this time the country was already in a shambles" --> "By this time Germany was on the brink of defeat"?
This has been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "target marking operations for Pathfinder Force" --> "target marking operations for the Pathfinder Force"
Added.
  • "larger "whirligig" reflector" -- you probably don't need the quote marks as the term has been introduced earlier; would suggest making linking on first mention, also
Quotes removed... but which link do you refer to here?
Whirligig; added for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link V-force to V bomber on first mention
Added.
  • "Wimpy: A Detailed History of the Vickers Wellington in service" --> "Wimpy: A Detailed History of the Vickers Wellington in Service" (title case caps)
Fixed.
Most excellent work AustralianRupert. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Maury Markowitz, this looks to constitute a much-needed full review now, so if you could address ARs comments we could look to get this up soon. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I made a couple of minor adjustments per this edit: [4]. I remain concerned about the lack of page numbers for certain sources, but given my comments from 16 Oct and 6 Nov have been ignored, I will drop the stick and move on. I have added my support above in the interests of getting this one closed, but would strongly encourage you to rectify the page number issue before FAC if you head down that path. Once again, congratulations on a fine article and good luck with taking it further if you decide to keep working on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is the second part of the treatment of American logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign. It chronicles a series of avoidable problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Completely forgot I had taken this up, apologies. I have made some edits, feel free to reverse them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • developed from a reluctance to accept new, efficient, field-tested items presumably they weren't reluctant to accept better items so much as reluctant to accept new items which were actually better, perhaps developed from a reluctance to accept new items, even when field-tested and efficient,
    checkY Changed to "reluctance to accept new items".
Background
[edit]
  • Operation Cobra, which commenced on 25 July, effected a turnaround in the operational situation by achieving a breakout from the Normandy lodgment area for a layman reader it may not be clear who is breaking out, perhaps Operation Cobra, which the Allies commenced on 25 July, effected a turnaround in the operational situation by achieving a breakout from the Normandy lodgment area
    checkY Changed to "which the First Army commenced on 25 July". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another army, the Ninth Army, suggest removing Another army
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railways could not be repaired and pipelines constructed quickly enough I believe this and should be an or, or else Railways could not be repaired and pipelines were not constructed quickly enough
    checkY Changed to "Railways could not be repaired and pipelines could not be constructed quickly enough." but not sure what the basis for your belief is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Development
[edit]
Footwear
[edit]
Workarounds
[edit]
  • The armies worked around the shortages in several ways. The main one was ammunition rationing. The American command setup was an obstacle here not a big fan of these sentences, perhaps: Although the American command setup was an obstacle, the armies worked around the shortages in several ways, especially through ammunition rationing.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it gave the 12th Army Group a much better picture of what was going on. suggest changing what was going on to the situation
    checkY "Situation" is another technical term, referring to operations. Changed to "a better picture of the stockpile". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Production
[edit]
Tanks
[edit]
Liquid fuels
[edit]

Source review/Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, nice work as usual. Sorry, I don't have time for a full review at the moment, so I have a few minor points, including a source review: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ext links all work (no action required)
  • all sources appear to be reliable based on authors or publishers (no action required)
  • spot checked citations 78 and 107 - 78 seems GTG; I couldn't see the date of 25 December mentioned on 107, though. Did I miss it in the source?
  • all information appears to be referenced (no action required)
  • in the lead, "Northwestern Europe" is overlinked
  • cold injury is overlinked in the Medical section
  • "In 1944–45" --> "In 1944–1945"
  • "with the 75mm gun M2–M6" --> non breaking space?
  • 75 mm gun is overlinked in the Tanks section
  • Siegfried Line is overlinked in the Liquid fuels section
  • "woollen" --> "woolen" (US English?)
  • "standardised" --> "standardized"? (as above)
  • "despatched" --> "dispatched"? as above)
  • "lodgement" --> "lodgment"?
  • "totalled" --> "totaled"?
  • "armoured" --> "armored"
  • "recognise" --> "recognize"
  • "coloured" --> "colored"
  • "stablised" --> "stablized"
  • G'day, thanks, I will try to take a better look when I get back to a place with better internet (maybe in a few days, hopefully). In the meantime, a couple of the changes look a bit strange to me -- do Americans really use "improvize" and "supervize"? I could be wrong (I am more times than I would like), but that does not look correct to me. Can you please check? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They only spell the suffix -ize in words that came to English through Latin -izare. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize the article was meant to be American English (although that does make sense), I've had another look through the article and don't see anything that stands out as non-American, except the usage of "Smart" appearance which I don't think really shares meaning to the average American, who might consider the used meaning as somewhere near the fourth possible meaning if they are even aware of it. Perhaps "a well kept" would work better. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be more precise, it is written in American military. "smart" is one of those words the US Army is fond of. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below now: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]
  • [...] but Eisenhower decided that logistic situation was sufficiently [...] "that the logistical situation was"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Third Army commenced a major offensive [...] Which offensive was this? The Siegfried campaign?
    checkY The Battle of Metz. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a particular type looked as if it was going to be in short supply, the first army to recognize this could requisition as much as possible, thereby initiating the shortage and depriving the other armies of their fair share. The first time I read this, I got very confused.
    checkY Changed to: The first army to recognize that a particular type was going to be in short supply could requisition as much of it as possible, thereby initiating the shortage and depriving the other armies of their fair share.
  • [...] horizontal volute spring suspension (HVSS) [...] high velocity armor piercing (HVAP) [...] Neither of these acronyms are used again.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] taken away from bases sections [...] Is "bases" intentional here?
    checkY typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

A very well illustrated article. Having inspected them all, the following may need checking for author information, as it seems the source (PhotosNormandie) is credited as the author which is not right. Perhaps "Author unknown, but likely US Army/Navy/Government personnel"?

Yes, PhotosNormandie obtained US Army Signal Corps images. I have adjusted the credits on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tanks are disembarked at Cherbourg.jpg
  • File:Unloading the oil tanker Empire Traveller at Cherbourg.jpg
    Army Signal Corps photo (note Signal Corps id 198960-8 on the image)
  • File:Aerial view of an oil tanker discharging at the digue de Querqueville.jpg
  • File:Tanker trucks of the 3990th Quartermaster (Transportation Corps) Truck Company.jpg
  • File:Refilling jerricans from tanker trucks.jpg
    Army Signal Corps photo (note Signal Corps id 198959-5 on the image)

The rest look to be appropriately licenced with US/CC tags. Zawed (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

The Holocaust in Greece

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

The Holocaust in Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Contemplating a FAC for this and looking for any feedback that might help improve the article. It's shorter than my earlier FA for the Holocaust in Slovakia, but I think it does a good job of covering the core aspects of the topic concisely, while leaving space for notable sub-topics such as the Holocaust in Salonica or the Holocaust in Bulgarian-occupied Greece. Thanks Hog Farm for the GA review. (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]

Still important to me because my great-grandfather survived the Holocaust in Poland (Auschwitz). Well at least that's what they said to me but who knows maybe he died there and they never told us about this. Thus this is important to me; will have a look in a couple of days. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it posible to add information about the Jews who lived in the German and Italian-held Greece?
    • This is discussed in the background section. I'm not sure it's helpful to split into German and Italian-held Greece as the distinctions between Greek Jews were based on the country's history prior to the war, not where the line was drawn in 1941.
  • About half emigrated in the first decade after the war. To where?
    • To Israel and other countries
  • In the fifteenth century, many Ladino-speaking Sephardim settled in the Ottoman Empire, including areas that are now Greece, after their expulsion from Spain and Portugal at the end of the fifteenth century. Maybe refraphse this to "In the late fifteenth century, many Ladino-speaking Sephardim settled in the Ottoman Empire, including areas that are now Greece, after their expulsion from Spain and Portugal." since I think it's unnassary to use twice the same date in one event.
    • Done
  • The prewar Jewish communities of Southern, Western, and Northern Greece each had a different history I am not sure we should use upper cases for the derections of Greece? Unless it's a poper noun but I doubt they are proper nouns.
    • Done
  • in the 1820s, and others fled because of suspicion that they opposed the Greek insurgents To where to the Ottoman Empire?
    • The sources confirm this, added
  • Central Europe as well as Sephardim from the Ottoman Empire settled in Athens Are these the same Sephardim who fled the country before?
    • The sources don't address whether they are the same ones as fled the country earlier. My personal guess is that most likely some were and others weren't.
  • At the end of the fifteenth century, the sultan allowed Sephardim --> "At the end of the fifteenth century, the Sultan allowed Sephardim"
  • Well which sultan was he then? There were three sultans at the end of the fifteenth century and per MOS:JOBTITLES as you pointed before it also states: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" thus if this was a specific person which in this sentence looks like it is then we should give it an upper case.
  • At first, wealthy merchants left for Europe, Latin America, and the United States Per MOS.OVERLINK large geographic areas shouldn't be linked.
    • Done
  • In 1936, the fascist but not antisemitic Metaxas dictatorship overthrew unstable parliamentary politics That's the first time I've read the Metaxas dictatorship was a fascist one? The article itself says his regime could be described as Fasicst. Is that what the source says?
    • Well, I was basing this on Fleming, who describes Metaxas as a fascist dictator who openly admired Adolf Hitler, if not his racist ideologies. After checking, I can say that while not all the sources use the word "fascist" to describe Metaxas' regime, none of them contradict it either. I've removed the word "fascist" as I'm not sure it helps the reader understand.

That's anything from me right now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • either allow Italian troops to occupy Greece or else war We're talking about the whole country right? The Ohi Day article says only occupy certain unspecified "strategic locations".
    • Neither of the cited sources makes that distinction. Fleming states that it was an "ultimatum that Italian troops be allowed to occupy Greece".
  • 613 died and 3,743 were wounded, most famously Mordechai Frizis Per MOS:NUMNOTES try to avoid figures at the start of a sentence.
    • Fixed
  • most famously Mordechai Frizis, a Greek colonel.. Typo here.
    • I don't see a typo there.
  • There's a second full stop behind "colonel".
  • During the winter of 1940–1941, Italians and Greeks fought in Albania Isn't it "During the winter of 1940/1941, Italians and Greeks fought in Albania"?
  • After this registration, as many as 3,500 Jewish men were drafted into labor battalions by Organization Todt What's men in this context? Does this include every boy of any age or was there a certain age when men were forced to work? Also what happened to Jewish women and children?
    • Per Apostolou, the roundup targeted Jewish men between the ages of 18 and 45. Not sure if it makes sense to include the exact age range. It appears that only around a third of the eligible men were actually drafted, although the sources don't really cover that. Women and children were not affected by registration at this point, unless they fled to the Italian zone they would have remained in Salonika until 1943.
  • expulsion of Cham Albanians and displacement of many ethnic Macedonians Only Macedonians thus no Bulgarians?
    • The cited source does not mention Bulgarians. I am not aware of any others that connect the situation of Greek Jews versus Bulgarians in Greece during/after the war.
  • expected to be put to forced labor in Poland.[76][77][78][79] Per WP:CITEBUNDLE and Help:Citation merging it's better to merge citations if there are more than three in one sentence/paragraph or remove one.
    • Done
  • The Italian occupation authorities and consul Guelfo Zamboni vigorously protested Isn't it "Consul Guelfo Zamboni"?
    • Done
  • On 24 March, Jews from all the remaining communities in mainland Greece were arrested Isn't it "on mainland Greece"?
  • Am not sure, maybe?
  • The mayor of Corfu stated, "Our good friends the Germans have cleansed the island from the Jewish riffraf" Mayor needs an upper case per MOS:JOBTITLES.
    • Done
  • He was the only leader of a major European church to condemn the Holocaust This is a little bit misleading. Elio Toaff claims that Pope Pius XII has condemned many times the false race theory and aided many Jews. While some say he was weak. However, that doesn't mean Archbishop Damaskinos was the only leader of a major European church even if the Pope was weak back then.
    • Is it really disputed that the pope did not make any public statements explicitly condemning the Holocaust? For example, the book The Pope's Dilemma states that the pope's "understanding of the role God had assigned him prohibited him from taking a strong stand against mass atrocities: warning Catholics that involvement or complicity endangered their salvation or instructing bishops to do the same; or speaking out forcefully on behalf of victims of mass atrocities; or publicly–or even surreptitiously–alerting Jews to what he knew of the deportations." Anyway the statement is verifiable to the cited source: Fleming states that Damaskinos was "the only head of a European church to officially condemn the German occupation’s treatment of Jews". (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

I will attempt this. Hog Farm Talk 00:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was recently asked by Nikkimaria to provide a source to verify map contents for an image at a FAC, can this be done for File:Map Greece expansion 1832-1947-en.svg? Current source is just another user-created map on Commons

Same for File:Triple Occupation of Greece.png

Source link for File:Prisoners sorting confiscated property at Auschwitz II-Birkenau.jpg is giving me a 504 gateway timeout. Does it work for you? I think the 504 errors are sometimes only temporary. The other ushmm.org links aren't working either, so it could well be that the website is temporarily down

No concerns for other images. I hope I'm not being too picky here, as I don't do many of these. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are highly reliable, and scholarly.
  • There's heavy reliance on The Holocaust in Greece published by CUP, but this seems excusable given the subject matter
  • As a comment, you might want to seek out non-scholarly sources ahead of a FAC, particularly to flesh out the human angles. They might not be available in English though.
  • Spot checks:
    • Ref 55 (Apostolou 2018, p. 98): Checks out
    • Ref 159 (Kavala 2018, p. 205): This material is on page 204, but checks out
    • Ref 187 (Battinou 2003, p. 41): Checks out, but it could be noted that the source says it houses items owned by Holocaust victims
  • No issues with close paraphrasing in any of the above.
  • I'd suggest consulting Mazower's general history of the German occupation of Greece ahead of a FAC.

Overall, pass. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for the source review. In terms of the Kavala reference, the same point is covered on both page 205 and 204 so I added the other page to the range. I also reviewed Mazower's chapter on Greek Jews in Inside Hitler's Greece and did not find anything to add to the article. I don't think that citing non-scholarly sources would be helpful in this article. (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Reviewed this at GAN, will take another look. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " hundreds of Thracian Jews were forced into Bulgarian labor battalions," - This isn't an issue with the article at all, just an aside that a skim of the section linked to by the labor battalions looks like it is pretty shoddily sourced. If it is as bad as it looks to my untrained eye (also tagged with a fringe views section), it may be best to drop the link
    • Unlinked
  • "battalions by Organization Todt a Nazi a civil and military engineering organization" - comma after Todt, I think
    • done
  • "despite obstruction from British intelligence" - Why was British intelligence obstructing this?
    • It probably had to do with tensions in Israel/Palestine, but the source doesn't say so directly: "Indeed British intelligence continuously tried to thwart Jewish boat movement from Greece to Turkey until late summer 1944, even though the British cabinet decided in July 1942 that any Jewish refugee escaping German occupation in Europe and reaching Turkey would be given an immigration certificate to Palestine/Israel."
  • "As in other European countries, American Jewish charities, especially the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), coordinate relief efforts to aid survivors" - coordinated?
    • Fixed typo.

Good work, supporting as these comments are generally pretty minor. Hog Farm Talk 04:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "a formerly Ottoman city" Link "Ottoman".
    • done
  • "that targeted Jews per se". Optional: as this is the English Wikipedia, perhaps "per se" → 'as such'? If you prefer not to, use a Wiktionary link.
    • I feel like I am more likely to say "per se" than "as such", but a wiktionary link has been added.
  • "along with that of neighboring communities". "that" → 'those'.
    • Done
  • "The Greek-speaking Romaniotes are the oldest Jewish community in Europe". We aren't actually told who the Romaniotes are.
  • "Many Ladino-speaking Sephardim settled in the Ottoman Empire" Likewise "Sephardim" and "Ladino".
  • "After the establishment of the monarchy". When?
    • Clarified
  • "small numbers of Ashkenazim from Central Europe". "Ashkenazim"?
    • The definition of Sephardim is Jews originally from Spain, Romaniotes are Greek-speaking Jews native to Greece, and Ashkhenazim are the Jews native to central Europe so I'm not sure what more would help to add here?
Yes, I know, how about telling the reader? Plus "Ladino".
OK, added some clarification
  • "the first centuries CE". Suggest 'the early centuries CE', to avoid confusion with "the first century CE".
    • done
  • "the majority of Greek Jews, around 50,000". From what total? Move this up from the end of the section. Or move the Salonika bit down.
    • Rewritten
  • "under Italian influence". What does this mean?
    • Many islands were under Italian rule at different times during their history and the Jews who lived there often spoke Italian.
You should probably assume that I know the answers to questions like this, but am asking on behalf of a hypothetical reader. So this imaginary reader would be thinking "What does that mean? That they watch Italian films and eat pasta?"
OK, added some clarification
  • "as a result of new territorial acquisitions". Delete "new".
    • done
  • "most famously Mordechai Frizis, a Greek colonel." Is "Greek" not redundant?
    • removed
  • "Germany joined the war and occupied all of mainland Greece by the end of the month." This implies that non-mainland Greece remained unoccupied.
    • Crete was not occupied until May; I'm not sure about the other islands.
Much to my surprise, I can't find a source that actually states that the Greek islands were occupied! Perhaps add 'and Crete by the end of May'?
Done
  • "Greece was partitioned into different occupation zones". "different" seems redundant.
    • removed
  • "program sending more than 100,000 Greek refugees westward". Were they deliberately expelled, or did they flee of their own accord as a by product of Bulgarisation?
    • The source indicates some of both, in that Bulgarian policies were intended to cause this flight
  • "In 1943, parts of eastern Macedonia switched from the German to the Bulgarian occupation zone, but Bulgaria did not permanently annex the region." Did this non-annexation apply just to eastern Macadonia or to all of the Bulgarian-occupied territory?
    • All of Bulgarian-occupied Greece was annexed to Bulgaria, but returned to Greece after the war. What the source is saying is that the Greek collaborationist policy was successful in its own terms, since it managed to avoid territorial losses in the long term. I've removed this clause since it seems to be confusing.
  • "Salonica Jewish community council." Should that be upper case Cs?
    • No, as I don't know what the formal name of this organization was.
  • "a "Jewish problem" in Greece—the term was not a part of prewar discourse in Greece". "in Greece ... in Greece". Maybe 'prewar Greek discourse' for variety?
    • Done
  • "and reviving the EEE". Which would be what?
    • It's mentioned a few paragraphs earlier that this is the National Union of Greece, a far-right association. Would additional clarification be helpful here?
No, I probably took a break and forgot about the earlier mention.
  • "Jews were overrepresented among the victims." Optional: "the" → 'these'.
    • Done
  • "After this registration". What registration?
    • Clarified that this refers to the roundup in the previous sentence
  • "Some tried to escape, but the Germans shot others in retaliation". I assume that those who tried to escape were also shot. Were others also shot in these cases, or only when their fellows actually escaped?
    • Correct, the source says that revenge shootings happened after successful escapes. It does not say anything about unsuccessful escapes. Reworded

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Greek Jews living in Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles were deported in 1942". Deported to Greece?
    • No, to Auschwitz
  • "Historian Christopher Browning argued that". You use the past tense, did he subsequently change his mind?
    • Fixed
  • "was interned in Vienna from May 1941 and January 1942". I don't understand this. Was he detained twice, or should "and" be 'to'?
    • correct, I meant "to"
  • "to ward off Bulgarian aspirations". Possibly a brief mention somewhere as to what these were?
    • Clarified
  • "almost all Jewish-owned property was resold, stolen, or nationalized". Why "resold", rather than 'sold'?
    • To me "reselling" emphasizes that the sale was not for the benefit of the original property owner and they were not entitled to the proceeds of the sale.
That meaning is not in Wictionary ("To sell again.") nor a couple of other dictionaries I checked. I suggest that if you want to get your larger meaning across you spell it out.
OK, done
  • "In less than a month, 97 percent of the Jews in the Bulgarian occupation zone were murdered;[84] none survived the deportation." I suspect that by the last four words you mean 'none of those deported survived.'
    • Reworded according to the suggestion
  • "notified the prime minister of the Hellenic State" What is "the Hellenic State"?
    • The Greek collaborationist government. Rewrite to avoid this term which may be unfamiliar.
  • "continue to operate the businesses to new ownership". Either 'to transfer the businesses to new ownership' or 'under new ownership'.
    • Done
  • "and imprisoned in prearranged locations." Optional: I am not sure that this adds anything.
    • removed
  • "such as timing". Of what?
    • Deportations
  • "did not execute the order". What order?
    • To deport the Jews on the island
  • "All of Greece was recaptured from Axis occupation by November 1944." I assume that this is missing the word 'mainland'.
    • Correct
  • "The survivors were sharply divided" What was sharp about this division?
    • Fleming speaks of "tremendous divisions" because survivors could not understand each others' experiences. According to her the most striking rift was between those who had survived the camps, versus those who hadn't
  • "In November 1944, the Greek government immediately annulled the Aryanization law". Either give a little explanation or delete "immediately".
    • Done
  • "or on cement floors". Delete or rephrase.
    • I don't see what's wrong with that phrase?
There is nothing wrong with it, but I am sure that one could accurately replace "on concrete floors" with on wooden floors, on the bare ground, in ruined buildings, in hedgerows, in olive groves etc. No doubt they suffered many other discomforts and indignities. Why pick this one example out?
Removed
  • Could there be a brief in line explanation of White Terror.
    • Reworded
  • "which is considered higher than". "is"? Surely 'in 20XX was', or just 'was'.
    • The source says "Many scholars relate the gap of this unwanted memory to the fact that antisemitism in Greece is more widespread than probably in all pre- 2004 members of the European Union". I try to maintain the slight uncertainty in the wording, considering that antisemitism unlike the length of my finger cannot necessarily be measured with 100% precision and different estimates might come up with slightly different results.
I have issues with the use of the present tense. No doubt it was true at the point in time when it was measured, but how can we know if the same would be true if remeasured today. Or tomorrow. Hence my suggested amendments.
Changed to past tense

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff. A couple of come backs from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I managed to miss your comments but I should have addressed everything now. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Catlemur

[edit]
  • This is completely optional, but there is an article on τηε Greek Jewish participation in the resistance to the Axis occupation which features multiple photos Greek Jewish resistance fighters. According to the article which cites Bowman, the second guy from the right in this photo is Salvator Bakolas, a Greek jew. So you might consider including it in the article.--Catlemur (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article takes up where American logistics in the Northern France campaign leaves off, covering the period from September 1944 to January 1945. The volume of material was considerable, so I split the article into two parts; one about transportation, and one about supply. In this phase, the American armies remained largely static through September and October for lack of supplies, particularly ammunition. Initially this was because the rapid advance across France and Belgium created lengthy supply lines; the rehabilitation of railways could not keep pace, and the use of motor transport was a stopgap that caused longer term problems. Then, as the weather deteriorated, the beaches became unusable, and the lack of port capacity became a problem because the ports in Brittany that had been intended to supply the American forces had not been captured. Shipping piled up offshore, unable to discharge, and the resulting shortage of ships threatened the entire Allied war effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Source review from AustralianRupert
Support: G'day, Hawkeye, this is just a quick run through at this stage -- I will try to take a better look sometime in the next few days. Here are a few minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "outmanoeuvered" --> "outmaneuvered"
  • "short term" --> "short-term"?
  • "An accumulations of idle shipping" --> "An accumulation of idle shipping"
  • "deep water berths" --> "deep-water berths"?
  • "cannibalising" --> "cannibalizing"
  • "formalised" --> "formalized"
  • "dischaged" --> "discharged"
  • "It rehabilitation was" --> "Its rehabilitation was"
  • "USAPRS Thomas F. Farrell Jr., a Baltic coaster converted to an engineer port repair ship" --> italics for the ship's name?
  • "Le Havre Harbor" --> "Le Havre harbor"?
  • line of communications is overlinked
  • "Channel, Army stevedores unload" --> "Channel, US Army stevedores unload"?
  • "Ardennes Offensive" --> lower case for consistency
  • "Cherbourg Harbor" v. "Cherbourg harbor" (consistency)
  • spot checked citations 56, 68 and 84 -- all support the text they are listed against (no action required)
  • references appear to be reliable based on authors or publishers (no action required)
  • all information appears referenced (no action required)

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]
Background & Shipping
Ports
Railways

Reading completed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • but before the war it had been a transit port, and it did not possess large amounts of covered storage space. These seem to be related but not outright said; that it didn't posses large covered storage space because it was a transit port, I would simply say but before the war it had been a transit port, and therefore did not possess large amounts of covered storage space. I think this is covered by sources, especially for it had been of p. 111, but I understand if you view this as straying too far from the sources.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
[edit]

(First three are stolen from my previous review.

Shipping
[edit]
  • The delay in capturing and opening Cherbourg meant that Cherbourg, the minor ports and the beaches would have to handle far more daily tonnage than originally planned. I think Cherbourg is accidentally used twice, so I've changed it to The delay in capturing and opening Cherbourg meant the minor ports and the beaches would have to handle far more daily tonnage than originally planned; please revert that if I'm misreading it.
    checkY Already corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Utah and Omaha beaches were closed for good on 13 and 19 November respectively. suggest changing for good to permanently
    checkY Prefer the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ports
[edit]
  • Granville had been subject to systematic demolition, with quays cratered, cranes tipped into the water, and the harbor blocked with sunken craft. should specify who did this if possible, I'm assuming not the Americans, probably the Germans? Perhaps Granville had been subject to systematic demolition by [German occupiers/retreating German forces], with quays cratered, cranes tipped into the water, and the harbor blocked with sunken craft.
  • workers elsewhere demanded the same the hallmark of any true MilHist article (no suggestion).
  • @Hawkeye7: That is all my suggestions, apologies for taking so long. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Great to see all these loggie articles coming through, Hawkeye. A few comments from me:

Lead
Background
Shipping

Down to Ports. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ports

Down to Rouen. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this up over the weekend, bit pressed for time today and tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Hawkeye! Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Berlin (Atlantic)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Berlin (Atlantic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Berlin was a successful raid into the North Atlantic conducted by the two German Scharnhorst-class battleships in early 1941. It was everything the much better-known raid by the Bismarck was supposed to be. The two battleships sank or captured 22 Allied merchant vessels, but had to abandon two attacks on convoys that were escorted by British battleships. Despite a massive effort the British failed to bring the German force to battle, and both battleships docked in France. This success proved illusionary, however, as the British badly damaged the battleships in French ports and Bismarck had worse luck and was sunk.

I developed this article to keep myself amused while on two weeks leave during a COVID-19 lockdown in August. It was assessed as a GA in late August, and has since been expanded and improved. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met and hope to develop the article further to FA class. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

A nice and tidy article, only a couple of nitpicks:

  • Opposing plans section: these ships to focus attacks made during raids on Allied merchant vessels for succinctness, suggest: "these ships to focus their attacks on Allied merchant vessels
  • German surface raids section: with the resulting extensive damage also requiring lengthy repairs in Germany.?

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

Very interesting. As an aside, I am impressed by the German capacity for replenishment at sea, which neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy could have matched in 1941. Just a few comments:

HF - support

[edit]

Will look at this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They were well armoured and faster than the Royal Navy's battlecruisers" - we are told the comparison in speed, and later in armament. Do sources provide a comparison in armor?
    • Not really. As the armour quality of British capital ships varied widely (e.g. HMS Hood was a deathtrap and the Nelson and King George V classes were very well protected), it would be a tricky comparison to make in aggregate
  • "The battleships refuelled from Schlettstadt and Esso Hamburg " - ship type for Esso Hamburg?
  • "King George V was dispatched from Halifax to patrol the area the ships had been sunk" - where the ships had been sunk?
  • "115,622 grains (7,492.2 g)" - link for grains? The most familiar usages of grains as a measurement are for very small items, not ships. Is this a convert template error for gross register tons?
    • It's a typo, and if you ever apply for a job in the State Department I'd be happy to give you a reference where I cite this comment as an example of your diplomatic skills! Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Boulder: Westview Press." - add the state for Boulder. I'm assuming Boulder, Colorado, but the other US locations include the state
  • Recommend consistency in title/sentence case for source titles. Konstam in largely in sentence case, O'Hara is a mix, and the others are largely title case
  • Sourcing looks reliable enough

Good work here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All references appear uniformly properly formatted
  • All ISBNs link properly
  • The JSTOR reference links properly

Found nothing objectionable in this respect, so supporting in sources department--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Jadran (training ship)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jadran (training ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is unusual for me, in that it is about a sail training ship, not a warship. Jadran was commissioned in the early 1930s for the Yugoslav Royal Navy, served with the Italians in a training role after she was captured by them in WWII, and was restored to socialist Yugoslavia following the war. She remained in Yugoslav hands until the wars in the 90s, and is now part of the Montenegrin Navy. Her ownership remains disputed between Croatia and Montenegro. The article recently passed GAN, and has been further expanded using a Serbo-Croatian journal article handily located by Tomobe03 during the GAN review. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. The Bundesarchiv caption says "Jugoslawien, Bucht von Kotor (?).- erbeutete Schiffe der jugoslawischen Kriegsmarine, Segelschiff (Schulschiff ?); PK 691" This translates as "Yugoslavia, Bay of Kotor (?).- captured ships of the Yugoslav Navy, Sailing ship (training ship?) PK 691". I have no idea what PK 691 means, but according to Freivogel there was only one three-masted sailing ship of this size in the Yugoslav Navy in April 1941, and it was Jadran, which was captured in the Bay of Kotor. For additional confirmation, it is possible to compare the shape of the ship in this image with the infobox image and visually confirm they are the same ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to cut in a bit here - PK 691 means Propaganda-Kompanie 691 and identifies no ship.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, thanks Tomobe03! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nick-D

[edit]

I suspect that this is the first article on a sail training ship to be nominated for A-class status. The last sentence of the lead is very on-theme for articles on the poor Yugoslav Royal Navy!

  • Can the background note why a sail training ship was needed? This is implied as being a necessity, but the rationale isn't clear.
Sure, detail added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remaining funds were to be obtained via loans and German World War I reparations to the Kingdom of Serbia, the territory of which was now part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" - I'd suggest moving this to after the first sentence of this para as it seems out of place at present
Good idea, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the first para of the 'Interwar period' section is over-complex
Split. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The overhaul and major repairs were completed on 17 December 1948 ... The rebuild was completed in mid-1949" - this is bit confusing.
I tried to clarify this. They still had to make spares and add some items. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Montenegro want to retain the ship? It seems a luxury for a small navy, and the various uses she's been put to suggest they're having trouble using her in the intended role (and/or financing this). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a combination of nationalism and stubbornness, but I haven't found that in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick, will crack on with this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Nick, see what you think of the responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. As a slight aside, the photo of the ship in 1941 is a good example of an image that really lifts up an article by demonstrating that in-depth work has gone into it. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Very hard to find faults with this one:

  • The spelling of draft/draught is inconsistent between body of article and infobox.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Mediterranean on first mention?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rephrasing the last sentence of the 2nd to last paragraph; Croatia is mentioned three times.
replaced one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dupe links: non-commissioned officers, Reichsmark, French protectorate of Tunisia
All fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Zawed. See what you think now? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, adding my support. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • operating out of Pola in Istria to cruise Maybe add peninsula here? Average readers wouldn't know what this is.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • she completed seven long training cruises Here you use figure and "long" without a hyphen and in this sentence "she undertook only five long-distance cruises" uses a hyphen. Are these compound adjectives?
They are different formulations. In the first case separate words are appropriate, as seven, long and training are separate adjectives, but in the second case, while five is separate, long-distance is a compound adjective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006, Montenegro became independent, and Jadran became a ship of the Montenegrin Navy. --> ">When Montenegro gains its independence in 2006 the ship became part of the Montenegrin Navy."?
Well, not really, Montenegro really didn't "gain" its independence, it declared it after a referendum. Do you think I should use "declared its independence" instead of "became independent"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She had a displacement of 720 long tons (810 short tons) No tonnes?
Not sure why I went with ST here, normally go with LT/t, which I have changed it to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Service history. Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CPA-5. Done so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, anything more to add? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A five-day visit to Boston from 10 July followed,[16][6] Re-order the regs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her ballast was increased to 179.5 long tons (182.4 t). Switch long tons with tonnes?
I'm just keeping it consistent throughout as LT/t. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 48 t (53 tons) of water and a hold full Tons? Which tons?
Fixed, LT/t. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • – costing €800000 --> "– costing €800,000"
  • for cruising or filming at a rate of €1800 per day --> "for cruising or filming at a rate of €1,800 per day"
Both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox doesn't include the German recommission in 1944? Btw was she renamed by them?
Added, and some additional details. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 That's anything from me. Sorry for the delay didn't feel that great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, CPA-5. All done I think? I hope you are feeling better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking if there is anything else you think needs sorting out, CPA-5? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are of high quality
  • ""Montenegro Ship Sails From Germany After Cocaine Bust" should also have author, access date
  • Spot checks: 21, 23a, 26, 31 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
author and access-date added, BTW. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 6 November 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saint Charles

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Saint Charles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The deadliest single shot of the American Civil War. A Union army operating in Arkansas got stuck in the middle of nowhere with a bad supply situation and had to be resupplied by river. The river resupply fleet ran into a couple Confederate shore batteries near St. Charles, and a sharp little skirmish ensued. A stray Confederate cannon shot hit the boiler of the lead Union ship, and scalding steam killed or horribly wounded almost everyone on board. The resupply mission continued upriver, but was stopped by low water levels; the army that was the cause of the mission wound up extracting itself on its own anyway, in the first instance of the war of an army operating with no supply line. Hog Farm Talk 04:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and is very interesting. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "killing or wounding almost all of its crew." - can you note how many casualties resulted?
    • Added
  • "Before daybreak, the Confederates made dispositions to receive the attack" - I'd suggest noting the date here, so it's clear
    • Added
  • Are the casualty figures for both sides reliable enough to include in the infobox, or are they too uncertain? Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox, suggest including elements of the 29th in the strength field
    • Added
  • "election on February 18" --> 1860 or 1861?
    • 1861. Added
  • suggest adding another third level subheader to the Background section to cover the first four paragraphs as visually having a single third level subheader in the middle of the section makes it look a little unbalanced
    • Added, suggestions on a better title are welcome
  • "held an statewide election" --> "held a statewide election"?
    • Corrected
  • "his others were not armed – [16] of": this looks a bit strange, I'd probably move the ref here
    • I've actually rejigged the sentences to make it smoother and moved the ref
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC for the Arkansas Historical Quarterly?
    • Added both
  • same as above for Naval History
    • Added both
  • citation 17 seems to be a different format to the other journal citations (compare with Bearss and Christ)
    • I treated Hubbs and Barnhart differently as magazines, while Bearss and Christ are proper journals; is this treatment problematic? I also accessed online versions of the two magazines that don't provide page numbers
  • in the Aftermath, Mississippi River is overlinked
    • Unlinked
  • "Battlefield today" as this is a lone third level header below a large body of text, this looks a bit unbalanced. It would probably be better just to be its own second level header, IMO
    • Bumped up to level 2
  • date format inconsistency: "December 13, 2018" v. "10 October 2021" (for example)
    • Should be addressed
  • "Civil War Times" and "Encyclopedia of Arkansas" --> italics
    • Corrected
  • "No serious causulties": typo
    • Corrected
  • "the CSS Maurepas were": suggest dropping the definite article in front of ship names
    • Removed
  • "This shot had been described as the deadliest shot of the war": who described it thusly?
    • Appears to be a general term. Honnoll has This shot is called "the most deadly" shot of the war", Christ 2012 has what has been called the single deadliest shot of the Civil War was fired; Christ 1994 says the site of the Rebel batteries that fired "the deadliest shot of the Civil War" into the boiler of the Mound City is now covered by a large grain silo; Terrence Winschel's Triumph and Defeat about Vicksburg largely relegates St. Charles to a footnote that includes It was the single deadliest shot fired during the Civil War
  • link battery on first mention
    • Linked
  • is there an appropriate article to link to for the 32-pounder?
  • "Mound City opened fire at 07:36[a] and" --> suggest just working the footnote into the main text and contrasting the slightly different views in the body of the article
    • Done, as well as referencing Dunnington's report, which gave a time in the middle
  • "communication on Halleck" --> "communication from Halleck"?
    • Corrected
  • "loaded with two infantry regiments" --> do we know which ones?
    • Yes, named
  • "Curtis had a number of slaves emancipated" --> "Curtis emancipated a number of slaves"?
    • Done
  • "$1,500,000 of property damage": is this figure in today's terms, or is it the amount they were worth at the time of the incident?
  • "march to the Mississippi River town to Helena": this seems a bit awkwardly worded
    • Corrected, the second "to" should have been an "of"
  • "a significant operating hub in the Vicksburg campaign" --> "a significant operating hub for the Union army in the Vicksburg campaign"?

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Saint Charles or St. Charles? This should be made consistent.
  • After the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, several southern states link southern to Southern United States.
    • Done
  • On May 19, a small Union force crossed the Arkansas to forage The linked article indicates the proper name is Little Red River, not the Arkansas. Is how it was referred to back then?
    • Good catch - link piping error. Corrected now
  • Fry ordered the remaining Union sailors aboard to surrender Perhaps "demanded that"; belligerents do not technically give military orders to their opponents.
    • Done

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Indy beetle: - All addressed, except for the Saint Charles/St. Charles, which I'm waiting on the RM for - Saint Charles is only now used in the infobox and title, will change the infobox once the title gets moved. Hog Farm Talk 04:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battlefield today" I think the use of such temporal terms like "today" is discouraged , this could be changed to "Battlefield" or "Battlefield site" but I don't have a strong opinion about it.
    • Done
  • The article on Mound City indicates that it was repaired and returned to service, could that info be included here?
    • Added, citing Christ 2012

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now satisfied the article meets A-class standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • NRHP - should be in brackets after first metion.
    • Added
  • On what basis are you including details of a source in "Refereneces" or in "Sources"?
    • Books and journal articles are going in sources, magazines (Barnhart & Hubbs) and web sources (Honnell & Kirk) are in references. Mainly because the format I accessed Barnhart and Hubbs in did not give me page numbers.
  • Shea - any chance of the page range of the chapter? Ditto for Shea & Hess (1998).
    • Done for both. The book the Shea chapter is in is back to the library, so I hope the Amazon preview of the table of contents is for the same edition.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2021 (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 CPA-5 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A brutal episode from a brutal war during a brutal period. War to the knife indeed. Sources scraped and, thanks to some relatively recent scholarship, there should be just about enough to warrant A class. You may differ, so go to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Gog, this isn't an area I know much about, but figured I'd give it a look anyway. I only have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest mentioning October in the lead to match the infobox
Done.
  • "Mathos in turn abandoned Tunis and withdrew south" --> "Despite having lifted the siege, Mathos in turn abandoned Tunis and withdrew south"?
Done.
  • "The Carthaginians frequently employed war elephants; North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 3]" --> suggest adding a citation beside this sentence, not just a note (even if it replicates the citation in the note) to make it clear from where it is sourced
Good spot. I am not sure how the cites went walkabout. Added.
  • compare note 1 and 4, is this the same person? If so, suggest making the presentation of the name the same and removing the link in Note 4
The presentation is the same[?] Note 4 link removed.
G'day, the issue was the way in which one instance linked the whole name while the other only linked the first part of the name; the inconsistency has been dealt with by removing the second link. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leiden ; Boston: Brill" --> remove the space before the semi colon
Done.
  • link parley
Done.
  • "Mathos let him go unmolested" --> do we know why?
I have one source which speculates about this and added it.
  • "The city was difficult to access as to its east was the sea while to the west was a large salt marsh" --> "The city was difficult to access. The sea lay to the east, while an approach from the west was hampered by a large salt marsh"?
Done.
  • "few supplies were getting through" --> "few supplies arrived"?
Done.
  • suggest mentioning in the opposing forces section that not all of the 20,000 were engaged, to match the infobox
That seems out of chronological order. I have instead made it clear at the point where I cover the attack.
Fair enough, although arguably an opposing forces section can introduce facts slightly out of chronological order, by way of analysis, so long as it doesn't rely to heavily on facts not yet in evidence and do so can sometimes make the battle narrative easier to follow, IMO. For instance, "X's force was 20,000, although ultimately not all of these men would be engaged in the ensuing battle". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AR and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will also take this up as a regular review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm assuming you'll take this to FAC, I'll do my best to give you the full FAC experience. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
[edit]
  • At the Siege of Tunis suggest During the Siege of Tunis
Done.
  • on Sicily suggest in Sicily
Done.
  • strongest remaining stronghold suggest sturdiest remaining stronghold (just generally don't like double usage of strong-related words, happy for other fixes)
  • the ten captured rebels suggest the ten captured rebel leaders, or else change the earlier at the Battle of the Saw, capturing its leaders to at the Battle of the Saw, capturing ten of its leaders, so we have it in context and understand that these ten people are important.
Done.
  • Despite having broken the siege, Mathos in turn abandoned Tunis and withdrew south suggest removing "in turn"
Done.
Background
[edit]
  • While the war with Rome was being played out, the Carthaginian general Hanno was leading a series... suggest During the war with Rome, the Carthaginian general Hanno led a series...
Changed "leading" to "led", but I want to convey that this was during the tail end of the war. I am open to suggestions.
Mutiny
[edit]
  • The Carthaginian army of 20,000 men on Sicily was evacuated to Carthage given the hop in the time frame, from the end of the war to during war and now back to end of the war, may be useful to insert something like After the signing of the treaty, the Carthaginian army of 20,000 men on Sicily was evacuated to Carthage.
Good point, rephrased.
Opposing armies
[edit]
Done.
Aftermath
[edit]
  • 25,000 men and a large number of war elephants, including every Carthaginian citizen of military age. suggest 25,000 men, including every Carthaginian citizen of military age, and a large number of war elephants.
Done.
Excellent stuff. Thanks Iazyges, all of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, no, I wasn't planning on taking this to FAC. Of the six field battles of the Truceless War, I reckon that that three, maybe four, have enough "meat" on the actual battle to support a FAC nomination. This is one which doesn't. (IMO) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax, and the tribute previously due from towns and cities was doubled" - is this only for new conquests, or were "core" Carthaginian territories subject to these increases as well
All. Added.
  • Is it known why Spendius and Mathos were proclaimed generals? Did they have any real or perceived special experience?
No, and no. One modern historian speculates that they floated to the top as the main rabble rousers and representatives of the most intransigent group. But there isn't consensus on this so I haven't included it.
  • "At some point between March and September 239 BC the previously loyal cities of Utica and Hippo slew their Carthaginian garrisons and joined the rebels" - is it known why?
That took a bit of research - always tricky to establish a negative. In brief, no.
  • I see that with the Carthaginians in the infobox, it notes that not all were engaged - shouldn't this be put for the rebels, as well, per "Although only a part of the rebel army participated, it surprised the Carthaginians and their northern camp was overrun"?
I am rubbish at checking infoboxes. Y'know, there has probably never been a battle where every participant was engaged, so I am removing the caveat.

That's it from me, excellent work here as usual. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, thanks for that. All addresssed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - pass
  • Licensing and other points look fine
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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another of the British Second World War second-line TA divisions. The 46th was sent to France in 1940 as a labour division, and ended up as a front-line unit in the final stages of the Battle of France. Thereafter, it was deployed to Tunisia and fought in several engagements; landed at Salerno and fought two campaigns in Italy; and deployed to Greece during the second stage of the Greek civil war. It returned to Italy in April 1945, too late to take part in the spring offensive. It then marched into Austria, became part of the British occupation force, and assisted in the forced repatriation of Cossacks to the Soviet Union. It was slowly stood down over the following two years, and disbanded when the TA was reformed on a smaller scale in 1947. The article has had the GoCE give it the once-over, and it has also passed its GA review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Quite enjoying this series on British divisions of World War II. A long way to go though. Comments:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Surprised this hasn't gotten more attention, will take a look soon. Hog Farm Talk 05:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Territorial Army in the lead
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June, the division took part in Exercise Conqueror, where it opposed an amphibious landing conducted by the United States 1st Infantry Division." - Recommend make it clearer that Exercise Conqueror would have been a training or show exercise, not a battle campaign
    Added in that it was a training exerciseEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again faced by the 26th Panzer Division" - The "again" seems weird, as this is the first time that the 26th Panzer Division seems to be directly named
    Looks like I may have confused myself with the earlier reference to the 16th Panzer. Just re-read through the cited pages, and it is the 26th and not the 16th. I have dropped the "again" part, and also added in mention of the German infantry division that the panzer division was supporting. Also went back and verified the earlier 16th wasn't supposed to be the 26th, just to be on the safe side.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a ref for note I
    Citation addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing looks fine

Anticipate supporting; good work here. Hog Farm Talk 04:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments, also sorry about my tardy response!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Background

  • to annexe the Sudetenland.: To me, annexe is being used as a verb here. Apparently in BrEng the verb is annex? (note, I'm not an expert in grammar, just want to make sure this is correct)
    I have lived to long in the US to be able to say what is and isn't a British variant anymore. But, I believe that you are quite correct. E droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 29 March, Secretary of State for War,: looks like an extra space after the number and unsure of whether title case is appropriate given prime minister and chancellor is lower case elsewhere.
    Removed the extra space, and dropped the capsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The War Office had envisioned that the duplicating process,: should that be duplication?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial service and transfer to France

Home defence

  • Major-General Desmond Anderson (previously general officer commanding (GOC)... the abbrev for GOC should used on first mention in formation section. It is also a dupe link here.
    Updated and extra link removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anderson was promoted to Lieutenant-General...: this should be lower case here as not being used as part of his title.
    Lower case used nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Lieutenant General Dwight D. Eisenhower.: I see no hyphen is used here in the rank but perhaps that is because it is an American rank?
    Correct. To the best of my knowledge, British ranks used hyphens all the way through to the 1990s, whereas the US ranks never used them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of this section discusses the proposed landings in North Africa - I feel that the early part is perhaps excessive detail for this article and could be trimmed a bit.
    I have cut down and reworded this para, hopefully didn't cut anything vitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian campaign

  • During September, drafts were brought in to replace the division's casualties.: because the previous sentence seems to refer to the 7th Armoured Division (mentioned in the sentence prior), probably should specify here that you are referring to the 46th.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant Gerard Norton earned the VC for his actions during this fighting.: a suggestion only, but perhaps mention his actions in light detail as a footnote?
    Brief overview addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major-General Stephen Weir, a New Zealand Army officer,...: strictly speaking he was a New Zealand Military Forces officer, as the New Zealand Army did not officially exist until later. Also, he was the only officer of a Dominion army to lead a British division during the Second World War. While probably excessive for the main body of the article, is that worth a footnote? The source for that fact is online (see his article, I expanded it a few years ago).
    Note addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captain John Brunt earned the VC: perhaps a footnote with some light detail of the action. Again, only a suggestion.
    Small addition made to give an outlineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do this. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources all look reliable for what they are citing
  • Does the Story of the 46th Division have an actual author?
    I have checked the OCLC, the IWM, and MLRS books that does reproductions of old out of print British histories. None of then mention who the author is, other than divisional staff. No author is mentioned in the version that I have, either. There are a couple of forwards, neither acknowledge who the author is. The last one, by Stephen Weir, stated "This little book ... has been produced by the Division about the Division and for the Division." That is about as close as we get to knowing who actually wrote it, unfortunately. I have seen several books from this period in the same situation, and after the fact someone has managed to figure out who the author is. However, that hasnt happened (to the best of my knowledge) for this work.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine; just wanted to check Hog Farm Talk 16:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

@EnigmaMcmxc: Sourcing and licencing for all images is spot-on, with the images all being PD. However, I have a question about a caption:

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Theodosius III

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Theodosius III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of my ongoing work to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I believe it meets the standards. I'm also hoping to get this one to FA at some point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's always good to see a fellow civil servant make good ;) I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first sentence of the 'Background' section is over-long and complex
     Done
  • Ditto the sentence starting with 'The success of these raids'
     Done
  • And the sentence starting with 'Anastasios led his armies'
     Done
  • And the sentence starting with 'Leo proclaimed himself'
     Done
  • "with hostilities again engaged" - the grammar is a bit off here
     Fixed
  • Note who the Opsicians were
    Elaborated that it was the troops of a province, rather than something special. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why Theodosius was picked as emperor by the troops? This seems very random!
    It is not impossible that they picked him entirely because he already had an imperial name, he had no friends in court, and he was there. I'll consult Bury and the other narrative-heavy sources to see what can be found. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it fair to say that nothing is known about Theodosius' life before this incident? If so, the article should state it.
    I'll try my best, but only the PLRE really had a habit of fessing up that they know nothing pre-reign, and they don't cover this far. The PBE may have something, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Identity' section feels out of place and is unclear, and should be integrated into the article better (this might help answer my above point)
     Done
  • The article feels a little bit thin, largely as it never really explains how a random tax collector ended up as the Byzantine Emperor. More information on who he was and the political background would be useful (e.g. presumably the Byzantine state was in a very bad way if the soldiers were able to get away with rebelling like this). Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D: I've added to the article to explain the general status of the empire (not great), as well as some more explanation of why he might have been chosen. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Not sure about this one. On the one hand, I can't find it on the internet before it was uploaded. On the other, the resolution and exif data suggests that it may not be the uploader's own work (and other of his uploads have been questioned on similar grounds). I've asked here for advice. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:, I would be happy to replace it with File:INC-2026-a Солид. Феодосий III Андрамитянин. Ок. 715—717 гг. (аверс).png, of similar quality, and with no copyright issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good solution. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Lille: Why do you not give details of the volume in which this work is a section?
  •  Fixed
  • Sumner: Why no identifier? (Possibly the ISSN is 0017-3916.)
  •  Fixed; I struggled to find the unique identifier for the article itself, but I suppose the ISSN for the journal works as well.
  • Two sources from the 19th century? Are they really necessary? If so, why?
  • They are useful for narrative building because they cover more; Brooks could theoretically be removed, but I don't particularly see the need to, he's a respected historian. Bury is also mainly useful for narrative of events, but also provides some information and opinions which others do not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a 19th century historian is not supported by modern sources makes me even less inclined to accept them. What make either of them reputable sources? (The sourcing standard for ACR is "reputable". That for FAC is HQ RS; assuming that you wish to take this there I fail to see how 120+ year sources are going to get over that bar other than in tightly constrained circumstances.)
Both of them are among the most respected in the field; J. B. Bury is one of the most prominent Byzantists of all time, a Regius professor of two different subjects, and chair of another. Brooks was a Fellow of the British Academy. In spite of age, they are still some of the highest quality sources available by terms of merits. Bury in particular is rarely directly mentioned except to disagree because his works are one of the most foundational in the field of Roman and Byzantine history. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From checking some newish books I own on Byzantine history, Bury is usually cited. For instance, Peter Heather references two of his works in his Rome Resurgent (2018) and Roger Crowley references the work cited here in his Constantinople: The Last Great Siege (2005). Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my Bury in particular is rarely directly mentioned except to disagree statement, since it doesn't really take my meaning across; Bury is often assumed to be God's given truth in the field of Byzantism. He is not always right, as a consequence of having fewer sources at his disposal, but the thousands of editions of his books (incidentally one could probably find a new one made at least every few years for the last century) usually note where he was wrong, and most authors take him as given and cite him, but mention him directly on the occasions he is wrong. Bury is the most up-to-date widely accepted long-scale narrative of Roman and Byzantine history. People largely haven't attempted one after him because it is unnecessary to do so. Kazhdan and the PLRE/PBE/PBW are the best dictionaries (alphabetical, rather than chronological), and Treadgold, Kaegi, Stratos, etc. have definitive period histories, but I can't think of another who attempted to write the entire history of them after Bury; and if they exist, they are nowhere near as accepted. It is worth noting that many of the things he was wrong about were only recently discovered; such as the propaganda against Phocas remaining largely unchallenged until 1989 by Olster, and only recently turning around in academia. For this reason, I am comfortable declaring Bury to be the gold standard in the chronological narrative history of Roman and Byzantine history, and as a chronological history, he gives more useful narrative elements which would be OR for to me insert otherwise. That Theodosius was probably chosen because he had the quiet respectability of a modern-day small-town doctor, an imperial name, and was easy to control as he had no allies, is something few would bother to mention in a way that I can cite without OR; after all, why bother? Bury already wrote it. Bury here is not cited for "hard facts", directly at least, most sources here probably draw at least indirectly from him, but for his narrative explanations not given by other books. I would also stand by Brooks as a source worthy of FAC, but I am comfortable removing him, as he is not needed in the same fashion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to accept Bury as an RS>. Is Brooks also cited by modern RSs? Obviously, not to the extent Bury is. Note my query above "If so, why?" (On this basis you seem to indicate that you may ley Brooks go.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've removed Brooks as a cite and moved him to further reading. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have responded. Thanks for taking a look. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "Theodosius led his troops to Chrysopolis and then Constantinople". What is the significance of Constantimople?
  •  Done
  • "Theodosius led his troops to Chrysopolis and then Constantinople, seizing the city in November 715, although Anastasios would not surrender until several months later, accepting exile into the monastery in return for safety." A busy sentence, consider splitting.
  •  Done
  • "Many themes refused to recognize". What are they?
  •  Done
  • "allied himself with the Umayyad Caliphate". What's that?
  •  Done
  • "and died at some point after." Most people do. What information is this supposed to convey?
  •  Done
  • "However, hostilities were resumed by Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (r. 685–695, 705–711), resulting in a string of Arab victories, and the loss of control over the Armenia and the Caucasian principalities for the Byzantines, as well as a gradual encroachment upon Byzantine borderlands." Another sentence which covers a lot of ground.
  •  Done
  • "Byzantine response to these raids became more scarce". I'm not sure that a response can become more scarce. Rephrase?
  •  Done
  • "Annually, generals from the Caliphate would launch raids into Byzantine territory ... who had prepared for a second assault". Is 'against Constantinople' missing? If not, "annual" raids and a "second" assault seem to contradict each other.
    Great catch, fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byzantine control in the Balkans and Greece." Redundancy - Greece is a part of the Balkans.
  •  Done
  • "preventing the emperors from growing stronger and preserving the status quo". This reads as if the nobles wished to prevent the emperors from preserving the status quo.
  •  Fixed
  • "period" and "this period" are used a lot. Any chance of a bit of variety?
  •  Done
  • "During this period, seven different emperors took the throne, including Justinian himself for a time." Another "this period" and the meaning of the second clause is not clear. Could it be rephrased.
  •  Done
  • "Emperor Anastasios II began making preparations to defend against this new onslaught, including sending the patrician and urban prefect, Daniel of Sinope, to spy on the Arabs, under the pretense of a diplomatic embassy, as well as shoring up the defences of Constantinople,[17][18][19] and strengthening the Byzantine Navy." Over-long sentence.
  •  Done
  • "Theophanes states (A.M. 6206)". The bit in brackets will mean nothing to virtually all readers. Either fully explain it or, my strong preference, lose it.
  •  Done
  • "had commanded the elements of the navy to gather". Delete "the elements of".
  •  Done
  • "it may also be modern Fenaket across Rhodes". What does "across" mean in this context? Is it USEngvar?
    Theoretically yes, although, in this case I just neglected to add "from"; should be "across from Rhodes". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "famed for its cedar forests". Delete.
  •  Done
  • Five cites for 10 words. ReallY?
    I've shifted it to a footnote, willing to take out some cited if you still view it as necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian J. B. Bury" → 'The historian J. B. Bury' to avoid a false title.
  •  Done
  • "he was selected haphazardly". Suggest 'he was selected at random'?
  •  Done
  • "it would mean that Theodosius had to have lived". Delete "had to have".
  •  Done
  • "However, Theodosius was allegedly unwilling". Delete "However".
  •  Done
  • "Theodosius instead led his fleet". Delete "instead" - already covered by "Rather than".
  •  Done
  • "Remove the cites at the end of "seize the city in November 715" as they are repeated at the end of the next sentence.
    "Ironic, isn't it..." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The accession of Theodosius, which Byzantine sources convey as being both unwilling and incapable, viewed as a puppet emperor of the troops of the Opsician theme, was not recognized as legitimate by many other themes, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs under their respective strategoi (generals) Leo the Isaurian and Artabasdos." Over-long sentence. And sort out the grammar. "which" refers to "The accession", an accession can't be "unwilling and incapable".
  •  Done
  • "and thought the confusion and weakening of the Byzantine Empire would make it easier to take Constantinople". Suggest 'and thought the confusion would weaken the Byzantine Empire and make it easier to take Constantinople'.
  •  Done
  • "a treaty with the Bulgarian Khan Tervel". Lower case k.
  •  Done
  • "to secure their support against an imminent Arab attack against the Byzantine Empire". Can "against" twice in six words be avoided? And delete "against the Byzantine Empire", readers will have worked that out by this point.
  •  Done
  • "who would be unlikely to battle their influence". What does this mean?
    I've changed it to "unlikely to politically weaken them" Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengthy quote from Joshua the Stylite, how do you square this with MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  •  Done
  • "He died at some point after he abdicated". Well, yes, is there not a more felicitous way of conveying this?
  •  Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • In 715, the Byzantine Navy and the troops of the Opsician Theme Since when has the navy of the Empire an upper case?
  •  Done
  • of the Opsician Theme revolted against Byzantine Emperor Anastasios II (r. 713–715) Is there an article about the revolt?
    Unfortunately, no. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many themes (Byzantine provinces) refused Little bit late to explain what themes are if there's Opsician Theme above? Maybe explain themes in that sentence instead of this one?
  •  Done
  • Opsician theme vs Opsician Theme?
    Theme is generally capitalized.
  • Bulgarians under Khan Tervel No reign?
  •  Done
  • capturing many officials, including Theodosius' son --> "capturing many officials, including Theodosius's son"?
  •  Done
  • Do we know who his son was?
    Very heavily disputed if he or is his son are the same person, so not firmly.
  • and died at some point after, possibly on 24 July 754 This sentence say totally something different than the infobox?
  •  Fixed
  • in the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674–678), the Arabs and Byzantines Unlink Arabs its too common to link.
  •  Done
  • I see a lot of "however"s. Maybe remove them?
  •  Done
  • Sulayman (r. 715–717) continued planning the campaign,[7][8][9][10] Per WP:CITEKILL maybe remove at least one citation?
  •  Done
  • The Slavs and Bulgarians also formed Maybe use Bulgars instead of Bulgarians since they're also Slavs?
  •  Done
  • (modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests.[5][10][21][22][23] WP:CITEKILL here.
    Moved some to footnote, kept three in body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theodosius, a tax collector, as Emperor Theodosius III.[5][10][21][22] Same as above.
  •  Done
  • city in November 715.[26][28][29][30] Anastasios remained at Nicaea for several months, before finally agreeing to abdicate and retire to a monastery.[26][28][29][30] Two WP:CITEKILL issues.
  •  Done
  • One of Theodosius' first acts as emperor --> "One of Theodosius's first acts as emperor"?
  •  Done
  • himself Byzantine emperor in the summer of 716.[32][33][34][35] WP:CITEKILL here.
  •  Done
  • negotiated a treaty with the Bulgarian Khan Tervel No reign?
  •  Done
  • and then marched to Chrysopolis.[26][32][40][41][42] After his son was captured, Theodosius, taking the advice of Patriarch Germanus and the Byzantine Senate, agreed to abdicate and recognize Leo as emperor.[26][32][40][41][42] WP:CITEKILL here
  •  Done
  • son to retire to a monastery as monks.[32][40][41][42] Same as above.
  •  Done
  • Little is known of his reign His son or Theodosius himself?
  •  Done
  • Can you translate Guilland and Lilie's titles?
  •  Done

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

[edit]

Will look at this one as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead uses the capitalization Opsician Theme, while Opsician theme appears in the body. Recommend sticking with one consistently
  •  Done
  • " more than the fact that already had an imperial name" - that he?
  •  Done
  • Lead ceding the Zagore region to the Bulgarians - body ceding the Zagore region to the Bulgarians - The links in these two passages go to different places
  •  Done
  • "After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus. He may have died on 24 July 754" - this looks the theory that he was son of Tiberius, which is previously stated to be considered unlikely be several historians
    Yeah, I was uncertain how to include this; it's the only person who has hazarded a guess on the date; I've added According to Sumner, before it, to clarify. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to tie these two things together a bit more? I'm a bit confused as to if it's consensus that he became bishop of Ephesus, or if he is only thought to have become bishop if he were the same person as the son of Tiberius. Hog Farm Talk 05:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's the same as Tiberius' son, as Sumner says, then he was the bishop, if not, there was an unrelated bishop named Theodosius who was the son of Tiberius. I'm not sure how to make this more clear in the text. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe move the "According to Sumner" to before "After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus"? Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Double checking Neil, it's actually more complicated. Neil does actually assert that Theodosius became the bishop of Ephesus, but is not necessarily the same person as the Bishop Theodosius of c. 729, who was definitely Tiberius' son. I've changed it to After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus. According to Sumner, he may have died on 24 July 754, if he is the same as the Theodosius, son of Tiberius, who was bishop of Ephesus in c. 729. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments on this one; good work here. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 21 October 2021 (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 Iazyges (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Although A-Class is completely constipated at the moment, and I already have three articles up for review, I am adding a fourth article. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports, the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good
  • The length of 12418 words would benefit from some splits or other length reduction.
  • Some sections such as "Organisation", "Antwerp", "Roads", and "Supplies" are extremely long, harming readability. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I hope to get to this over the next week. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand why this has to be split off from the other portions of the drive through Europe due to length reasons, but I'm struggling to figure out the exact boundaries of how this campaign is being defined. It looks like the end of the campaign is being defined as when they started preparing for Operation Veritable, but where it begins is not clear
    The lead says "in the Second World War operations from the end of the pursuit of the German armies from Normandy in mid-September 1944 until the end of January 1945." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find it a little odd that this is named for the Siegfried Line campaign when the Siegfried line is only mentioned once in the body, and in passing. It's just not always clear how the scope of the article is defined
    As I explained above, the campaign is what the American historians decided to call it. MacDonald's The Siegfried Line Campaign volume of the US Army official history covers Market Garden and the Scheldt, as well as Aachen and the Roer. I named the article after our infobox, which was created in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two American divisions had seaborne tail" - I like to think that I'm reasonably informed about military terms, but I have no idea what "seaborne tail" means here. Is there a way to rephrase/gloss?
    checkY Error. Should have been no seaborne tails. Provided a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link for LST two lines up from the second mention to the first
    checkY Moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two large cargo ships and 58 smaller vessels were sunk" - is through the end of the year or just in the 24 December attack mentioned in the previous sentence?
    checkY Added "between September 1944 and March 1945" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The price of a ton of coal at the pithead was 350 Belgian francs (equivalent to US$100 in 2020), but on the black market in Brussels it could fetch 5,000 francs (equivalent to US$1,700 in 2020)" - not sure about the rounding here - the former is a conversion rate of 3.5 francs/dollar, while the latter is roughly 2.9 francs/dollar. Shouldn't these conversions be closer to each other even with rounding?
    checkY By turning off the rounding on the first figure it becomes $118, which gives us a more comparable ratio. I was a bit iffy about this because in wartime there was no trade, so exchange rates were fixed under the Bretton Woods system How realistic that was for Belgium I don't know; Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Coal currently sells for USD $133 a ton. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No sooner was this resolved than the German Ardennes offensive interrupted the supply" - this is the Battle of the Bulge, right? If so, maybe a piped link?
    checkY Yes, it's sometimes called the Battle of the Bulge. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The War Office was therefore obliged to impose quotas on the armies in the field." - why didn't they just restore the prior levels of ammunition production? It seems like artillery ammunition would be a priority
    Britain was fully mobilised, so this could only have been achieved by corresponding cuts to the aircraft industry. See Postan, British War Production, pp. 347-355. You can read about the American experience in an upcoming article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the surplus Sherman Fireflies were issued to other units, further reducing the unit establishment of Shermans armed with the 75 mm gun" - this may just be a comprehension error, but how did sending the Fireflies elsewhere reduce the unit's establishment of 75 mm gun Shermans, because the Firefly wasn't armed with the 75mm gun
    Correct. The 29th Armoured Brigade was re-equipped with the new Comet tank. The Fireflies turned in were given to other units, where they replaced 75 mm Shermans. So British armoured units equipped with Shermans then had more Fireflies and fewer 75 mm Shermans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of November, the stocks at the RMA were reduced to 176,000 long tons (179,000 t). This included 45,000 long tons (46,000 t) of ammunition, 6,000 long tons (6,100 t) of supplies, 65,000 long tons (66,000 t) of ordnance stores and 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) of engineering stores" - I would have assumed that this was the same thing as the table, but the numbers don't match. And some are higher but the supplies seems to be lower, so it's not just one being a component of the other?
    The numbers don't match. Different sources. Deleted to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look reliable for what they are citing
  • It's a longer article, but I think the length is appropriate here.

Sorry this took so long to get to; was busier with work than expected. Hog Farm Talk 06:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hog Farm Talk 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I took a look at this article and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk)

Added my support now above. Nice work as always, Hawkeye. Thank you for continuing to produce articles that demonstrate the importance of logistics to successful combat operations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vami

[edit]

Market Garden awaits. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Market Garden to Ghent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • All sources are reliable, and cover the literature on this campaign well
  • Spot checks on how the primary sources (the 21st Army Group post-war reports) have been used in the article show that this usage is OK as it is limited to stating facts.
  • Spot checks of citations selected at random:
  • No issues with close paraphrasing with these spot checks. The text supported by ref 118 is similar to the book's text, but it would be tricky to use other phrasing given that this is a technical sentence.
  • Unlink the second link to L.F. Ellis in the references section
    Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a random and unrelated comment, the UK Government, IWM or someone else really needs to digitalise all of the British official history series. The UK seems to now be the only major western ally to not have its Second World War official history online, which is a shame as the quality of it is generally very good and ahead of most of those in the other countries. The breadth of topics covered is particularly valuable.

Overall, pass. Well done consulting such a large range of at times obscure or hard to access sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA

[edit]
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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Draft Eisenhower movement

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk)

Draft Eisenhower movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The article is about the Draft Eisenhower movement, which eventually persuaded General Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for the presidency in 1952. The famous campaign slogan "I Like Ike" was associated with this movement. The article passed its GA review, and I feel that it is comprehensive, but concise. Would appreciate any suggestions on prose and citations. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 – I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Do let me know if there are any other suggestions. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support. I've done a minor copyedit. Well done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

A nice, succinct article. I copyedited so let me know any concerns there -- overall I found prose and layout fine.

Query/suggestion -- Finishing the article with the nomination and presidential win is logical but I'm wondering if anything might be said in an 'aftermath' or 'legacy' section -- for instance do any sources discuss the impact on subsequent elections of this movement, or indeed on Ike's presidency?

I have now added a paragraph on Aftermath and legacy of the draft. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, I think that ties up the article quite well. One thing though: after being perused by various Republican leaders through another Draft movement, he agreed to run for the re-election -- my understanding of "perused" is essentially "looked at", which sounds a bit odd, do we mean "persuaded" or "encouraged"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a typo ... Replaced with "persuaded". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All licencing looks fine but I can't find the source for File:I like Ike (cropped).jpg.

Added the archived link. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Sources appear reliable, although I'd have thought we could find a better one than the Military Memorial Museum for its sole citation. Not saying anything wrong with it but doesn't exactly appear scholarly. Couldn't spot any obvious formatting errors.

Replaced the Military Memorial Museum citation with a better one.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose – I have made all the changes. Hope that addressed your comments. Thanks for copy editing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ian Rose – Just a courtesy ping that I had made the changes. Is the image/source review passed? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, happy with images and sourcing. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

[edit]

Will look at this one. Hog Farm Talk 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good; if this is going to FAC might recommend trying to borrow a copy of Pickett from a library, as it seems to be a significant work in the field. Hog Farm Talk 05:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm – Thanks a lot! Will see what I can do about that book. Rest, I have addressed all your concerns. Do let me know if there's anything else. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2021 (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 Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Siege of Guînes (1352)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Siege of Guînes (1352) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Part of the incessant fighting between the French and English after the Truce of Calais was agreed in 1347 and the cause of full-scale war breaking out again. Fresh from GAN and hopefully up to ACR. Let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
It seems that I can't run and I can't hide.
Lede
[edit]
  • after six years of uneasy and ill-kept truce suggest after six years of an uneasy and ill-kept truce
Done.
Background
[edit]
  • After nine years of inconclusive but expensive warfare, suggest After nine years of inconclusive but expensive warfare across France,; perhaps mention some of the regions if it is conducive.
Er. What about English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339 or the largest battle of the period, fought in Flanders, or the campaigning in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire?
  • The English turned to fight Philip's much larger army at the Battle of Crécy, perhaps change turned to manoeuvred
They didn't. They dug into a prepared position, let the French come at them and conspicuously didn't manoeuvre.
  • English possession would go a long way to securing Calais against more surprise assaults. suggest changing more to further
Done.
English attack
[edit]
  • who was back in France suggest who had returned to France
Done.
  • He ordered the English occupants to hand Guînes back suggest He therefore ordered the English occupants to hand Guînes back
Done.
French attack
[edit]
  • and positioned catapults and cannon there. while cannon can be an irregular plural, I think because the catapults directly before it is pluralized, using cannons might flow better.
Ok.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
[edit]
  • until recaptured by the French in 1558 suggest until it was recaptured by the French in 1558
Done.
Thanks Iazyges, helpful as ever. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by AustralianRupert – pass

[edit]

G'day, Gog, I trust you are well. I have a few minor comments by way of a source review, with one minor suggestion WRT the lead. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, suggest mentioning the months that the siege took place and when Guines had been captured by the English
Good point. Done.
  • there are no duplicate links, or dab links (no action required)
  • Wagner, John A. (2006g) -- Wagner 2006f?
Whoops. Fixed.
  • there is a minor inconsistency in the hyphenation of the ISBN for Jaques (compare with Kaeuper)
Fixed.
Please see my comment below; I think you self reverted your changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(re-)Done.
  • publisher for Ayloffe? (Worldcat doesn't list one, unfortunately)
Added.
G'day, can you please check this again -- I still can't see a publisher listed. I think you self reverted your changes, here: [6] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! old age is a terrible thing. If you get a choice, don't go for it. Fixed. Check it quick, before I have another fit of idiocy.
  • sources appear to be reliable based on author or publisher reputations and reviews (please note, I am limited to what I can find on Google only in a location that blocks some sites, so I may have missed something)
  • spotchecks not done (I was not able to access Kaeuper or Rogers from my connection, sorry)
  • ext links all appear to work (no action required)
Hi AR, Not so bad thanks. You still locked down where you are? Thanks for the review. Your comments responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon/morning AustralianRupert, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, just a couple of follow-ups above. Sorry for the delay -- I do not have reliable or secure internet here always. Lockdowns continue at home, but at the moment I am away for work. No lockdowns here, but they have other concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to harass you AustralianRupert, there is no rush. The two self-reverted edits, reinstated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, no worries. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Background

  • the French commander Geoffrey de Charny what was he the commander of?
Good point. An introductory sentence added.
  • In the background perhaps state explicitly that Raoul's ransom payment of Guînes did not proceed.
Done.

English attack

  • Perhaps seized the French-held town of Guînes. The text i have struck out seems unnecessary.
I have removed "French-held".

French attack

  • In the French attack section: Geoffrey de Charny was again put in charge of all French forces; the "again" implies there is antecedence for what de Charny was in command of. This may go towards my comment on de Charny in the background.
Yes. I think that the introduction of CHarny in the Background now allows a reader to make sense of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me, this is in pretty good order. Zawed (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawed and thanks for the review. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, am happy to support. Zawed (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "When the French approached on New Year's Day 1350 they were routed by this smaller force, with significant losses and all their leaders captured or killed" - Was this when Charny was captured?
Well, he was one of the French leaders. Expanded to "and all their leaders captured or killed; Charny was among the captured."
  • "By coincidence, the English parliament was scheduled to meet" - would it be better to link directly to Parliament of England and also, I thought Parliament was generally capitalized?
Link changed. I am not sure that I agree, but capitalised.
  • Sourcing looks good, and image licensing looks fine

As these are only minor quibbles, I am supporting. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, tweaked per your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Howdy, pards. Consensus has been reached to promote this article to A-Class, so it is now my pleasure to do so. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:06, 16 October 2021 (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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Final Offensive of 1981

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Pizzaking13 (talk)

Final Offensive of 1981 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Final Offensive of 1981 is the first offensive of the 12-year-long Salvadoran Civil War, which has had a significant impact on the politics and culture of the country since El Salvador had not had a long, drawn out civil conflict since the days of the civil wars of the Federal Republic of Central America in the 1820s and 1830s. The country has had plenty of civil and even international conflicts, such as the Football War, Barrios' War of Reunification, the Totoposte Wars, and the several coups and coup attempts the country has faced over its nearly 200 years of existence, but the civil war of 1979 to 1992 is the most infamous and defined essentially every Salvadorans' life.

The Final Offensive of 1981 was put on to be a final struggle against an oppressive government which violated the human rights of its citizens, which is the primary reason for its erroneous and ironic name, being the very first offensive of the war and not the last. The offensive was one of only three to involve a "typical" style of military warfare, with the other two being in 1982 and 1989. The failure to overthrow the government in January 1981 eventually lead to the guerrilla style of warfare that would be seen throughout the conflict which essentially dragged out the civil war longer than it should have.

The offensive is very important in Salvadoran history since it essentially "got the war going" in a sense, since before this point, the civil war was just disorganized far-left militant groups, far-right death squads, and the Revolutionary Government Junta fighting at random, while the offensive organized the leftist militants into the FMLN to oppose the government and the death squads, which would get the United States involved in the conflict. I believe that this article meets the Five Military History A-Class Criteria since it is properly cited with reliable sources, comprehensive and neutral, properly structured, written in clear and concise American English, and contains an appropriately licensed relevant image. (I tried searching for more, but I came up empty handed. I may consider creating a diagram showing the exact positions of the Salvadoran Army's units, but we'll see.) Pizzaking13 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR

[edit]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I don't have the subject matter expertise to look at content, so I looked a few of the more minor aspects. Overall, I think it is pretty good, but I think the prose could be tightened a bit throughout. I have provided a few examples below, but would suggest taking a look at the whole article for similar examples. I will try to come back once the below points have been addressed. Cheers: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there a link for this: one Sewart patrol craft?
    • I could only find Dabur-class patrol boat, but the page does not list El Salvador as a current or former user, and Bosch (page 23) just states "One Sewart patrol craft". Sewart Seacraft is also a red link.
  • the following terms are overlinked: United States, Gulf of Fonseca,
    • fixed
  • in the See also section, suggest making a stub for the General offensive of 1982 redlink or removing it per MOS:SEEALSO
    • Removed until I write it
  • General Offensive of 1982 --> General offensive of 1982 (for consistency of capitalisation)?
    • fixed, article was initially "Final Offensive of 1981" which is why it was inconsistent
  • same as above, Final Offensive of 1989 --> Final offensive of 1989?
    • fixed
  • suggest adding an OCLC for the Buckalew work: [7]
    • added
  • same as above for the Skipper work: [8]
    • added
  • "the Salvadoran government organized the national army's configuration and deployment structure in a manner to prepare and plan for counter-insurgent operations" --> "the Salvadoran government structured the army to plan and prepare for counter-insurgent operations"
    • changed
  • "By the time of the beginning of the offensive" --> "By the beginning of the offensive"?
    • changed
  • "The Salvadoran Air Force consisted of eight Dassault Ouragan and six": suggest splitting or flipping this sentence as it is a bit complex at the moment
    • Spilt between the planes used in the Football War and the ones which weren't
  • "By the end of the day, the FMLN captured" --> "By the end of the day, the FMLN had captured"?
    • changed, adding had would be correct
  • "conceded that the offensive did not spark" --> "conceded that the offensive had not sparked"
    • changed
  • "was machine gunned by guerrillas" --> suggest avoiding using a noun to create a verb --> "was was killed by guerrillas with machine guns"
    • fixed
  • "The army also discovered that the pilot of the Piper PA-23 was also a pilot for LANICA" --> " The army also discovered that the pilot of the Piper PA-23 was working for LANICA"
    • fixed
  • "The engagement killed three army soldiers and they learned that the pilots were sent": suggest clarifying who "they" is here
    • clarified to "the army"
  • "series of urban attacks on San Salvador" --> "series of attacks on urban San Salvador" or "series of attacks on the urban areas in San Salvador"?
    • changed to "series of attacks on the urban areas in San Salvador"
  • "The government totaled 122 deaths" --> "Government losses totaled 122 deaths..."?
    • Changed to "Government casualties totaled..."
  • "The FMLN would continue carrying out raids and attacks against government targets throughout the duration of the civil war" --> "The FMLN continued carrying out raids and attacks against government targets for the remainder of the civil war"?

G'day, sorry for the delayed return. Had a bit going on with work. I have taken another look at the article now. Your changes in response to the queries above look quite good to me. I have a few follow up queries, though, sorry: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "The objective of the January 1981 offensive was to initiate a popular revolution to overthrow the Revolutionary Government Junta, which had been ruling the country since the 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état, by 20 January 1981, the date Ronald Reagan would have been inaugurated as President of the United States." This is a very complex sentence. I would suggest maybe splitting it after "1979 Salvadoran coup d'état"
  • "the guerrillas began to be supplied with modern weaponry from Nicaragua" --> "the guerrillas began to receive modern weaponry from Nicaragua"?
    • Changed.
  • "On 15 January, military intelligence alleged that the FMLN would attack San Salvador's power grid that night, but no such attack occurred": did MI believe the attack would take place on 15 January, or was that the day that they came up with the assessment?
    • Both. I clarified that they made the assessment at noon and that the attack would take place at night.
  • "numbered around 13,000 to 20,000 soldiers" --> "numbered between 13,000 to 20,000 soldiers"?
    • Changed.
  • "Weapons supplied by third countries" --> "Weapons supplied by third parties" or "Weapons supplied by other countries"?
    • Changed to "Weapons supplied by third parties".
  • "Around 20,000 Salvadorans went on strike from twenty-six factories" --> "Around 20,000 Salvadorans from twenty-six factories went on strike"?
    • Changed.
  • "Reinforcement arrived to support" --> "Reinforcements arrived to support"
    • Fixed.
  • "Mena Sandoval ended his mutiny and returned to the 2nd Infantry Brigade, revealing that the FMLN was expecting the arrival of 800 soldiers from Nicaragua": did he face any punishment for his earlier mutiny and murder of Valdés?
    • It doesn't seem like it. No punishment was mentioned in my sources and he even became a deputy of the Legislative Assembly in 1994, so, I don't think so.
  • "presented evidence that one hundred FMLN fighters arrived to La Unión on boats from Nicaragua, of which fifty-three were killed in battle" --> "presented evidence that one hundred FMLN fighters had arrived at La Unión on boats from Nicaragua, of which fifty-three had been killed in battle"?
    • Changed.
  • "The engagement killed three army soldiers and the army learned that the pilots were sent to" --> "The engagement resulted in the deaths of three soldiers and the army learned that the pilots had been sent to..."
    • Changed.
  • "They believed that their actions against" --> "They had believed that their actions against"
    • Fixed.
  • "would mutiny like what occurred in Nicaragua" --> "would mutiny like what had occurred in Nicaragua"
    • Fixed.
  • in the Further reading section, suggest adding an OCLC number for the Haggerty work. It can be sourced here: [9]
    • Added.
  • for the External link, suggest adding the work and publisher to the entry
    • Added. "The "Final Offensive"" is the name of the work.
  • in the infobox, the result is listed as a strategic government victory but a tactical guerilla victory -- to an extent this seems a little counter-intuative so needs some clarification, I believe. In this regard, is this result spelt out clearly in the Aftermath? I'm not sure it is clear, but I have just come off a 24 hour shift so may have missed something (sorry) -- can you please check?
    • Pretty much, it's a strategic government victory in the regard that the government still existed after the offensive and didn't completely collapse, which was the objective of the FMLN, to overthrow the junta. This is stated in the first paragraph of the aftermath section. It's a tactical FMLN victory in the regard that they did capture 82 towns and villages (I moved that from second phase to aftermath) and that the FMLN didn't get completely evaporated by the government during the second phase of the final offensive. This is stated in the second paragraph of the aftermath section. And no worries about the delay, I myself have been exhausted after coming back from El Salvador on 5 July and I've been dealing with a cold because of the rain that drenched me on my last day there. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 03:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. For FAC, I think you will need to use the term "tactical" and "strategic" victory in the aftermath to make it clear it is the way it is described in a reliable source rather than your assessment of the outcome. Nevertheless, I have added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HF

[edit]

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the first six months of 1980, guerrillas committed 3,140 acts of violence, including arson, assassination, and destruction of infrastructure." - This is surely an estimate, right? Presumably, there's not gonna be a known quantity of guerilla violence. Might be worth including the source of the estimate, as different people and sources likely have different definitions of guerilla acts of violence
    • Bosch cites most of his information from retired USMC Colonel Ronald J. Cruz, so I'll cite him as the source of the estimate. In the acknowledgements section, Bosch states that Cruz gathered the information regarding the final offensive.
  • Worth noting why the various juntas were dissolved?
    • Added information.
  • Link the Green Cross
    • Linked, but it is a red link since the source states that it is a Salvadoran Green Cross, which has no page.
  • "During the attack, Lieutenant Ricardo Guillén Palma was killed by guerrillas with machine guns" - I feel like, given the overall number of casualties in this offensive, that an explanation as to the significance of this particular incident is needed
    • Added that he was one of the first government/military officials to be killed at night while driving, which kinda started the precedent of "don't drive at night in El Salvador"
  • Sources look reliable, and the licensing for the sole image looks fine

Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Interesting topic. A few comments from me:

Lead
  • suggest "The final offensive of 1981 (Spanish: ofensiva final de 1981), also known as the general offensive of 1981 (Spanish: ofensiva general de 1981), was the unsuccessful first military offensive conducted by the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) during the Salvadoran Civil War."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "The objective of the offensive was to initiate a popular revolution to overthrow the Revolutionary Government Junta, which had been ruling the country since the 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état. It was hoped that the overthrow would be achieved by 20 January 1981, the date Ronald Reagan was to be inaugurated as President of the United States."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "During the first phase of the offensive from 10 to 17 January, the FMLN carried out attacks across northern and western El Salvador, incited a general strike across the nation and a military mutiny in the second largest city, Santa Ana, and secured several important cities and villages."
    • I'm hesitant to change that since the Wikipedia pages of the populations Santa Ana and Soyapango are inconsistent with the largest cities template, and the websites of the cities don't mention their populations. I also don't know if Santa Ana was the second-largest city at the time of the offensive, since Soyapango.
Then I suggest "During the first phase of the offensive from 10 to 17 January, the FMLN carried out attacks across northern and western El Salvador, incited a general strike across the nation and a military mutiny in Santa Ana, and secured several important cities and villages." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion taken. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 05:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a source right now that did verify that Santa Ana was the second-largest city at the time so I added your original suggestion. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 06:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "During the second phase from 18 to 26 January, the FMLN began what they termed a "temporary tactical retreat", as government forces began to recapture previously lost territory. The offensive ended in a military defeat for the FMLN but it solidified the group as an effective fighting force."
    • Suggestion taken.
Infobox
  • did the FMLN really hold 82 cities and villages at the time the offensive ended? Given they were retreating it seems improbable.
    • I went through the source again, and the 82 cities and villages were captured by the end of the first phase, so I'll move that mention to the end of that section and remove it from the infobox. I can't find how many they held on to after the civil war, but all I know is they were mostly in Morazán and Chalatenango.
  • the results need to be supported in the body by citations to reliable sources that state what type of victory was achieved by each side
    • The only things I could find are the military saying it was "extremely proud" with how it preformed and the FMLN saying that the offensive didn't spark the uprising they wanted.
Yes, I think either "Government victory" or "Rebel defeat" is fine, results need to be cited to reliable sources, and we tend to avoid "strategic this, but tactical that". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guatemala's "support" for the junta isn't really supported in the body. Not allowing neighboring rebels to enter your country is hardly taking sides, it is just sensible.
    • Fair, I'll remove it.
  • The addition of the USSR as "supporting" the rebels also isn't really supported by the body. Cuba and Nicaragua both received arms from the USSR, them then passing the same weapons on to the rebels is hardly Soviet support.
    • Fair, I'll remove it.
  • the infobox says 195 wounded, but the body says injured.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • suggesting Revolutionary Government Junta (Spanish: Junta Revolucionaria de Gobierno, JRG)
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "ending 48 years of exclusively military dictatorship"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "one of the biggest threats to the JRG" and use JRG thereafter
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest replacing "The government noted that indicators such as guerrilla attacks in small numbers, guerrillas bearing nothing heavier than semiautomatic weapons, and attacking guerrillas refusing to hold on to captured territory implied that leftist groups in the country were carrying out "war of the flea" strategies and attacks" with "the government detected signs of a classic guerilla insurgency developing, with small attacks by leftist rebels using only light arms who did not hold the territory they captured."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • who is/was Colonel Ronald J. Cruz? ie place his claim in context, was he American or Venezuelan, what role did he have?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbat
  • suggest "In the 1970s, with the rise of left-wing militant groups in El Salvador and after the very brief Football War against Honduras in 1969, the Salvadoran government structured the army to plan and prepare for counter-insurgency operations. By the beginning of the offensive, the army was already on a counter-insurgency footing."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest summarising the orbat info as follows: "At the beginning of the offensive, the Salvadoran Army comprised three infantry brigades, seven frontier detachments, an artillery brigade and a cavalry regiment, along with several training centers. They were located as follows:" (then insert your list of units and locations)
    • Thank you, suggestion taken.
  • suggest "The Salvadoran Air Force was equipped with eight Dassault Ouragan jet fighter-bombers and six Fouga CM.170 Magister jet close air support/trainer aircraft purchased from Israel, which were originally used during the Football War against Honduras. It also had twelve French SOCATA Rallye trainers, three Israeli IAI Arava 201 STOL light utility transports, and two Douglas DC-6 and three Douglas C-47 Skytrain transports. The air force also possessed five Aérospatiale Alouette III and five Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama helicopters. Six Bell UH-1H helicopters were also leased from the United States. The Salvadoran Navy only possessed ten patrol boats, one Sewart patrol craft, and two harbor patrol craft, only one of which was fully operational. In total, the armed forces numbered between 13,000 to 20,000 personnel." Was it really a US Swift boat? Were any of the helicopters armed?
    • Suggestion taken. I couldn't find why i linked it to the patrol craft fast so that's been taken out. I know from footage of the war that the UH-1Hs were armed (although from after the offensive), but Bosch does not mention if any of the helicopters were armed.
  • suggest "Exact deployments of the FMLN are unknown, but the guerrillas numbered between 2,500 to 5,000 soldiers." A ratio of four to one in COIN is not at all decisive, and many of the government troops would have been in training centers or in support roles, so I suggest dropping the "outnumbered" bit.
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "rocket launcher" is a bit vague, as these are RPG-2 copies, I would use "Type 56 rocket-propelled grenade launchers"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • same with grenades, suggest "hand grenades"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive
  • suggest "On 9 January 1981, Duarte announced that the Salvadoran Armed Forces believed that guerrilla forces would begin an anticipated nationwide offensive and also stated that the military was ready to combat the offensive, which was expected to begin that day."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • drop "local time" and "on 10 January 1981", unneeded
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "the barracks of the 2nd Infantry Division in Santa Ana"?
    • Yes, added.
  • where was the HQ of the Treasury Police?
    • San Salvador, added.
  • is there a breakdown of the nationalities of the aircraft destroyed in the Battle of Ilopango Airport? This seems to have been a major success, and would have severely limited the close air support and tactical transport capabilities of the armed forces, assuming they were all airworthy and trained crews were available. Does any source make this point?
    • They were all Salvadoran. No idea how the USAF mention got in there, so it's been removed.
  • why has [¡Revolución o muerte, Venceremos!] been added to the translation of the broadcast?
    • I genuinely don't remember. Probably because it was a common saying and is still used by the FMLN if i recall correctly. I removed it.
  • "54 soldiers continued the mutiny and held the city under the banner of the FMLN" 54 soldiers against a brigade? Seems improbable.
    • Correction. The soldiers did continue the mutiny but they fled the city with Mena Sandoval, while the rest of the brigade returned to the barracks. I clarified that in the sentence.
  • suggest "after its main road connection to San Salvador was severed by the FMLN"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • what vehicles did the Cavalry Regiment operate?
    • Unspecified.
  • suggest "to defend the capital from a guerrilla assault" as the overall thing was an offensive
    • Suggestion taken.
  • Chinese rocket launchers→rocket-propelled grenades
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "was machinegunned and killed by guerrillas"
    • An early suggestion by AustralianRupert was ("was machine gunned by guerrillas" --> suggest avoiding using a noun to create a verb --> "was was killed by guerrillas with machine guns") so I'll keep it how it is.
  • 85%→85 percent per MOS:PERCENT
    • Thank you.
  • "which came under nighttime attacks from the FMLN"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • drop the link to Guatemala (country), this is called an MOS:EASTEREGG link, and is discouraged. Generally, countries shouldn't need to be linked, and I wouldn't link in these circumstances anyway
    • Ok.
  • the civil war link is also eastereggy, I'd link "its own civil war"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • say what the FDR was
    • Added.
  • suggest "were similar to those wfielded by"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "and the air force airlifted reinforcements and supplies to several isolated pockets in northern El Salvador and retrieved wounded from them."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "Salvadoran Navy by sending reports"
    • Suggestion taken. Should have been that in the first place.
  • suggest "the rape and murder of four American missionaries by members of the National Guard"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "military intelligence allegedwarned"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • where is the Golden Bridge?
  • suggest "they were the only other bridges"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • is there any breakdown between cities and villages captured? Saying "cities" makes is seem more significant than it probably was, the vast majority are likely to have been villages or small towns, surely? Esp given the small number of insurgents.
  • "renamed the "final offensive" as the "general offensive""
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "were engulfed in the fighting of the offensive"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "the FMLN used hit-and-run tactics, including burning buses in cities and stopping buses in the countryside and forcing passengers to join their ranks"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "Piper PA-23 light aircraft
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "sent infantry troops by a helicopter to capture the aircraft, supported by a Magister aircraft."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "which had crashed while being used"

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
  • suggest "would mutiny as had happened in Nicaragua two years earlier"
    • Suggestion taken.
  • suggest "the FMLN theorized that the thousands of killings committed by the Armed Forces and various death squads over the previous year had deprived the FMLN of allies that would have helped launch a popular revolution."
    • Suggestion taken.
  • "oligarch supporter" is introduced without explanation, what oligarchy are we talking about here?
    • Oh boy. The "oligarchy" is one of the thing of Salvadoran history I have no information on at all, and in like every source I see "oligarchy" thrown in and around. The only oligarchy I have any information on is the Fourteen Families of 1871–1921. Information on the oligarchy in the dictatorship? No idea.
  • "were another reason for the uprising's failure" - programs not singular
    • Thank you.
  • "The government arrested several politicians that were suspected of being involved in the offensive throughout 1981" actual involvement, or being sympathetic towards it or supporting it?
    • Actual involvement.
  • I think the García quote is WP:UNDUE, as it is essentially government propaganda. It would be better to use a summary or conclusion by an academic who has studied the offensive or civil war.
    • Removed and summarized.
  • "struck by rockets" same query as before. Are we talking about RPGs or artillery rockets using indirect fire?
  • "The FMLN subsequently claimed that the offensive was a military defeat but political victory..." Is there any independent view available in the reliable sources regarding this conclusion?
    • Not that I could find.
  • I think you are using AmEng, in which case I understand "combating" is the preferred spelling?
Sources, formatting etc
  • you've mixed sfn with ref tags, which isn't ideal but is ok as long as you treat different types of sources differently ie books one way, web cites another.
    • Ok. All the books use SFN while the web sources use their own ref.
  • a couple of formatting issues with citations. Firstly, Betancur et al. If you want the short citations to link to the full citation, then you need to change the short citation to {{sfn|Betancur|Figueredo Planchart|Buergenthal|1993|p=X}}. Similarly, you probably should acknowledge the co-authors of Buckalew in the short citation, which will then link to the full citation, by changing the short citation to {{sfn|Buckalew|Knowles|Waite|James|Laprevote|1998|p=X}} and the full citation from |author=Buckalew, James O., Knowles, Robert B., Waite, Laura, James, Maurice, Laprevote, Jim to |last1=Buckalew|first1=James O.|last2=Knowles|first2=Robert B.|last3=Waite|first3=Laura|last4=James|first4=Maurice|last5=Laprevote|first5=Jim
    • Thank you. I couldn't figure out how to get the sfn for Betancur et al to work.
  • you could add |ref=none to the Further reading full citations to stop the auto anchor error generates by the scripts many editors use (optional)
    • Added
  • add something to the link explaining what "Unfinished Sentences" is
    • Added
  • you could add |name-list-style=amp to insert an ampersand between the last two names of the multiple author sources
Overall

Ref errors

[edit]
  • Found by Ucucha/HarvErrors script & Citation Style 1 error messages; see also User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.
  • (unlinked) Betancur, Figueredo Planchart, and Buergenthal 1993, p. 27
    • Fixed.
  • Harv error: link from CITEREFBuckalew1998 doesn't point to any citation.
    • Fixed.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBetancurFigueredo_PlanchartBuergenthal1993.
    • Fixed.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuckalew,_James_O.,_Knowles,_Robert_B.,_Waite,_Laura,_James,_Maurice,_Laprevote,_Jim1998.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
    • Harv error: link from CITEREFBuckalew1998 doesn't point to any citation.
      • Fixed.
    • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBuckalew,_James_O.,_Knowles,_Robert_B.,_Waite,_Laura,_James,_Maurice,_Laprevote,_Jim1998. [CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list]
      • Fixed.
    • You can either format the citation and the sfn correctly (which I suggest), or you can fudge by adding ref=CITEREFBuckalew1998 to the citation. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Random, CPA-5, and Peacemaker67: There we go. Apologies for the delay. I've finally had the time and effort to get back to this. Replies should be quicker now. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 05:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lingzhi.Random, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi.Random seems to have retired, so I will pick up where they left off.

Source review - pass

[edit]

Note the comments above on formatting, all now satisfactorily resolved.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What is there from here on? Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 17:04, 9 October 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Uskok-class torpedo boat

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Uskok-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war.

Thanks buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • Despite one source suggesting she was restored to the Yugoslavs in 1945, it seems she was broken up by the Italians It seems according to who, and why does the that interpretation trump the alternative which says she was restored to Yugoslavia? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit confusing, Indy beetle. I've refactored. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but I still have questions. Does Brescia take the view that the ship was restored to Yugoslavia, or are they simply reporting that "one source" suggests that? Because if it is their own view I don't see why it would be a better or worse view than Freivogel's, in which case both hypotheses should be presented equally. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've not done enough to offer a fully valid support, but I can say no objections to promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I was disappointed to see that these ships only served with two navies, which seems like a poor record for Royal Yugoslav Navy vessels - no wonder the article states that they were under-performers! I have the following comments:

  • Not sure about the 'but's in the second and third sentences of the lead, especially the third
Second sentence - I think the first "but" is justified by the difference from the CMBs, got rid of the second as it wasn't right. Third sentence - changed to "and". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving and then using the names of the ships in the lead would make its second para much easier to follow - it's a bit heavy going.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Sorry, I was a bit vague here. I really meant the second para of the lead. Tweaking 'the first boat' to 'the former X' or something might be the easiest way around the confusing naming issues. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha Nick-D. Done. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the cradles aft" - "in the aft cradles" perhaps?
Not sure, there were no other cradles, and "aft cradles" seems to infer other cradles existed? Have added "of the cockpit" though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials" - can it be noted what these were? (a range of problems have been identified though)
I'd say the engine crew would have been the main source of complaints based on the sources, but they don't expand on the specifics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MAS 1 D was lost on 19 April 1942 in heavy seas near the island of Mljet after the rivets in her hull plating failed due to engine vibrations, and she sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull" - this is a bit over-complex. I'd suggest restructuring it as a couple of sentences. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've split it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D. See what you think of my changes? You can have a crack at your leisure now, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]

Will do this after Nick's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This surviving boat was broken up there after the war --> "The surviving boat was broken up there after the war"?
This has been fixed by other edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1926, the KM ordered two MTBs based on John I. Thornycroft & Company's existing class of 55 ft CMBs Is this an English unit? If so a conversation is needed.
What do you mean? CMB or ft?
  • I meant the ft part.
Right, but 55 ft is already converted above, ie "Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced..." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boats were 18.3 metres (60 ft) Overlink here.
I've linked metres and feet earlier and abbr later. Does this work for you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question here. If I'm not wrong shouldn't common units of measurement not be linked because everyone knows at least one of them per MOS:OVERLINK?
OK, removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • then pushed over the stern by a 3 m (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod Compound adjective here.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and close defence purposes, one twin .303-inch (7.7 mm) Lewis machine gun --> "and close defence purposes, one twin 0.303-inch (7.7 mm) Lewis machine gun"?
Re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • standing for Motosilurante (English: Torpedo Boat) in July 1942,[13][2] Re-order the refs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite one source suggesting she was restored to the Yugoslavs in 1945 Do we know what or from whom the source was?
This has now been fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe standardise the ISBNs?
That is actually against WP:ISBN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really that's something new to me.

Infobox

  • "Displacement: 15 tonnes (14.8 long tons) (standard)" Link "standard".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Length: 18.3 metres (60 ft) (oa)" Unlink "metres".
It is the first mention in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link shafts.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5! A couple of queries above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see what you think CPA-5. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I haven't done much A-class reviewing for awhile. Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - prose is excellent, the article appears comprehensive, the image is appropriately licensed, and the sources all appear okay. I just have one question: is it really the best phrasing to say that the ship's crew sailed it when the vessel was incapable of sailing? Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "sailing" is also used in the context of motor ships, see [10]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by AustralianRupert – Pass

[edit]

G'day, PM, hope you are well. This is not a full review, I just had a look at sources based on the request posted on the main talk page. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All citations appear to be consistently formatted, although for the Niehorster website, I'd suggest adding "work=World War II Armed Forces: Orders of Battle and Organizations".
I've actually dropped Niehorster, as I've used Freivogel for that citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London, England" -- is this necessary? I'd probably drop "England" here, but it isn't a major issue
I prefer to be consistent, as that seems to come up more than the comment that everyone knows where London is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spot checked citation 12 (as it was the only one I could access) and it appears to support what it is listed against, although the names and ranks are slightly different. (Both skippers are listed as Lts not Lt Cmdrs where the article implies the opposite, I think) and the source lists Brandislav Popovit instead of Branislav Popovic (this, of course could be an acceptable spelling variation but I don't know enough about the area to confirm myself). Can you please check these minor inconsistencies, or clarify them here?
I've used Freivogel in preference, and he is more specific and uses these spellings. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ISBN for the Freivogel might need checking - when I looked on worldcat, it seemed to return an error: [11]
That is the ISBN in the front of the book. There may be some confusion caused by there being a Volume 2 in the offing and a separate ISBN for each volume and the whole two volume set? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources listed seem to be reliable based on author reputation or publishers; I was a little unsure about Freivogel who seems to be a medical doctor (?), but his work seems to have received positive reviews from reliable sources [12] and he seems quite prolific in the area, so is likely ok, IMO. I am not an expert in this field, though, and I am limited only to Google searches for reviews.
He's previously been published by reliable publishers on Yugoslav (and Austro-Hungarian) warships, including in the journal Warship International. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day AustralianRupert, I'm good thanks mate. Stay safe wherever you are. I think I'm done here, see what you think of my responses/edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, PM, no worries, happy with your responses. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, this one already has enough to pass, if you want to keep your powder dry for the FAC, that would be ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks, will do! Pendright (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Alan Deere

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Alan Deere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Al Deere was probably the best known of the New Zealand flying aces of the Second World War due to his successes during the Battles of France and Britain, but also to his numerous close calls. I think he is a particularly interesting individual and I have enjoyed working up the article into its present state. It went through the GA process last May and I have since come back and made some revisions. As always, my thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide comments and feedback. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

[edit]

I've begun my habitual copyedit and gotten up to the end of the Battle of Britain. Looks good, as expected -- at this stage I have one general comment and one specific:

  • I think there's a bit of fat that could be trimmed but I'd like to complete my general copyedit first, and also see if anyone else feels the same, before we look further at that.
  • Re. "in the hands of a good pilot was a tough nut to crack. Initially, it was faster in the dive, but slower in the climb; the Spitfire could out-turn but it was at a disadvantage in manoeuvres that entailed negative G forces [sic] -- I might be missing something but not sure why the [sic] is required...
  • Hmm, while lower-case "g" is correct I don't think the cap is a real prob in the quote. Since the "sic" made me go "Uh?" rather than the "G", you can guess my opinion! I suppose you could leave and see what others think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, completed my copyedit, trimming a bit but not taking a meat cleaver to it. Having checked image licences and with Nick's source review saving me some trouble, happy to support.
  • Just a suggestion re. sources: some interesting snippets about Deere in Stephen Bungay's Battle of Britain history, The Most Dangerous Enemy -- obviously I don't want to add much more detail to the article, and there are many BoB books you could mine, this just happens to be a choice account that I have handy. If interested I could tell you more or just go ahead and edit in and see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ian, thanks for the support and CE. I have a copy of Bungay, acquired after going through the GA process for this article. I'll pull it out and see what I can do. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • I don't think "Leader" needs to be capitalised in the headings. (MOS:HEADINGS)
  • Comma before fns 74, 102 (in later life), 103, 108 (scraping the barrel here)
  • Any idea when he was promoted to wing commander?
  • It will have been when he became wing leader at Biggin Hill in March 1943. However, the main source doesn't explicitly state that, it simply switches to referring to him as wing commander part way through the section dealing that period of the war. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the several New Zealanders who achieved the status of a fighter ace" Any idea how many there was?
  • There were quite a surprising number but I would prefer to not get into the exact amount as it will probably vary depending on how victories are tallied. Plus I don't have a source that tallies the exact number! Zawed (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time he had been promoted to air commodore" Could we have the exact date? (avoiding by then... by this time)
  • " In his later years, he suffered from cancer" Any idea what sort?
  • Consider adding Nine Lives to the Further reading list.

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hawkeye, much appreciated. Zawed (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Looks good:

  • All sources are reliable
  • There's a heavy reliance on Al Deere: Wartime Fighter Pilot, but this seems OK as it looks to be the only full-length book on this person.
  • Spot checks:
    • Ref 80 (Thompson 1956, p. 174) - checks out
    • Ref 120 ("No. 43369". The London Gazette (Supplement). 26 June 1964. p. 5643.) - checks out
    • Ref 129 ( Moroney, Roger (5 January 2014). "Spitfire roars back into life". Hawke's Bay Today) - checks out
  • No issues with close paraphrasing with these spot checks. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images Crown Copyright or, in one case each, CC0 and a user's own work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, great work as always. Just a few minor nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • infobox says service year 1937-1967, but the lead indicates he joined the RAF in 1938. This seems inconsistent.
  • "a worker with the New Zealand Railways" --> "a New Zealand Railways worker"?
  • "he represented Wanganui at the New Zealand Boxing Championship": do we know where he placed in this competition?
  • No, unfortunately I don't and can't get access to Smith, the main source, at the moment because of being in lockdown. My other sources don't how he placed but I think they would mention it if he had done particularly well. Zawed (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flying convoy patrols" --> "flying convoy escort patrols"?
  • "although with his Spitfire badly damaged with its engine on fire" --> "although his Spitfire was badly damaged with its engine on fire"?
  • "in an incidence of friendly fire" --> move the link to the first mention of friendly fire
  • "rank of flight lieutenant" --> already linked earlier
  • "his biographer considers" --> suggest naming this author in text
AustralianRupert, thanks for taking a look at this one. Hope life is treating you and yours well over there. Zawed (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, thanks for your tweaks, I have added my support now. Everyone back home is well, thanks. Hoping to see them soon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sasaki Tōichi

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RGloucester (talk)

Sasaki Tōichi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review, following its successful GA review. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle and Hawkeye7: I admit to not being familiar with the procedure here, but some time has passed since I've received any comments here. Is there anything I should do to solicit further participation, or I am intended to simply wait an indeterminate amount of time? I don't mind either way, of course, just curious. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I regret that the A-class review process has gotten unacceptably slow. Another reviewer is required. I'm alerting the coordinators, and perhaps one will step up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

A very impressive work. I'm especially impressed by the fact that it is far superior to its Japanese counterpart. Now that it is in English, it may get translated into other languages. I know how hard it is writing articles from foreign language sources. The article easily meets the A-class criteria, so I have little to say:

  • I'm a little confused by the page numbering in Tobe (2016)
  • Can we have the English book titles in title case?
  • The lead says that he was a prolific writer, but his writings are not further mentioned, just a little down the bottom. Anything about them and their reception? (Title translation would also be nice.)
  • I altered the ISBNs to give them a consistent formatting. There's no consensus on a particular format.
  • Am I correct in inferring that he was never tried for war crimes?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.
  • With regard to Tobe, I only have access to a Kindle version that lacks page numbers. I searched around for guidance on this matter, and came to the conclusion that providing section headings with the loc= parameter was the best possible way to provide citations. Japanese books tend to have many more headings than English ones, so it works out all right, even if it is a bit clumsy.
  • Done.
  • I will work on title translations for the list of works. Sadly, the sources I have do not say much about his writings specifically, other than that reception to his pro-KMT stance in the 20s was frosty (which is in the article). The other thing that is mentioned is that his journals (very frank and detailed, by any standard) are often cited in accounts of the Nanjing massacre, but sadly, I don't have a 'definitive' source that says this, so I left it out of the article.
  • Thanks for that.
  • Tobe says that he was 'captured for war crimes', and of course, he was put in a facility for 'war criminals'. However, there is no obvious record of what legal proceedings occurred during his time in Chinese communist custody. Perhaps someone with Chinese knowledge might be able to find something out, but Tobe doesn't say anything about the specific charges levied or anything like that. The only thing I was able to dig up on this subject was a Chinese book translated into Japanese (seemingly a type of propaganda), which I am reluctant to use. It does not say anything about legal proceedings, but recounts his involvement in Nanjing, citing his journal as evidence. I think we can fairly state that his involvement in Nanjing did amount to war crimes, and that this is likely the reason the Chinese put him in the relevant facility, but, sadly, I do not have a source that says this specifically. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Fushun War Criminals Management Centre say that there were trials in 1956; but Sasaki died in 1955. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I've just added an additional quote from Sasaki's journal to the Nanjing section. Generally, I am reluctant to use this, as it is a primary source, and have purposely avoided injecting my own translations, but this particular quote seems useful to explain Sasaki's feelings on the matter. Obviously, I will not place my OR into the article, but if I can be so bold as to state my analysis here, it seems as if the destruction of Nanjing was in some way a cathartic destruction of Sasaki's youthful dream of a modern China under KMT rule, a dream that had betrayed him. Do you think my placement of the additional block quote makes sense, and is appropriate? RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The heavy reliance on his memoirs is cause for some concern. I think this is mostly handled well, but for the sentence Sasaki received praise for his orchestration of negotiations with revolutionaries in the area a secondary source would be necessary.
  • His planned use of soldiers to provoke anti-European movements throughout South East Asia seems worthy of mention [13].
  • Is there a secondary source for his "major works"?
  • He was a prolific writer, and left detailed accounts of his experiences in China. This can be inferred, but without secondary source affirmation I don't see why this belongs in the lede. Perhaps include something from this?

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.
  • I am not sure that there is a heavy reliance on his memoirs. There is a heavy reliance on Tobe, I admit. I tried to only use his memoir in places where the information was unlikely to be contested, such as biographical details about his early life. I can remove or rephrase the sentence you mention, but I don't have obvious access to a secondary source.
  • A list appears in Tobe, so certainly I could use that as a source. However, I came to the conclusion that this was not necessary, as numerous FAs have lists of works without citations. If the 'major' is the problem, that can be removed, and perhaps a full list inserted.
  • I've just added this in now.
  • Well, the fact that he is wrote a lot is relevant, for if he did not, we'd know nothing about him. In Japan, is well known precisely because of his writings. But, I agree, as I said above, I don't have a specific source that says as much. I can change it to say something like 'he left a large body of writings' per the source you linked. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address your concerns. Do let me know if the changes were satisfactory, at your convenience. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I forgot to ping you, but how does it look @Indy beetle:? RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Might be a couple days, but I'll look at this. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • When was he transferred to the 71st Regiment?
  • I'd recommend adding a bit to the lead about the Jinan incident and how it changed his views on the KMT and China
  • The transition into the Second Sino-Japanese war material is rather abrupt. I think some sort of brief context ought to be added to clarify what was going on and how Sasaki transitioned from leaving Manchuria to leading a unit in Nanjing
  • note when the Battle of Nanjing occurred in the text
  • Was he ever charged for war crimes for the Nanjing incidents, especially since he was held in a facility titled for war criminals?

That's my first batch of comments. Hog Farm Talk 22:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am on holiday, so it will be a bit before I am able to respond. Feel free to comment further, as well. I will respond to everything when I get home. On your last point, please see my response to Hawkeye, above. RGloucester — ☎ 12:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've attempted to address your concerns. On your first point, having failed to verify the exact date of the switch in regiments (and having doubts about using a vague primary source in this case), I shifted to indicating the 5th Division only (both regiments belonged to the 5th Division), which is verified by the secondary source Tobe. On your third point, I added additional material clarifying Sasaki's departure from Manchuria and his arrival in the Nanjing/Shanghai area. On your last point, as I said above, please see the comments I made in response to Hawkeye. It isn't clear that he was ever charged with any crime, but as Hawkeye mentioned above, trials at the facility were not held until after Sasaki had died. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • 'Kotobank: 20th Century Japanese Biographical Dictionary' needs publisher details
Done. I've changed the citation to only refer to Kotobank, as well. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes 'A Place Where Japanese War Criminals are Reborn: China's War Criminals Discipline Bureau in Fushon, Liaoning Province' a reliable source? I'm sceptical about a work with such title that was published in China.
This is most likely not a reliable source generally (it's mostly propaganda), but I believe it is reliable for the specific details of the transfer of Sasaki to the War Criminals Management Centre, which is the only thing it is used for. See what I wrote above on this subject. This was only added in in response to a comment above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Chinese anti-Japan propaganda works can be assumed to be factually reliable on any details. This literature is notorious for its unreliability. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'm happy to remove it if you think as much. The only thing it uniquely provides is the specific date of Sasaki's transfer to the facility, which can be omitted otherwise. I do think, however, that records of those kinds are unlikely to be manipulated for propaganda reasons. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other sources look reliable and appropriate
  • Replace the Google Books link to 'The Northern Expedition: China's National Revolution of 1926–1928' with the full text on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv9zck3k
Done. I didn't know it was available open access! Truly a great book, and available free to all. A marvel! RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the Worldcat links for 'Park Chung Hee and Modern Korea: the Roots of Militarism 1866-1945', 'Nanjing 1937 : Battle for a Doomed City' and 'The 1937-1938 Nanjing Atrocities' given that they do not contain any content
Done, though I admit that I find these links useful when browsing Wikipedia myself... RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checks of both sources I have access to:
    • Ref 34 (Jordan 1976) - I can't see where this material or the quote appears on that page, or anywhere in the chapter in the JSTOR version. Please confirm the page number.
I have added in the correct page number as per your version of the book. It also seems like I carelessly forgot to split up the sentence as appropriate. I have now added in the relevant reference for the second part of it, Wilbur 1983. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this (and something I've been pleasantly surprised by during recent Wikipedia editing in by city's current lockdown is that lots of academic-style books are now online). However, the source here says that Sasaki was "was saved from being robbed and beaten to death", while the article says that he was robbed of all his possessions. I'm happy to go with what a more recent specialist work says, but could you please double check this. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you want me to check. He was indeed beaten and robbed, and then saved, which is what the article says. I don't see any contradiction between the two sources. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan 1976 says he wasn't robbed. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not how I read the relevant sentence in Jordan. He was robbed and nearly beaten to death, and only saved by the intervention of one of Chiang's officers. This is what both Tobe and Jordan say, and this is also consistent with Sasaki's memoir. Of course, at the point that he was saved the relevant effects were presumably returned to him, but there is no doubt that they were taken in the first place. RGloucester — ☎ 12:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference, the relevant sentence (about the robbing) in Tobe is: '鉄拳が佐々木の顔や頭に降り注ぎ、 ポケットは切り裂かれ所持品はすべて奪われた'. You can put it into Google Translate, or if you prefer, my abridged translation would be 'Tekken (something like brass knuckles) rained down on Sasaki's face and head, and all of his belongings were stolen from his pockets, which had been ripped to shreds'. The iron rod comes later. RGloucester — ☎ 12:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-checked Jordan, and the sentence reads "Colonel Sasaki, was saved from being robbed and beaten to death only by the intervention of a staff officer from Chiang’s headquarters", so it obviously contradicts the other source, which says he was robbed. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not see how this sentence contradicts Tobe. ‘He was saved from being robbed and beaten to death’ does not mean that the robbing and the beating did not happen. It simply means that the officer’s intervention at the last moment prevented the events from going over the precipice, which is true. The beating and the robbing were stopped while in progress, and Sasaki was saved. Perhaps we need a third opinion, but as far as I’m concerned linguistically this sentence in Jordan does not imply what you say it does, and review of other sources clearly confirms this. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will see that Jordan cites the South China Morning Post for this sentence. While I cannot find that specific article in the databases I have access to, similar newspapers articles are easily accessible, such as this one from The China Press (a Shanghai-based English newspaper, of a similar type to the SCMP). It specifically says that he was 'robbed of his possessions', among other things, before Chiang's officer saved him. Of course, I do not suggest putting a primary source in the article, but it is just another example of the fact that the story is consistent across all sources, Jordan included. In fact, the first source I read on this matter was Jordan...it was through reading Jordan that I became curious about who this Sasaki was! And indeed, from the first time I read Jordan, it was clear to me that he was robbed, beaten, and then saved at the last minute. I don't know how this sentence can be read any other way. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 54 (Fujiwara 2007) - checks out
  • Why aren't page numbers provided for any of the many references to Tobe 2016? Could you please also clarify what the text in these references signifies? I note that the ISBN for this reference is for a print edition, so page numbers should be doable?
While I don't want to be rude, I would have appreciated it if you would have taken the time to read what I've written above before commenting here. With regard to Tobe, I have used a Kindle version that does not have page numbers. If there is a separate ISBN, I do not know where it is. It is not listed in the book itself. You can see where I purchased it here. I have used section headings in lieu of page numbers with the loc= parameter, which seems to be the standard approach in cases such as these. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with snarky comments. I donated my time to provide a source review to help finish this review off. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do beg your pardon if I came off as 'snarky', I simply think that, in future, it would be more considerate to the nominator if you would read comments/responses made prior to your own commenting, to avoid duplication. Such would save both parties a good deal of time! RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: If you go to the Amazon page you linked, and click on the paperback version button, the isbn10 and isbn13 of the paperback is displayed. [14]. The use of the |at= parameter for the Kindle version is indeed the usual practice. See Template talk:Cite book/Archive 10#Citing an e-book Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the paperback ISBN is what I used. I was referring to the above comment that the 'ISBN for this reference is for a print edition'. As far as I can tell, there is no separate ISBN for the Kindle edition. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Please see my comment above regarding the checks. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: See above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how I was being ‘rude’. I issued a new ping, and there was no response. Why do you continue to be so hostile? RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It is getting to the point where I will be forced to withdraw this nomination. I do not see how I can proceed. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the lack of page citations go, you can use the loc= parameter instead of p= in the sfn template and fill it in with the subheadings or chapter titles under which you found each bit of information. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: That was already done before the review even started. The primary problem at the moment is a disagreement over the meaning of a sentence in one source, which Nick-D argues contradicts a source cited in the article. Unfortunately, attempts to resolve this situation have been met with silence, and appeals for a third opinion have fallen on deaf ears. Provided that this disagreement cannot be resolved, I do not see how this review can proceed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the wording about him being robbed? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present wording is fine as per what the sources laid out above demonstrate; his belongings were taken but he was saved from being basically lynched at the intervention of another officer. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my reading, as I've explained above. I would appreciate it if Nick-D would reconsider the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, Hawkeye7, and Hog Farm: Your opinions, please. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As this (in part) involves a translation matter with a language I don't speak, I don't feel comfortable providing input here. Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are not addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: For my benefit, could you restate which points need addressing? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction between sources on whether the subject of the article was robbed or not. I should note that I'm not opposed to the article being promoted here given that the issue isn't large. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm and Indy beetle: To clarify further, this is not a matter of translation, so your opinion would be greatly appreciated, Hog Farm. The sentence in question is in English, from an English source (Jordan 1976): 'Colonel Sasaki, was saved from being robbed and beaten to death only by the intervention of a staff officer from Chiang’s headquarters'. Nick-D reads this sentence as meaning that Sasaki was not robbed, contradicting Tobe. I, on the other hand, read this as being exactly in line with Tobe: Sasaki was beaten and robbed, only to be saved at the last moment by one of Chiang Kai-shek's officers. Notably, Jordan cites a contemporary newspaper account from the SCMP as supporting this sentence. Whilst I could not get access to that specific article, I found a similar article in The China Press, which contains an account of the events in Jinan from the Reuters wire. You can find the link to that above. This account lines up with Tobe, and my reading of Jordan. I find it very hard to believe that the Jordan sentence, as written, implies anything other than that Sasaki was robbed and was beaten, only to be saved. The question is, how do you two read this sentence? Do you think there is a contradiction? RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • Replace "px" fixed sizes with '|upright='.
  • Suggest adding alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your comments. I have fixed the first point, but I don't know what 'alt text' means. I'd appreciate if you could clarify. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey RGloucester 'alt text' is an explaining text about the image or figure for people who have poor eyesight who cannot see the picture. The average reader will not see the text because you need software that has the key to open this door. I hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) MOS:ALT, shout again if this isn't clear. For an example of it in practice, see my current FAC Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652); look at the code for the second image and note "|alt=An oil painting of Charles I, depicted as a bearded, long-haired man in armour riding a white horse" etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted this per the information you provided. Please do check to make sure what I've done is adequate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is intended for visually impaired users using screen readers. They will have access tot he image captions and the alt text should supplement this rather than duplicate it. I have tweaked your wording accordingly, but feel free to revert, edit or improve it or to query me.
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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Sportpalast

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Sportpalast was an unsuccessful German attack on two Allied Arctic convoys in March 1942, and the first of the convoy battles in this theatre of World War II. The German battleship Tirpitz was dispatched from Norway with three destroyers, but was unable to locate either convoy. While the British Home Fleet was guided by signals intelligence, due to bad luck and some blunders it was unable to make contact with the German ships until they had almost reached the shelter of a Norwegian port. A strike from the British aircraft carrier failed due to the woeful inadequacy of the aircraft and bad tactics by their commander.

This article marks a return to my interest in writing about the Tirpitz, and working on it has helped to keep me entertained during a COVID-19 lockdown. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-August, and has since been expanded and improved. I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met, but would be grateful for any comments regarding areas for improvement. Thank you in advance for your reviews. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]

Will continue when this is addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Operation Sportpalast (German: "Sports Palace") was a German naval Unlink German too common to keep it linked.
  • against Allied convoys in the Atlantic Ocean during early 1941 Unlink the Atlantic Ocean too common to keep it linked.
  • with only a single Allied merchant ship and a destroyer sailing Which destroyer?
  • something which the German dictator Adolf Hitler wrongly --> "something which the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler wrongly" is his official title.
    • He's not often referred to as such though (especially by this stage of his career, by which time his official titles bore little resemblance to his actual powers) - 'dictator', 'leader', etc, is more common. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well never really been a fan of using words like 'dictator', 'leader' etc on Wikipedia because it's mostly used in both a positive or negative biased way (depending on the word of course). While the most popular official title is more neutrally than these words. But meh that's of course a personal view.

Will do the rest tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks good. Some comments:

  • "The loss of Bismarck left her sister ship, Tirpitz, as Germany's only remaining large battleship." Little confused here. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were small battleships? (Small isn't usually an adjective associated with battleship.)
  • "defend the area from an Allied invasion, something which the German leader Adolf Hitler wrongly believed the Allies intended." He wasn't wrong though; see Operation Jupiter (Norway).
  • Were there any survivors of the Izhora?
  • "Both were equipped with the Fairey Albacore. 817 Squadron had nine Albacores and 832 Squadron twelve. These biplanes were approaching obsolescence" "Obsolescent" means outdated but still capable of service. "Obsolete" means no longer capable. The Albacore was definitely obsolescent; it was verging on obselete.
  • "The aircraft carrier HMS Victorious, with an escort of a heavy cruiser and four destroyers" Do we know what ships they were?
    • The heavy cruiser was HMS Berwick, which I've named, but the destroyers aren't identified (and I'm generally trying to not name British destroyers in this article as there were lots of them, they came and went, and they didn't contribute a great deal to the events individually). Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British destroyers were low on fuel after their search, and headed for Iceland to refuel." RAS might have come in handy here.
  • "Such an attack was difficult for large warships to evade." Also difficult to execute though. I'm struggling to think of when someone managed to pull it off.
    • Good point - I've tweaked the wording here to note that it was theoretical. The concept may also have been faulty, as when the Americans torpedoed Musashi from both sides during the Battle of Leyte Gulf it caused her to settle evenly in the water; they learned from this mistake and concentrated their attacks on one side of Yamato in 1945. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Churchill knew though that the reason was that Japanese had highly effective aircraft while the Fleet Air Arm did not" That's one thing. Also, weather was fine and sunny, and the Japanese had 88 aircraft, not 12, and their torpedoes were better too.
  • In the Aftermath I expected mention of Convoy PQ 17, where the mere threat of the Tirpitz caused a convoy to scatter and 24 ships to be sunk.
  • Typos: "assummed", "Torvey", "Cilax", "{sfn|Konstam|2018|p=38}}", "unmaneuverable", "aicraft"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Back to A-class reviews for the first time in a hot minute. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
Background
[edit]
German plans
[edit]
6–7 March
[edit]
9–13 March
[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 7 October 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British mobile brigades during the Second World War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another list article for review, this one covering the various British armoured, armoured reconnaissance, cavalry, motor machine gun, and tank brigades, as well as the armoured division's support groups. Each section contains an explanation on the brigade type as well as providing a list. There is also a background section to provide a bit of a general overview. The article has also had the once over by the GoCE. I look forward to everyone's comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Another fine list. I always liked OrBats.

  • Can't say I'm fond of the article title
    Yeah, I am in agreement on that. I couldn't settle on what would be better alternative myself. Something like 'armoured brigades' didnt seem quite right considering the cavalry and support groups or the whole armoured/tank definition, at least its better than "Joslen, Part II"! Any suggestions on this would be more than welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: lower-case Corps, Tank Brigades.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and the image at the top mention that brigades were commanded by brigadiers, but this isn't in body of the article, and therefore is unsourced.
    Now referenced inside the body of the articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like the lead to mention one other difference between armoured brigades and tank brigades: the former, intended to operate independently, incorporated an infantry battalion, whereas the tank brigade did not. Also: the motorised infantry battalion is conspicuously missing from the "armoured" section.
    I may have gone a little overboard with examples, but now added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article covers the debate within the British Army about the role of the tank fairly well, but I would mention Monty's advocacy of the universal tank that could perform the roles of both cruiser and infantry tank.
    I have added some material in on thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the implication of lend-Lease, American tanks arrived." I don't think "implication" is the correct word here.
    It was not, updated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By mid-1944, the majority of armoured brigades were equipped with the American M4 Sherman medium tank, as a result of British cruiser production being unable to meet the need of the Royal Armoured Corps." I would have taken the story further. In 1944 the Americans suggested that British tank production cease and the British Army adopt American tanks. However, by late 1944, the American Army was desperately short of tanks, while the British Army had 1,900 Shermans in reserve, and Lend-Lease shipments ceased. This prompted a switch back to British tanks, with the 11th Armoured Division being re-equipped with Comet tanks.
    I wasnt aware of that being the reason behind the 11th getting the Comets. I'll check out Ellis and the 11th Arm Div history to see if they mention this, and will add it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it was the sole reason for the switch, or that sourcing tanks entirely from the US was seriously considered in the UK. The real problem is that your wording makes it ambiguous as to whether "the need of the Royal Armoured Corps" refers to the quantity or quality of British tanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reviewing Buckley, it was both the quantity and the quality. I have updated this article to reflect that, as well as to discuss the introduction of the Comet and the various issues surrounding the supply of American tanks in 1944-45. I was not able to find anything that suggested Comets were to fully replace Shermans, or the 11th Arm was selected to cut down on the of American tanks etc. Although, it did all seem to happen around the same time. Any further feedback to better refine the additions?
  • "directly under the command of the divisional headquarters" There's a bit of confusion about "divisional control". It doesn't mean under division HQ; there was a divisional artillery HQ. Also: can't find the text that supports this in French, pp. 224-225. Please check.
    It looks like I sourced a large chunk of this to Joslen (the increase in arty and inf). I have also reworded to follow French a bit more clear. Unless I have misread, post-Crusader the lessons learnt were the need for more arty support and battles being won in conjunction with inf (pretty crappy implementation of those lessons though).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the text should mention the specialised armoured brigades.
    I have added in some info about themEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the others had been used as a pool from which to draw supplies for other formations based in the Middle East" Supplies? Like food, fuel and ammunition?
    Updated, the source was referencing the equipment mostly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Armoured Brigade: Was the armoured brigade of the 1st Armoured Division in Tunisia and Italy, became independent when that division was disbanded in October 1944.
    I wasn't sure if I should what division each of the brigades were part of, or the prominent division they were associated with the most. I will add these suggestions.
  • 3rd Armoured Brigade: part of the 2nd Armoured Division
  • 4th Armoured Brigade: Was one of the original armoured brigades of the 7th Armoured Division, became an independent brigade in 1943
  • 5th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the Guards Armoured Division
  • 6th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the Guards Armoured Division, then became a tank brigade
  • 7th Armoured Brigade: Was one of the original armoured brigades of the 7th Armoured Division, became an independent brigade in 1942
  • 22nd Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 7th Armoured Division
  • 23rd Armoured Brigade: Add Operation Manna
  • 26th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 6th Armoured Division
  • 29th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 11th Armoured Division
  • 30th Armoured Brigade: Was part of the 79th Armoured Division
  • 3rd Motor Machine Gun Brigade: was redesignated the 28th Armoured Brigade, not the 26th
    Thank you for that typo catch!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone in and added the above mentioned pointsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I have left a couple of quick responses above, and will get cracking shortly on the suggested changes and additional talking points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it took me a while, but I believe I have ticked off all points highlighted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Here Brigadier Arthur Willison, the commanding officer of" --> "Here Brigadier Arthur Willison, the commander of"? (I haven't come across the term commanding officer for a formation, usually (these days at least) it is commander. Thoughts?)
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had identified four tank types they required" --> I feel this is missing a "that"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tank doctrine focused on infantry" --> "British tank doctrine focused on infantry"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Cruiser tank-equipped": decaps
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • -ise v. -ize consistency is an issue: I don't mind either way, but please standardise
    All now "ise"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "redesignated as armour brigades" --> "redesignated as armoured brigades"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest splitting the paragraph beginning "In 1943, United States Lieutenant General Brehon B. Somervell" as it is very long compared to the preceeding paragraphs
    I have made a split, hopefully a good one ;) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8th Division (Syria) redlink -- as with the other article I am not sure about this title -- I think it will get confused with the Syrian Army's current 8th Armoured Division. Is there a different title that could be used?
    Per Joslen, that was the official title. However, in the blurb on that page he refers to the formation as just the 8th Division. I have updated the the redlink to direct to the 8th Div article, and dropped the Syria reference. Ill update the 8th Div article to reflect that was the name when the "division" was reformed, as it did not previously mention it. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Dunkirk evacuation during the end of May and the beginning of June 1940, the British Army had retreated from mainland Europe following": reword to avoid "following" twice
    Dropped the Dunkirk part as it is least relevantEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brigade was formed when the 2nd Armoured Reconnaissance Brigade was redesignated" --> this is a redlink but shouldn't it point to the same link as in the Armoured Reconnaissance section?
    The piped link was missing, and I have fixed this.
  • "The number of the group" --> "The numerical designation of the group"?
    Updated per your recomendation
  • "two motorised infantry battalions, artillery, anti-tank, and light anti-aircraft guns" --> "two motorised infantry battalions, as well as artillery, anti-tank, and light anti-aircraft guns"
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US Army, lacked substantial reserves" --> "The US Army, lacking substantial reserves"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was rendered the British order meaningless" --> "was rendered the British order meaningless"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just quickly dropping by to state I will tackle the remaining issue highlighted by Hawkeye7 and the ones brought up by AustralianRupert soon. Might be a few days, however.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This is very interesting article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "During the Second World War, the brigade was the lowest formation within the military hierarchy" - I don't think that this is correct. Even if 'formation' has a special meaning here (which needs to be clarified if so), the Commonwealth armies often used battalion groups independently.
  • More broadly, the first sentence should define what a 'mobile' brigade is.
    Edits have been made to try and address these two points (further cut-down than the suggestion I made to you previously)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The army also formed eight support groups, raised three brigades of cavalry, formed three brigades equipped with armoured cars and created two brigades aimed at grouping divisional cavalry regiments." - delete 'raised', the second 'formed' and 'created'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the 8th and 9th Armoured Brigades independent formations?
    Yes and no. I have added some additional info to the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The regular army divisions were unique compared to their TA counterpart" - 'unique' isn't the right word here if there were several such units. Something like 'The regular army divisions' structures differed from their TA counterparts...' might work better.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the armoured reconnaissance brigade concept dropped? The equivalent American mechanised cavalry groups seem to have been successful in 1944-45 (albeit lacking in firepower and infantry at times). I presume that the British Army preferred to allocate its more limited resources to the recon units of the armoured and infantry divisions.
    I have not been able to find a straight answer. The units assigned to the Arm Recon Bdes became armoured car formations on their return to the UK, due to a lack of tanks. By the end of 1940, they had all been reequipped with cruisers. French, for example, notes that lessons learnt included a slight reorganization of the armoured divisions and what would seem a bit of a falling out with light tanks. Recon units were then established for the infantry, and armoured car units assigned to armoured divisions (later reassigned to the corps). Due to a lack of tanks, regiments were still being outfitted with light tanks in lieu of cruisers but that declined as the war progressed (with the exception of the M3). It kind of looks like they found something else that works, and went with it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1942, the British Army experimented with the format of their infantry divisions. Several were converted into "mixed divisions", which saw the removal of one infantry brigade that was replaced with a tank brigade. The concept was deemed unsuccessful and was abandoned the following year" - it could be noted that the the 2nd NZ Division used this structure successfully.
    I have added a note to that effectEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps note how the tank (and armoured?) brigades were used - am I right in thinking that one brigade was often allocated to each infantry division? (for instance, in Normandy) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at how Joslen details it, these brigades spent the majority of their time assigned to a corps, army, or army group command. For example, the 6th Guards are shown as being assigned directly to the 21st Army Group and Second Army for the majority of the Normandy campaign; then assigned to the 15th Scottish for a couple of weeks, then the 3rd Infantry for a few days before being reassigned to a corps. The 31st Brigade is shown as moving from army to corps asset, then being assigned to the 15th Scottish for a month (starting with Operation Epsom), before going back to various corps. Likewise, the 33rd Arm Bde, is shown attached to the 7th Arm for a few weeks and then reallocated to XXX Corps, 2nd Army, I Corps, then onto 3rd Infantry for a few days etc. To the best of my knowledge, the independent formations all did this: assigned on an as needed basis, then reallocated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all, and have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Not a lot to say about this, nice work.

  • To be picky, caption: "An example of artillery being moved through the desert, one of the roles of the support group." This reads as if one of the roles of support groups was to move artillery through the desert. Perhaps tweak the phrasing?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Wilfred Clouston

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Wilfred Clouston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Wilfred Clouston was a New Zealand flying ace of the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. A contemporary of the likes of Cobber Kain, Alan Deere and Colin Gray, he is nowhere near as well known as he should be in New Zealand despite his aerial successes during the Battle of France and the following Battle of Britain. I wrote the article in March 2020 when I came across his online biography on the NZHistory and have been able to tap into a few book sources to beef up the content. It went through the GA process shortly afterwards and I have come back and made some revisions and done a little expansion work. As always, my thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide feedback. Zawed (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • Wilfred Greville Clouston, known as Wilf, was born in Auckland known Wilf by whom? Or is this the same as the Dutch roepnaam?
  • the son of Allan and Vivienne Clouston No née?
  • Was he still in England from 1938 to the beginning of the war?
  • By this time, Clouston was married to Anne née Hyde Unlin née here if the first comment is addressed.
  • His wife was the daughter of an admiral of the Royal Navy We don't know who the Admiral was?
  • Soon after the German invasion of the Low Countries, No. 19 Squadron A "No." template is needed here.
  • Never mind it's not really important.
  • By August 1941, the British government had recognised the growing threat that the Japanese Empire presented to its territories in Asia and the New Zealand government No upper case for "government"?
  • There's a second "government too.
  • onto a variety of positions during his postwar RAF career Isn't it "post-war"?
  • Maybe standardise the hyphens in the ISBNs?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This is a very interesting article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Do we know why he enlisted in the RAF rather than the RNZAF? (not that this was uncommon)
  • "Clouston proceeded to the Flying Training School" - can the school be named and linked?
  • The first sentence in the 'Second World War' section is a bit over-long
  • Can 'probable' be linked or explained?
  • Link 'section', 'flight'
  • "The majority of the flying personnel of this newly formed squadron, which operated Hawker Hurricanes, were New Zealanders" - was Clouston deliberately selected as the commander of this unit on this basis, or was it a coincidence?
  • "and had been sent to England to fly for the RAF" - I suspect he was sent to fly with the RAF, not for it (the various dominion air crews were posted to RAF units but remained members of their own air forces)
  • "the poor performance of the Buffaloes were even more exposed" - bit awkward. The problems with the Buffalos were also known from a much earlier stage, as the RAF and RAAF aircraft went into action against the Japanese in Malaya in December 1941 and were soon found to be inadequete.
  • What was 'RAF Air Operations Headquarters'? Was this part of the RAF Malaya command structure?
  • "Before his capture, he was still able to facilitate the evacuation of the remaining ground crew of the squadron from Singapore" - could you say how he did this? The text only notes how he fled.
  • Can anything more be said about Clouston's experiences as a POW?
  • Did Clouston return to the UK or NZ after the war?
  • "The RAF base at Khormaksar in Aden" - suggest rephrasing as 'RAF Khormaksar in Aden'
  • "were in the possession of the Waipukurau Returned and Services Association until its closure in December 2011" - the source says that this material was expected to be transferred to a "local museum" - do you know if that happened? Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have responded above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

All looks good to me. Mind the gaps if you want to go to FAC. See if you can get hold of a copy of the 1950 RAF list. (You could also obtain his service record from the RAF.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Perhaps unsurprisingly I can find no formatting issues.
  • Cite 22: what is this supporting? Do you mean page 335?

Otherwise it all looks good. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking at this. That cite (22) is supporting the mention of Clouston's brother joining the RNZAF in 1940 (it's in footnote 1 on page 242 of Thompson). The rest is supported by Lambert. Zawed (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Usually when I am citing a footnote I say so. Possibly that's just me. Page 335 may be better for that. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Grant's Canal

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Grant's Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A bit of a different topic for me - failed military engineering. One of several attempts the Union made to bypass Vicksburg, construction of this canal failed twice - once due to too little water, and the second time because of too much. In great irony, a similar path formed naturally 13 years later. This one was very much written in chunks over several months and I'm not use to writing about canals, so this one may be less polished than normal.

As a preliminary note: I am aware of the existence of a relevant journal article titled Grant's Canals in Northeastern Louisiana by Terry Jones, but I can find no evidence of this source having ever been digitized and a request at WP:RSX came up empty, so I was unable to incorporate this source as it is for practical purposes unavailable. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Another map of the area would be useful
    • Added one that shows the Confederate lines of fire
  • "(also known as Williams's Canal)" Would prefer if this was in the body of the article too.
    • Added
  • Would prefer "United States Navy" to "Union Navy"
    • Switched, as both Union Navy and United States Navy are used, so it's probably okay to drop the Union here
  • "but were unable to do so with army support" Presumably it would have worked if they hadn't had Army support.
    • I think this is explained enough in the second paragraph of the background section. They couldn't bombard the city into submission, so it would take army troops to capture it
  • "Farragurt" should be "Farragut"
    • Fixed
  • "Flag Officer Charles Davis" Haven't heard of this rank before.
    • when the US Navy first formed, it was thought to be too "royal" sounding to have ranks such as commodore and admiral. Eventually (1850s I think) it became essentially necessary to have a rank above captain, so they created the rank of flag officer, which lasted until the middle of the ACW, when they finally gave in and created the rank of admiral.
  • "the Union high command" Who is this? The War Department?
    • Clarified. Henry Halleck, general-in-chief, known as either "Old Brains" or "Old Wooden Head" depending on who you were talking to
  • "The geology of the ground where the canal was dug was though to consist" "thought to consist"
    • Fixed
  • "A major part of this plan was controlling the Mississippi River." I'm a bit foggy about this. The idea was to open a supply route between Memphis and the Gulf of Mexico? And this was blocked by batteries at Vicksburg? It seems that they had control of both sides, so why couldn't Vicksburg be starved into submission?
    • A supply route, but even more to cut the Confederacy in two. The Confederates still held the area inland from Vicksburg, so it couldn't be starved out until Union soldiers got around behind it (which is what Grant eventually did). I've clarified the former, do you think I need to add more to clarify the latter
  • " Williams actually only intended of freeing them if the canal was completed successfully" Suggest "to free them"
    • Done
  • "The Union soldiers even deeper" I think a word is missing
    • Word added
  • "onboard" should be "on board"
    • Corrected
  • "but these dimensions were not enough to allow navigation" How deep did it need to be? I can take a container ship through if you give me 8.3 metres.
    That's 27 feet in the old measurements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified - the ditch was that deep, but the river had fallen below that point
  • "the Confederates built new artillery batteries" They manufactured new artillery pieces? Or brought them in.
    • Rephrased to indicate that they built more emplacements - "artillery battery" in this war referred to both batteries of guns and fixed artillery positions
  • "By March 19, Confederate fire had become accurate enough that the dredges could operate under the cover of night." Suggest "only operate"
    • Added
  • Oxbow lake (I would have called it a billabong) and Memphis are doubly linked.
    • Removed
  • How far from the canal is the current course of the river?
    • Attempting to find this. I've added the distance between the 1876 cut and the canal, but the sources I'm finding aren't making this comparison. I have found one that says the distance between the canal and the river has barely changed, and another saying that it has moved by a mile. Working. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this article here. I have the following comments:

  • " to the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, which was considered to be strategically valuable" - I'd suggest saying why
    • Added
  • The material on Williams' force in the Background section is a bit confusing. I'd suggest noting their presence in the material on the first attack, which will allow you to simplify the material on the second attack
    • Done
  • " as well as 1,200 local plantation slaves who believed they would be freed for their work" - how did the Union forces obtain the services of these workers, and are you sure that they were still "slaves" at the time?
    • Clarified. A mixture of impressment and volunteering because they were told they'd be freed. They were still enslaved at the time they joined (this predates the Emancipation Proclamation, which required Union soldiers to put it into effect anyway). Williams also treated them horribly (which I've added a mention of) and he was known for allowing slave owners to take runaways from his camps at an earlier assignment. As mentioned later in the article, he also just abandoned a lot of these workers after he left, as well.
  • "1,200 to 1,500 African Americans worked on the project" - were these the same as the 1,200 people noted above? If so, who were the other 300 workers?
    • It's the same 1,200 as before. I've dropped this clause to avoid the repetition (the 1,500 figure was found in one of the first sources I used for this, but 1,200 is by far the most common figure for this).
  • "The Union soldiers dug even deeper" - were the African Americans still present at this time?
    • Yes. I've replaced "Union soldiers" with workers
  • "his force had been reduced to 700[21] or 800 healthy men by disease, and Williams ordered his men from De Soto Point" - were the 700-800 just the African American workers, or also the Union soldiers?
    • This is just the soldiers. Clarified
  • Some introduction is needed for Grant's involvement in the Vicksburg campaign, as well the campaigning under his command in early 1863 and the dilemmas that faced him (e.g. that the city was well defended and any attack on it would be difficult and bloody, with early attempts to advance on the city from the north being unsuccessful)
    • I've added some material about Grant's failed 1862 overland attempt, Sherman's repulse at Chickasaw Bayou, and why a direct attack was not feasible. Is this sufficient, or do I need to add some more?
  • Who worked on the canal during Grant's attempt? The roles of soldiers and civilian labourers and their relative importance is unclear.
    • It's unclear how the work was divided, but I've added some clearer total numbers so that the proportion of civilian laborers to soldiers is more clear
  • "Grant decided to land troops on the Mississippi side of the river below Vicksburg in April.[48] By mid-May, Grant's men had fought their way to Vicksburg, and placed it under siege" - this is a rather undramatic account of a remarkable campaign! You could note that Grant had transport ships run past Vicksburg and then carry his men across, and that they then defeated the Confederate forces in the region in very impressive campaign. The whole enterprise is regarded as being one of Grant's masterstrokes.
    • I've fleshed this out a bit more - landing south of Vicksburg, winning a couple battles, swinging east to Jackson, then defeating the defenders of Vicksburg outside the city, failing to capture it in two frontal assualts, and then the siege
  • The article should discuss the historiography on this topic. From memory, some sources regard the canal as a total waste of time, while others give it as an example of Grant's flexibility and desire to avoid unnecessary casualties. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've dredged what I can out of the sources I have available right now (Ballard and Carter are at my dad's house, so I can't access them right now).

@Nick-D: - I've tried to address these as best as I can with the sources I have available now. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support Comments: at the risk of introducing an Antipodean bias, I also had a read through this. To be honest, I struggled a bit with reading this one as my ear stumbled over some of the US English variation; apologies if any of my comments are ignorant of these vagaries. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was an attempted military-use canal" -- this seems awkwardly worded to me. Perhaps, "was an incomplete military effort to construct a canal through De Soto Point..."
    • Done
  • "The navy force" --> "The naval force"?
    • Done
  • "before Farragut decided to fall back to New Orleans": why, was he under fire?
    • Added a brief bit. Essentially, he was sick, his ships were running out of coal, and the river was falling and threatening to strand them there
  • "Confederate artillery batteries": what were they doing at this time?
    • I've clarified that the Confederates were attempting ineffective return fire, although I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
  • "Both Farragut and the commander of the ironclads, Flag Officer Charles Davis agreed": it feels like a conjunction is missing here, potentially "Nevertheless,"
    • I was actually missing a comma after Davis to fully set off the appositive phrase as well. Corrected both
  • "that the needed number of infantrymen" --> this seems awkwardly worded
    • Replaced with "enough", is this an improvement?
  • "However, Williams actually to free them": this is missing something, I think
    • I've added the two missing words
  • "above and 3.5 miles (5.6 km) below Vicksburg" --> perhaps upstream/downstream rather than above and below?
    • Done
  • "The temperature in the area sometimes reached as much as" --> "The temperature in the area sometimes reached as high as"?
    • Done
  • "supplies of the medicine quinine ran out" --> "supplies of the medicine quinine ran out"
    • Done
  • "This rise did not manifest itself downstream where the canal project was": do we know why?
    • Source (Bastian 1995) doesn't say
  • "they found 600 graves and 500 abandoned African Americans": do we know what happened to these people?
    • I've been able to clarify what happened to the others (sent home either directly or told to go walk there themselves), but not what happened to the 500. Miller p. 163 states And what of the African American canal workers Williams had left behind? Neither Bacon [a Union captain who later wrote a book] nor anyone else in the Baton Rouge brigade [Williams's people] thought to tell their story - then or later. Unfortunately, I can't check the main inline source for this (Ballard) because I just got put into quarantine awaiting COVID test results
  • "In late November" --> 1862 or 1863? I assume 1862 but the header could cause some confusion
    • Done
  • "taken over by Grant on late January" --> "taken over by Grant in late January". I also suggest adding the year here
    • Done
  • "The steamboat Catahoula was sent to the area to scout the remains of the canal cut": by whom and when?
    • This is still up in the air. Sourced to Carter, which I don't have a physical copy of. As I'm currently quarantined, I'll have to see if a friend can borrow a copy from a library somewhere for me.
  • "Colonel Josiah W. Bissell": a Union Colonel?
    • Yes, added.
  • "All of the previously-excavated had been": this is missing something, also it is best to avoid hyphenating ly-adverbs
    • Corrected both problems
  • "the newly-widen points" --> "the newly widened points"?
    • Done
  • "upstream that allowed for a stronger" --> "upstream to allow for a stronger"
    • Done
  • "However, the historical consensus has treated the project as not practical" --> "However, historical consensus has treated the project as impractical"?
    • Done
  • Battle of Chickasaw Bayou is potentially overlinked
    • It is. Dropped the second link
  • New York, New York v. simply New York (probably the later, IMO)
    • Went with just New York
  • this seems a little off, grammatically: "Also at the site is commemoration for the Union African American soldiers"
    • Rephrased
  • " failed will significant losses" --> " failed with significant losses"?
    • Done
  • "|last1=Winschel |last2=Terry" --> " |last=Winschel |first=Terry"?
    • Fixed
  • "Vicksburg Post" --> italics?
    • Corrected. I needed to use |work= instead of |publisher=
Source review - pass

All the sources are reliable and the short and full citations are properly and consistently formatted. I wasn't sure about Targeted News Service, but the article is actually by Terry Winschel, who is published on the ACW, so I think it is fine. GTG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 16 September 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is the main article of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom Good Topic. As such, it is one of those top level articles that consist mainly of links to subarticles, but it is free standing in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At 12866 words I would oppose on length at FAC. I get that this is a complicated topic, but do we really need an entire paragraph on Scottish independence views on nuclear weapons? The SNP has only been a significant political force for a fairly short period of time. (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not the nominator, but I'd say the answer to the question on the para on Scotland is a firm 'yes'. There has been a lot of commentary on the effects of Scottish independence on the British nuclear deterrent given that it is almost 100% located in Scotland, with the alternative locations for basing ballistic missile submarines in England apparently being much inferior as well as expensive to establish. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this article at ACR. It will probably take a couple of goes to work through the article. Here are my comments:

  • I tend to agree that the length is excessive, especially as there are lots of high quality articles on the underpinning topics thanks to your good work. Some of the quotes are low hanging fruit, for instance.
    checkY Have removed most of the quotes. This reduced the size of the article to 76 kB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Top leaders including Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill" - this is a bit simplistic - Attlee was the PM and Churchill the opposition leader
    checkY Deleted this. Both have already been introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para starting with 'The deployment of ships carrying nuclear weapons' feels out of place, given that it covers the 1980s and 1990s while the rest of this section is about the 1960s.
    checkY All the subsections in this section are like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Trident renewal' should note the British Government's recent announcement that it will be increasing the number of nuclear warheads
    checkY Added it to the "Posture" section instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Nuclear defence' section should note the rather extraordinary continuity of government plans (see Peter Hennessy's book The Secret State). These started with centralised bunkers, and ended up with teams of ministers who were to deploy to different parts of the country and try to run the ruins of the UK as independent entities.
    I don't have that book and its not in the library - do you have a copy? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add a little bit of stuff, probably on the weekend. It's an excellent book for people with an interest in this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are opposed to the basing of the Trident system close to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city." - I thought that the SNP opposes the British nuclear weapons outright (e.g. [15])
    checkY Re-worded. The anti-nuclear stance in Scotland is sustained by the presence of the weapons there. Conversely, Brexit drives the support in England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " None of the 9 countries known or believed at the time to possess nuclear weapons supported the treaty." - needs a reference.
    checkY Looks someone inserted a comment, but added a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Support I think that I may have been too tough with my comment above (as well as awfully slow on my promise to follow up on it...), and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Surprised this hasn't gotten more attention. Will take a look at this over the coming week or so. Having to travel for work some over the next week, so it might be a slow process. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so this took longer to get to than I thought it would. Will probably still have to do this a couple chunks at a time

  • "the Americans restricted cooperation to basic scientific research." - which part of the American government? Change of heart from Truman or did the Senate/House not approve the treaty
    checkY It's too long a story to cover here, but Groves was behind it. Congress weighs in in the next paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reports were unlikely to have fooled the American observers" - fool them that it was successful instead of a dud, or were they trying to keep the Americans from learning it was an h-bomb, or something else? This is a little confusing to me.
    checkY Wrote "The reports would not have fooled the American observers into thinking they were thermonuclear explosions, as they were involved in their analysis." Watch the video! Compare what it says to what the article is telling you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A further 470 kg of plutonium was swapped between the US and the UK for reasons that remain classified" - source is from 2001. Any chance it's been de-classified since then?
    checkY Not that I'm aware of. Deleted, as it isn't really important enough for the top-level article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through the history material. Hopefully I can finish this off soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the politics section. Hog Farm Talk 03:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The antinuclear stuff halts in the early 1980s in the article. Can it be briefly summarized if the movement has continued to grow, decreased as nuclear weapons became less common, or remained stable?
    checkY It has its ups and downs. As in other parts of Europe, it had its second wave in the 1980s with the NATO Double-Track Decision. In the 21st century it has become entangled with Brexit and the Scottish independence movement. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Brian Burnell's credentials?
    He was a nuclear weapons engineer who worked on early British nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. During the Vietnam War he became an anti-nuclear activist with the CND. Today he writes newspaper articles and works with historians of the British nuclear program. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the nuclearweaponarchive a RS? Not familiar with the source, so asking
    Carey Sublette? Generally regarded as one of the experts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend author-linking Alex Wellerstein so it's more apparent he's a subject-matter expert, since the article cites his blog
    checkY The article was written before the biography. Reviewed his book in the June Bugle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nuclear Deterrent:Written statement – HCWS210". Retrieved 1 August 2016." - needs the publisher
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are William Robert Johnston's credentials? It looks like we're citing her personal website
    checkY An American physicist. Swapped for a reference to Wade. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Atomic Weapons Tests in: "Federation and Meteorology". Retrieved 27 June 2009." needs the publisher
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's it from me. Nice work on a large topic here. I'm not concerned about length of this one - it doesn't seem to be bloated or undue anywhere that stands out to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: Another fascinating article, Hawkeye. Only a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day AustralianRupert, happy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my tardiness here with responding -- I have been moving around a lot with work recently and don't always have reliable comms, so sometimes I miss pings etc., especially when I go to one area in particular. Anyway, thanks for your efforts, added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

That's it really. Other than the question about the website, the sources all look reliable and the refs are all formatted well and consistently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Many years ago I gathered a mass of material in both English and French on the World War II campaign in southern France, but never got to work on it owing to my loss of admin status. However, I have used it here to create another article in a series on Allied logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe during World War II. The campaign in southern France has not attracted as much attention as those in the north, and its volume in the Green Books series was not published until 1993, over twenty years after than the last of those about the campaigns in northern France (by a historian who had already completed a volume in the Vietnam series). The article was fairly well received when it appeared on the front page at DYK back in March, and has since passed a GA review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

As always, it's good to see this type of topic at ACR. Out of interest, do you know why it took until 1993 for the US Army official history of this campaign to be completed? I have the following comments:

  • "The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to take the assault shipping required for Anvil from the Pacific theater." - just to check, was this the US-led Pacific Theater, or the British-led Southeast Asian Theatre? (which had most of its LSTs sent back to the Med in 1943 or early 1944, thus crippling the planned amphibious landings in Burma and/or Sumatra)
    The American-led Pacific Theatre. Emphasised this. The LSTs and LSIs returned in late 1943 and early 1944 were for Shingle, the attack on Anzio. In September 1944 landing ships earmarked for Dracula were retained in north west Europe for the Scheldt operation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " so the British Chiefs of Staff turned the offer down" - it's not clear what offer is being referred to here?
    I thought it was clear, but added "of assault shipping". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some 136,000 bombs, 3.5 million rounds of ammunition and 2,500 drop tanks were present on the island" - when?
    By mid-June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Italian prisoners of war (POWs) were organized into service units" - were these still POWs, or part of the Allied-aligned Italian government in the south of the country?
    They were still POWs. Nearly two-thirds ultimately signed "co-belligency" agreements that allowed them to be used beyond the restrictions of the Geneva Convention. Some other units were formed by the Allied-aligned Italian government, but there was trouble when the two types were deployed together, as the non-POWs had better pay and conditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " All American service units were inspected by Coastal Base Section by 6 September, and their standard of equipment and training was such that none needed to be relieved from their assignment to Dragoon" - I suspect that this could be simplified, to note that the service units all met the grade
  • I'm not sure what "outloading" means
    Added a definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said in the 'Assault' section about the logistics for the Allied parachute force that took part in the operation? It was an under-strength division, though was rapidly relieved by the troops that had landed from the sea.
    I can add a bit about that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but the last sentence of this new section seems to be missing some words. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the year the Seventh Army reported that it was short ... This exceeded Seventh Army's ability to provide replacements" - this is a bit repetitive and confusing
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the Seventh Army run short on key types of weapons? (something which doesn't seem to have been a problem for the forces in Northern France)
    That's not what my article on Northern France says. But the problem was replacement factors laid down by the War Department, which were educated guesses. When a campaign unfolded different to expectations, shortages developed. The War Deportment then had to decide whether that campaign was an exception or the rule. The high losses of trucks, for example, was caused by running them over long supply routes, for which they were unsuited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: Another fascinating article, Hawkeye. I have a few very minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]

I'll do the rest tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything for today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Nice job; you really took some time with this long but interesting one. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct one. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checking to make sure Young is the Charles H. Young who was an officer in the 439th Troop Carrier Group. If so, the source ought to be fine, but the publisher doesn't appear to be one with a strong established reputation for what I can find (I'm finding a mail printing company in the USA from searching for it)
  • Formatting is fine
  • Spot checks I conducted were fine.

Looking very good here on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's him: Colonel Charles H. Young. He commanded the 439th Troop Carrier Group from January 1944 until October 1945. After the war he worked for American Airlines for 35 years, eventually becoming a Boeing 747 pilot. Worked on the Space Shuttle. In retirement he wrote books about aviation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 10 September 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Project Waler

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Project Waler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Project Waler was a failed attempt by the Australian Army to acquire large numbers of high performance armoured fighting vehicles during the 1980s. These vehicles were to replace the Army's M113s and be built in Australia. The project proved over-ambitious, however, and was cancelled by the government after considerable scoping work demonstrated that the costs would be twice as high as expected and the Defence Minister concluded that the capabilities the new vehicles offered were in excess of what Australia needed. The very successful ASLAV wheeled armoured fighting vehicles were purchased from Canada instead, and the M113 fleet was subjected to an upgrade project that was also bungled. Project Waler is sometimes cited as an example of a mismanaged Australian defence procurement process, but it is not well known.

I developed this article as a spin off from my work on the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service, and it draws on the fairly thin literature on the project. The article was assessed as a GA at the start of August this year, and after further work and copy editing I am hopeful that the A-class criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I see no issues with image licensing. The one thing I would recommend is adding sub-headings to the history section to aid navigation. It's quite long especially for readers on mobile devices. (t · c) buidhe 07:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I've added some sub-headings Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
  • Typo: "unafforable"

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
Possibly it is clearer, but it is still fairly opaque to me. What is "scoping"? Maybe an explanatory footnote?
Would it be possible to replace this with a word that readers (eg me) won't have to look up in a dictionary? (Eg 'happen'?)
This is a fairly commonly used word in Australia (for instance, it's frequently been used in headlines for news stories). Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then if this were Australian Wikipedia it wouldn't be an issue. But, honestly, it is going to leave almost all UK readers guessing. Maybe guessing correctly, due to "eventually", but guessing. I strongly suspect US readers would be in a similar position.
The article is written in Australian English, and will likely mainly be read by Australians, so I really don't see what the problem is here to be honest (I also really like the word!). However, WP:ENGVAR recommends using commonly-understood terms, so I've tweaked this. It's interesting to learn that Australian English has quirks other than the over-use of abbreviations, calling people you barely know 'mate' and occasional rhyming slang! Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That trivia is all I can find. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, a pleasure to read. A couple of responses on what I am taking to be either jargon or very Australian usages above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nick, I only have a few minor comments. Apologies if I have missed anything, I am reading this between watches. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, perhaps add what its biggest failings were in the final sentence?
  • this seems off, grammatically: " that an tender seeking formal"
  • "cost of the project had doubled in real terms since it began": do we know what this was?
  • tense shift: "By the time the M113 upgrade project was complete, the vehicles were no longer suitable for combat because they do not provide adequate protection against heavy machine guns, most forms of modern anti-tank missiles, mines and large improvised explosive devices."
  • "Camp noted that a contemporary US Army project had experienced similar problems" --> Bradley? (not sure - perhaps name the project if known)
  • Source review: assuming that Peter Jennings is the Peter Jennings of ASPI, then I believe all sources are reliable, being either government publications, or written by authors with credentials in the area/reliable publishers
  • there were a couple of minor issues with formatting, which I think I have corrected now: [16]
  • "In 1987 the Government decided to procure wheeled armoured fighting vehicles to replace the 2nd Cavalry Regiment's M113s. Due to the regiment's armoured reconnaissance role and location in Darwin, Northern Territory" --> it is a little before my time, but I thought 2 CAV moved to Darwin in the 1990s, not in 1987. Perhaps tweak this a little if I am correct?
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2nd Infantry Division was a British Army formation that had an on and off again existence for around 200-years. It fought during the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the Boer War, and both World Wars. It fought in numerous famous battles, including playing a vital role in the rout of the Imperial Guard at the end of the Battle of Waterloo. Due to it being a forefront in most of the campaigns it fought in, it also suffered heavy losses. In peace time, during the second half of the 20th Century and into the 21st, it went under various role changes: it became an armoured formation, reverted back to an infantry division, and became a training unit. The article has been worked over by the GOCE, although any suggestions for cuts and and wording improvements are always welcome, and it has just passed its GA-review. If you have somehow missed them, there are three sub-articles (unsure if they needed to be in their own sections, or if they right at home in the "see also" section) that supplements this article, with detailed orders of battle, the list of commanding officers, and all Victoria Cross winners.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Sorry to see this unreviewed for so long. Great subject for an article, not sure if it should have such a wide scope or whether it should be a series of articles, but will let you know that at the end. I'll be doing this in several tranches, I expect. My comments are below:

Lead

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonic Wars

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian era and Reform period

Down to First World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First World War
  • "first Victoria Cross of the war" I am wondering if it is worth naming each one (without information about how it was won, people can click the link for that)?
    Per above discussionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention at the appropriate point that 1st Army Corps was renamed I Corps, as you start talking about II Corps. Maybe state what the overall structure of the BEF was at the beginning of the war?
    Left this huge gap here for me to spot the one I haven't done - will address this later.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed break: I have added in some info in the reform section about Aldershot Command and it forming the basis for I Corps. I have also added a note with the BEF order of battle, for when the article discusses the division moving to France. I reviewed the primary source consulted for the Boer War, and it does not appear to explain what happened to the First Army Corps. I would guess that it too was disbanded, along with the divisions, once its purpose was furfilled.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 1916, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Second World War, more to follow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok for A-Class, but will need addressing before FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per our discussion on your talkpage, I have added in some detail about this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each based around the headquarters of either an armoured regiment or infantry battalion"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The task force approach allowed the GOC to tailor their forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • assuming this is a grammatical error, suggest "designed to allow the commander maximum flexibility and [to] take precise account of the operational or tactical task to be achieved"
    I double checked the source, and it is verbatim. I have added in the above suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the loss of one divisional headquarters" as there really wasn't a loss of a division in strength, per se
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Army restructured theirits forces"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in See Also, "British Army Structure Iin 2010"
TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • you could add |ref=none to the Further reading and External links sources to inhibit anchor ID creation that some scripts highlight

That's me done, finally. In conclusion, I think you have it right in terms of scope, the iterations of the division seem to be interrelated, although the WWII 2nd Armd Div is an outlier, and some sort of hatnote is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting for A-Class, the outstanding comments will need addressing to get me over the line at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

I don't have expertise across the whole of the scope of the article, so I'm going to confine myself to the 20th century.

First World War
  • Reform period: the point here is that the division organisation was changed from two to three brigades, so the number of divisions (which existed mainly on paper anyway) dropped from nine to six.
    I have added in that particularEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no consistency as to whether imperial or metric is used first. Suggest MOS:METRIC for guidance.
    I have gone through the various convert templates, and they should be consistent now: miles to km, and other imperial to metric units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This resulted in the division's first casualties and first Victoria Cross of the war." How many did it win?
    18, which is now mentioned in that lineEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link trench raiding
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1918, the number of front line infantry within the British Army in France had decreased because of casualties and a lack of eligible replacements, leading to a manpower crisis." There was a manpower crisis, but that's not entirely true. Cabinet withheld reinforcements so they would not be used in another futile offensive. Also: "replacements" is an American term; in the British Army they are "reinforcements".
    I have replaced "replacements" with "reinforcements". As for the point about the withholding of reinforcements. I have taken a quick glance over the literature, and it seems the cabinet withholding troops is a bit of a contentious issue. Perry, for example, notes that the Army Council had notified the cabinet in early Feb '17 that a manpower crisis would arise if heavy fighting continued regardless of what steps were taken. It seems the claim that the manpower crisis was the result of George, did not appear until May '18. Perry seems to suggest that the need to reduce from 12 to 9 battalions came from the cabinet, who had concluded in late '17 that the army was going to be short half a million men and industry close the same in the long term. Perry argued that the cabinet committee (which was headed by George) looked at the various ways to get the army the men they needed before proclaiming the battalion reduction and suggesting limited offensive action in '18. Not sure who the following chap is, but he argues along similar lines and suggests it is not strightforward etc: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639350 EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the send paragraph of 1918 after fn 137.
    Para splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 2nd division, this change took place in February when three battalions were disbanded." Capital D. Any idea what three battalions were disbanded? There was a prohibition on disbanding regular or first line territorial units.
    I have added a note in to state what the three battalions were. They were all service/new army battalions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "On 26 May, with the BEF completely surrounded" Not completely surrounded.
    RewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fighting on that day provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties in a single battalion within the BEF." What was the battalion?
    Battalion mentionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in May, the convoy was ordered to sail for British India because of increasing civil tension there." Link Quit India Movement
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the logistical issues at the time, the division could not be employed in Burma. Instead, the division formed part of the British strategic reserve in Asia. It spent 1942 through 1944 training at its Ahmednagar base." That's not quite true; two battalions participated in the Arakan Campaign 1942–43 debacle
    Per Joslen, the 6th Infantry Brigade was detached from the division for this campaign. I have, however, made mention of this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the First Battle of El Alamein, in July 1942 in the Western Desert, the division was offered as a reinforcement to ensure Axis forces did not enter the Middle East, but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein." This sentence and the next are out of chronological order. Move them after "British strategic reserve in Asia".
    MovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, developments around the theater resulted in continued postponements of this operation." That's only partially true; the landing ships were recalled to participate in the Battle of Anzio. Also: "theatre" is misspelt.
    Corrected the typo. I have been able to access Kirky, again for the time being, and have reworded this part although I have not invoked Anzio as Kirby fails to mention that as a specific reason. For example, he writes at several points that shipping availability had always been an issue for India, and suggests that Anakim just kept getting put on the back burner.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. cf Ehrman V, pp 214-223. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In conjunction with the 33rd Indian Infantry Brigade" I would say the 7th Indian Infantry Division here.
  • AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the Japanese positions cleared, the division was transported to Calcutta, so it could be used in Operation Dracula—an amphibious assault on Rangoon. However, the city was liberated by other forces and the 2nd Division did not depart for the port." That's not entirely true. The division was withdrawn from Burma to reduce the supply burden.
    I have managed to get a hold of the Burma OH, and have been able to reference thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was assigned next to Operation Zipper, a planned amphibious landing in Malaya that aimed to liberate Singapore." The division was not on the Operation Zipper troop list.
    Having got access to Kirby, I see that they are not mentioned on the initial landing list. I wonder if the author was loosely referencing a follow-up role (Appendix 5)? I have reworded based off Kirby.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division ended the war based at Poona, India" Delete "India"; Poona has already been mentioned.
    ActionedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war
  • "The overall aim was to have "fewer formation headquarters overall, and fewer but larger units" That's politician spin. The UK had agreed to maintain a certain number of divisions in Germany, and when the Germans baulked at cutting the numbers, they decided to reduce the size instead.
    Granted that it is political spin, it is a direct quote from the report. I have tried to balance that up with follow-up from historians discussing it. I have done some searches, but I have not been able to find anything about a German reaction to cuts in the 70s. Do you have any leads? I did see some info out there about, what would appear to be, a continued German annoyance at the BAOR shrinking over the previous decades; but nothing, so far, about the reaction to or the run-up to the Mason Review.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These task forces were not a reintroduction of a brigade command structure, and they had no logistical responsibilities." Neither did the brigades.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review this, probably over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that PM and Hawkeye have made lengthy reviews, ping me after those are mostly completed and then I'll review; I don't want to accidentally work on cross purposes with them. Hog Farm Talk 23:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The division fought at the Battle of Waterloo and played an important role in defeating the final French attack of the day, it then marched into France becoming part of the Army of Occupation and was the only British force allowed to march through the French capital of Paris" - either split at the comma or use a semicolon instead
    Sentence splitEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1856, after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood down" - recommend linking stood down, as its a bit jargony
    Relevant link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thus leaving the vulnerable" - something is off here
    Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The restructure increased the BAOR to four divisions," - what had it been previously? Wasn't it previously intended to have been four divisions?
    It would seem, based off Isby, that the commitment to maintain four divisions lasted about 4–5 years: "The four-division (three armor, one infantry), post-Korea BAOR was reduced after 1957. Into the mid 1960s Britain's three divisions...". I have noted this in the area you highlightedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That note at the end of the End of the Cold War and into the 21st century section seems to be (at least on my screen) adding extra space to the end of that section, is there a way to remove this
    I have removed the extra spaces, hopefully this should allow it do display more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the key insignia kept until 2012, or did its use end earlier? It's not clear from the article
    I have made some alterations to hopefully clear that up, the answer being yes it was kept.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look fine

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

@EnigmaMcmxc: The range and quality of the sources here attest to this article being a labour of love, and are most impressive. I have only minor comments:

  • As noted by other editors above, the sources all appear reliable
  • Only minor tweaks resulting from spot checks
    • Ref 178 (Kirby et al. 1962, pp. 10, 66, 117): Checks out, and makes good use of the source
    • Ref 188 (Kirby et al. 1969, pp. 65, 81, 86): Ditto, but I've tweaked this to one reference per sentence to be more modular to help with future editing
    • Ref 201 (Taylor 2010, pp. 6–7): Checks out, but doesn't say that Mason "authored" this review - it would be highly unusual for a minister to actually personally write something like this (that's what their department is for)
    • Ref 205 (Dodd 1977, p. 373.): Checks out, but the page numbers should be pp. 373-374 to cover this material
  • None of the spot checks revealed any problems with close paraphrasing
  • Connnors, Brendan P (1965). A Short illustrated history of the Second Division 1809–1965 in the further reading section is missing publisher details
  • It looks like some, if not all, volumes of South Africa and the Transvaal War are available on Project Gutenburg, and could be linked.
  • Ditto A History of the Peninsular War
  • The War in France and Flanders 1939–1940 is also online here and should be linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Transom

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article as a sister article to Operation Cockpit, which covers a similar operation undertaken by essentially the same Allied forces and passed an A-class review in June. This article was assessed as a GA in August, and has since been considerably expanded. I am hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria, and would be grateful for any comments about how it could be further improved. Thank you in advance. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources are of high quality.
  • Spot checks: 6, 7, 14, 23, 25, 45,
    • fn 20a: article says: "The Allied aircraft sank one ship, drove another aground, damaged oil storage tanks and destroyed up to 28 Japanese aircraft on the ground"; source says: "Only one small merchantman was sunk, and another forced ashore. Twenty-one aircraft were destroyed on the Sabang airfield, and three more on the more distant one." That makes 24?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]
  • In the second para of the "Surabaya in World War II" section, there is repeated use of Japanese. Could this be trimmed?
  • Allied and Japanese Plans: The remaining force was ships were capable only... suggestion?
  • Also, any info on the number of ships in the Fleet at this time? Later, it is mentioned that it received 146 ships as reinforcements in 1944, which seems an enormous number.
    • It would be hard to provide a meaningful number, given that ships moved in and other of the area - the key fact is that it lacked the types of ships needed for offensive operations. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allied and Japanese Plans: the Allied leadership agreed that "the main effort against Japan should be made in the Pacific"... shouldn't there be a cite against the quote here?

More to come. Zawed (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Allied and Japanese plans: dupe links: submarines, aircraft carrier
  • Prelude: However, they had little intelligence on the strength...; intelligence is also used in the previous sentence, perhaps this instance could be changed to "information"?
  • Prelude: There a few dupe links in this section, all in the second sentence of the 3rd para
  • Attack: dupe links; the aircraft types mentioned in the 3rd para
  • Attack: in the 3rd para, the Corsairs of Force B are identified as being British; is the same true of those of the Force A (since they have taken off from the British carrier)?
  • Attack: remained in Surabaya's port until 3 pm; for consistency in presentation of times, shouldn't it be 3:00 pm?
  • Aftermath: Saratoga and her three escorting American destroyers detached from the Eastern Fleet shortly before sunset on 18 March,...; that should be 18 May?
  • Aftermath: the amount of info on Saratoga seems a little excessive given the focus of the article and could be trimmed. Perhaps Saratoga proceeded to Bremerton, Washington via Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. It arrived at Bremerton on 10 June, and underwent after a refit there that lasted for the northern summer. The carrier rejoined the Pacific Fleet in September 1944

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • It was conducted by the British-led Eastern Fleet, and involved aircraft launched from American and British aircraft carriers striking the city's docks and an oil refinery.
"striking" -> wouldn't which or that bombed" be more on point
Done Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surabaya in World War II:

  • It became one of the main port cities in Asia during the late 19th century, and was the centre of the NEI's sugar export industry.
This sentence contains an independent clause and a dependent clause: when a dependent clause follows an independent clause a comma is not used.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surabaya was bombed on a large number of occasions during this campaign, with the first air raid focusing on the port and naval base.
  • "a large number of" could be replaced by "many"?
  • "this" campaign would be better stated as "the" cmapaign. -> This is used when something referred to is close at hand - the campaign is yet to be mentioned in this section?
  • The Wonokromo oil refinery located in the city was important to the Japanese, and was the only facility in Java which produced aviation fuel.
The first clause is independent, the second one is dependent - no comma needed.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large numbers of Allied aircraft attacked facilities in Surabaya on 22 July and the night of 8/9 November 1943.
What were the results?
Added a bit more. There isn't much on these attacks in the sources - nothing I can see in the USAAF official history, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A & J plans:

  • Their main naval force there, the British-led Eastern Fleet which was headed by Admiral Sir James Somerville, was weak.
Consider this version: Their main naval force there was the debilitated British-led Eastern Fleet, which was headed by Admiral Sir James Somerville.
Tweaked, but I don't think that 'debilitated' is accurate as the ships seem to have been in OK repair: the problem was that there weren't many of them. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I stand correted! If the force was weak, describing why would be helpful to readers? Pendright (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was small - added Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reinforcements which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months comprised 146 warships, and included three battleships, two aircraft carriers, fourteen cruisers and large numbers of destroyers and other escort vessels.
  • comprised -> would comprise
  • and included -> drop included
  • The first substantial group of reinforcements reached the Eastern Fleet's base at Ceylon on 27 January; these included the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, battleships HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant and battlecruiser HMS Renown.[11]
"these included" -> these reinforements included
That seems repetitive. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortages of destroyers hindered the fleet's ability to conduct offensive operations until April, however, as priority needed to be given to escorting convoys.[15]
"needed to be given", or was given
Done Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change was made to evacuate the fleet from its bases in the central Pacific, which were now vulnerable to American attacks, and concentrate it at a location with good naval repair facilities and ready access to fuel.
Change now to then
Tweaked, but I don't think that 'then' is the right word. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Now means "at the present time", then means "at that time" Pendright (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the problem here. The material is covering what the Japanese did in early January 1944 and why, so the use of tense seems OK. Could you suggest alternate wording? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Pendright (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Japanese did not intend to undertake any large-scale attacks into the Indian Ocean.
Does this need a source?
It's covered by Roskill 1967 pp. 347–348, as given. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States Navy also agreed to temporarily transfer the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga and three destroyers from the Pacific to augment the Eastern Fleet.[17]
Is Saratoga worthy of a link?
It is linked at present. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:

  • The head of the US Navy, Admiral Ernest King, suggested to Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, the commander of South East Asia Command that the carrier, accompanied by other vessels of the Eastern Fleet, strike Surabaya on her return voyage.
To be consistent, add a comma after command or remove the one after King
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change was made as Somerville expected the Japanese to more strongly defend Surabaya than they had Sabang, and had decided to launch the aircraft 180 miles (290 km) from the city which was beyond the Barracuda's effective range.[23]
Add "he" ad drop had at the beginning of the second clause
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the distance to be covered from Ceylon and the Royal Navy's lack of experience in underway replenishment, the final plans for the operation involved the Eastern Fleet refuelling at Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia before striking Surabaya.[6]
Due to -> Changing it to Because of would avoid the two to's
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, they lacked information on the strength of Japanese air forces in the region, which forced the Eastern Fleet to assign large numbers of fighter aircraft to escorting the strike force and protecting the fleet rather than attacking ground targets.[25]
"to escorting" -> change to escort, which is a verb in this case - escorting is not
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Force 67 was the replenishment group, and comprised six tankers, a water distilling ship and two cruisers.
No comma is needed after Group
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustrious embarked two squadrons equipped with 14 Vought F4U Corsair fighters each and two squadrons with nine Avengers.
Missing word between embarked & two?
I don't think so. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I beg to differ! - they embarked "with" or "accompanied by". Pendright (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this grammar is fine. Please see this Google books search for similar usage. It might be a British English vs US English thing, as the other examples are all British English works. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Pendright (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saratoga's air group comprised a squadron with 26 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters, a squadron with 24 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers and a squadron operating 18 Avengers torpedo bombers, as well as a single Hellcat allocated to the Air Group Leader.[27]
Avengers -> Avenger
Whoops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack:

  • Force A's Avengers were to bomb the Braat Engineering Works, and the Dauntlesses the oil refinery.[9]
The last clause is dependpent - no need for the commaa after works
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

The Macquarie English Dictionary defines aftermath as "resultant conditions", in which case the first and last paragraphs of this section seem unrelated to the meaning of the definition.
I'm not sure about that - the first para is about the naval operations that followed the attack and the last para is about the results of the attack on Japanese deployments (or the lack thereof). Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I would argue that the paragraphs could be of indirect effect but not of direct effect, which I should think is what the article might show or tell readers.Pendright (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't agree. This is a standard section heading for articles on battles as recommended at WP:MILCG, and accurately describes the content. The Oxford English Dictionary describes the term as "an effect or condition arising from an event", which seems about right for this content. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your point of view. Pendright (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of British divisions in World War II

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of British divisions in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another a list up for A-Class review. This one has been extensively reworked over the last couple of months to make user-friendly and to cite to RS. It includes a background section outlining the number of divisions the British intended to raise, and then sections with lists for the airborne, armoured, anti-aircraft, cavalry, county, and infantry divisions. Each section includes a blurb outlining the intended strength, role, and a small bit about how these formations were intended to be used. The article has recently been worked on by the GoCE. I look forward to your comments to help and improve this list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Licensing is OK (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top sidebar should be replaced either with an image or a better sidebar—something specifically related to British Army divisions or British Army in World War II, not "British Army lists". The current one fails pretty much every criterion in WP:SIDEBAR and does not really provide useful links to related articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have removed it per your recommendation, and replaced it with a photo (I had hoped to find a decent photo of an entire division on parade etc. to demonstrate the size, but was unable to do. Likewise, after scouring for photos of divisional staff, I landed on the current one after much failure. totally open to suggestions for more suitable pics). I have moved several of the relevant links to the "see also" section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D This is a great article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "These were not comparable in role, to formations that were intended to be deployed for combat such as infantry divisions" - it's not clear what this is referring to (the AA divisions?)
    I have tweaked that opened to state anti-aircraft division, hopefully this works but I am open to suggestions to better convey this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Background' section should note that quite a few British divisions were either destroyed in combat or disbanded due to casualties
    I have added in a few extra lines to state notable destroyed divisions, and the loss of four other to reinforce depleted formations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section should also explain why the Indian and Sudanese formations are in-scope, but the Indian and various Dominion/Commonwealth formations aren't (e.g. that they formed part of separate armies)
    I have made a tweak to the way several of the sentences are worded, to specify the British Army raising regiments, and the other armies raising formations. Do the changes work? If not, do you have something more specific in mind to get this across?
  • Saying that the 79th Armoured Division "Did not see combat as a division" seems a bit confusing given it was never intended to, but its constituent units were heavily engaged.
    I guess I over simplified. I have amended the wording in the list, and I have also tweaked a sentence further up where the division was mentioned too. Does this work better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest noting in the 'Infantry' section the types of attachments which were standard late war - for instance, I think that each of the divisions in North-West Europe had an armoured or tank brigade attached.
    I have thrown on an extra para to the end of the section to mention the mixed division, the corps level brigades that could be attached, and the specialized tanks. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that a 'light' establishment was adopted for the infantry divisions in Burma late in the war?
    Burma is not my forte. Perry stated that at least one Indian division was reduced to two brigades as part of the effort to implement a "light division" concept in Burma. Joslen doesnt note anything special happening to the 2nd Inf when it was deployed to India and Burma (it did reduce to two brigades for a couple of months), and the 36th Inf div (on paper) looks like all the others. I note that the 81st and 82nd Divs were initially organized with brigade groups, which were then reorganized into regular brigades in Sept '44, and Joslen notes that the divisions were "reorganized on standard division establishment" in October 1944. He does not elaborate on what that means. The same note is there for the 11th in Aug '44, but their brigade info shows regular brigades and not brigade groups. The brigade section of his work does not elaborate on the changes either. I will see if there is anything else I can dig up with the limited sources I have on the subject.
    I think that there may have been a British equivalent of the Jungle division where infantry divisions in the theatre were slimmed down, but not as drastically as the Australian divisions were. I've never been able to find a source with the details though, so no need to cover this unless you find a source. The lightened organisation may have been unofficial. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not, there is potentially an answer in Kirby's The War Against Japan: The Reconquest of Burma. I dont have access to it, but was able to do some searching via Google snippet view, and on p.25 Kirby notes there was five different types of infantry division in theatre including the Indian 'light' division. I was not able to access more than that. I believe Keith-264 has access to this source, and I enquired with him about this. But I am not sure if he will be able to look, or get back to me about it. The sources I do have, do not appear to discuss the different establishments used in Asia. For example, Perry touches on the Indian divisions being over mechanized and slimming down and I feel like that will be a summary of what Kirby may have to say on the matter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a copy too. Let me know what you want to know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you dont mind, that would be very helpful. I asked Keith, but didn't receive a response.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based off the quote Hawkeye provided below, I don't believe Kirby can be used to support the 2nd and 36th being 'Jungle Divisions' (although it somewhat implies they should be since they were under that command structure?). Joslen doesnt provide hints to supporting it, such as indicating if a field regiment was equipped with 25-pounders or mountain guns etc. There is a couple of nice photos of the 2nd Div bouncing around Burma in their universal carriers if that helps? I have not lucked out in trying to find other sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The field regiments were equipped with the 25-pounder, and the mountain regiments with the 3.7-inch howitzer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Joslen indicates just a handful of British mountain gun regiments, none of which are with the 2nd or 36th. Two were with the 52nd, before being redeployed to Army Group Royal Artillery units (where it seems the other few were located). That doesn't exclude the possibility of British Indian units, he doesn't really detail them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note where the 1st and 2nd African Divisions were recruited from
  • Ditto the 81st and 82nd Divisions Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the additional information on the various African divisions, and have also added some additional info in the background area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and comments, I have attempted to address the majority of them and will come back to work on the remaining soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an additional comment (and one I meant to note originally - sorry), the tables aren't sorting for me despite having the sortable fields. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the culprit being an extra character, I have removed it and made the tables funtional.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for the delay in following up here. I've reviewed the above, and I think that my comments are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 I don't usually review lists, but this one is interesting and well done. Suggestions:

  • Consider adding the division insignia
  • Consider a separate column for disbanding to match forming
  • The locations and campaigns don't need to be sortable columns.
    I had a little time, so I have updated the first two sections with the above three comments in mind. I'll get around to the rest later today, hopefully. But, in case you pop in before then, you now have a preview.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have enacted these suggested changes for the entire article nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chappell isn't used.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armoured divisions. I would also note that the armoured reconnaissance regiment was organised as an armoured battalion, albeit with Cromwell tanks instead of Shermans, so each armoured division in NW Europe had four armoured and four infantry battalions, permitting the pairing described. In Italy, each armoured division was given a second infantry brigade.
    The Italian campaign is another area were I am not familiar. Where the second infantry brigades corp assets attached to the divisions? Joslen only seems to indicate one infantry brigade at a time for the 1st and 6th. I do have the official history for the Italian campaign, so I can dig through that to see if there is additional info that Joslen doesnt provide.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The official history gives orbats for both armoured divisions. The two brigades in the 1st Armoured Division were the 18th Lorried Infantry Brigade and the 43rd Gurkha Lorried Infantry Brigade (attached); in the 6th Armoured Division they were the 61st Infantry Brigade (attached) and the 1st Guards Brigade. It was the theatre-wide organisation. This was carried through with the other armoured divisions as well; in the 5th Canadian (Armoured) Division the 12th Canadian Infantry Brigade was raised from corps and division assets, and in the 6th South African Armoured Division the 24th Guards Brigade was attached until the 13th South African Motorised Infantry Brigade arrived. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated this section, although I have tried to be careful with the wording based off the difference between how the OH and Joslen seem to look at the situation. Joslen notes that the 1st Guards Brigade was not a permanent formation within the 6th Arm after the 61st joined, although they did spend considerable amounts of time with them, as they hoped back and forth to other divs. He doesnt cover Indian Army units, and the OH seems to imply both brigades were full-time units as you noted.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airborne divisions. The airborne battalions were largely made up of volunteers, whereas the airlanding battalions came from existing infantry units that had been converted into this new role. That's sort of true. The parachute battalions were made up of volunteers, and the airlanding units were not. However, only the first four parachute battalions were formed from individual volunteers like the commandos and the SAS. Starting with the 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion, parachute battalions were formed from infantry battalions converted to the new role. Those who didn't volunteer or were deemed unsuitable for parachute duties were transferred to other units and replaced by volunteers from other regiments.
    I have updated this, and hopefully the new wording is more accurate.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have actioned the above list for the various entries.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, comments, and offer of research assistance. I have left a couple of comments above, and will try to implement the suggested changes later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With access to the Burma Campaign OHs, are you able to tell if Nick's comment can be addressed via Kirby p.25? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit you're looking for reads:

    By the end of May, at a conference between senior officers representing GHQ India, 11th Army Group, Fourteenth Army and IV, XV and XXXIII Corps, an organisation for a standard infantry division capable of jungle fighting, of being transported by air and of undertaking amphibious operations was drawn up. Such a division was to consist of three divisions of three battalions each (to be increased to four as units became available), a reconnaissance battalion, a division headquarters and a machine gun battalion. The artillery was to consist of two field regiments, one mountain regiment and one anti-tank regiment. The scale of mechanical transport was to be reduced throughout the division and, in addition to first line mules (which remained as in the existing A & MT division), animal transport companies were to be provided on a scale of three for each division. The infantry battalion was to be simplified. The Bren carrier platoon was to be abolished and replaced by a battalion headquarters platoon organised as an infantry platoon. The strength of the rifle section was to be increased. The allotment of weapons was revised and limited to four 2-inch and six 3-inch mortars, the light machine gun, the Sten gun, the rifle and bayonet and, as stocks became available, the new rifle grenade in replacement of the the anti-tank rifle and the PIAT. The transport was reduced to twelve jeeps and trailers, forty-one unit mules and fifty-four first line RIASC mules.

    — Kirby, pp. 25-26
  • Support Great job. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AustralianRupert: G'day, nice work as always. I just have a few nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Sources are all high quality.
  • Some publishers are linked while others are not. Suggest not linking.
    Delinked sourcesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 2, 39, 76a, 84, 108, 156 - okay
  • fn 120: Should be pp. 77-78. This is a misreading of Buckley. Eight tank brigades equipped with Churchill tanks were requested for North West Europe before Montgomery arrived, but only three could be so equipped. Only one tank brigade was formed in 1943 (the 6th Guards Tank Brigade). Several others existed though: the 1st (disbanded October 1944), 10th (disbanded October 1943), 11th (disbanded October 1943), 21st (in Italy), 25th (in Italy), 31st, 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th (disbanded July 1943).
    Updated page reference, and I have made some edits to the wording after re-reviewing the source
    I wasted time trying to figure out what the three Churchill tank brigades were. I believe they were the 6th (Guards), 31st and 34th. Two others, the 21st and 25th, served in Italy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 175: Can't find this.
    Not entirely sure what happened here. I think I grabbed the wrong cite from the 59th article, to verify that the division was cannibalised. I have updated per Holborn, who specifically mentions it (and I have also made a tweak to the 59th article as I believe I was using that page to cite the general discussion around the manpower problem).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the source review and additional comments. I have attempted to rectify the highlighted issues.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 13 August 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

20th Battalion (New Zealand)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

20th Battalion (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In a change from my normal fare of military biographies, this nomination for A-Class is an article for a unit that served with the 2nd New Zealand Division during the Second World War. The 20th Battalion started the war as an infantry unit, and fought in Greece, Crete and then North Africa. It got decimated at El Alamein, following which it was converted to armour and went on to serve in Italy. This article is one of my earliest GAs, back in 2013. I have given it a bit of a polish on and off over the past six months and think it is ready for consideration for A-Class. Thanks in advance to all who stop by to comment. Zawed (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Looks like the copyright tags are wrong, though, since it appears they would fall under Crown Copyright / expired[18] and there's no indication they were ever released under a Creative Commons license. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 23:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In theory, that painting should be PD as McIntyre was an official war artist so the Crown has copyright and all Crown works dated 1944 or earlier is PD. However, I replaced the image. Zawed (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, sorry, I don't have time to do a full review at the moment; I will try to come back later but at the moment I have a few quick comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • exact date of formation, if known?
  • link company on first mention
  • "transport personnel" -- do we know what vehicles they had?
  • "the SS Dunera" -- usually we drop the definite article for ships, I believe
  • "including brigade level exercises": link brigade
  • "by 7:30am" and "at 3:30am" --> non breaking spaces
  • link 10th Infantry Brigade
  • "also involved the 28th Battalion": link for the 28th?
  • "seabourne" --> "seaborne"
  • "the capture of Galatas" --> perhaps mention by whom
  • if possible, a photo for the early part of the article would be a great addition

Thanks for taking a look, hope you get the opportunity to take a further look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking rearguard
  • "intensive desert training" --> "intensive desert warfare training"?
  • "relieve Tobruk, then under siege" --> "relieve the siege of Tobruk"? This would enable a link to that article
  • "and dealt to several" --> typo?
  • "dealing with" --> "destroying" or "damaging"?
  • seems slightly inconsistent "4th Brigade" v. "6th Infantry Brigade"
  • "made 260 German soldiers prisoners of war and captured three 88 mm guns" --> "captured 260 German soldiers and three 88 mm guns"?
  • "It took him until daylight for him to reestablish" --> "It took him until daylight to reestablish"
  • in the Operation Crusader section, is it possible to summarise the casualties the battalion suffered; given it was destroyed it seems like they would be significantly high
  • I have added a couple of sentences regarding casualties. I discovered I had misinterpreted what the source was saying regarding LOB personnel, so have revised the first part of the rebuilding section. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 17 June, the battalion left for Mersa Matruh, a 320-kilometre (200 mi) journey" --> "On 17 June, the battalion lcommenced a 320-kilometre (200 mi) journey". The writing gets a bit repetitive here with mentioning Mersa Matruh a few times, and is actually properly introduced in the next sentence, so it is probably best dropped first up
  • link wadi
  • "over as commander of 4th Brigade. Freyberg had been wounded and the commander of 4th Brigade, Brigadier Lindsay Inglis, took over command of the division" --> "over as commander of the 4th Brigade after its previous commander, Brigadier Lindsay Inglis, had taken over the division when Freyberg had been wounded."
  • link XXX Corps (United Kingdom) and the 5th Indian Brigade
  • "assist 30 Corps, by being part in what would be known as the" --> "assist 30 Corps, taking part in the"?
  • "positions of 19th Battalion" --> "positions of the 19th Battalion"
  • "with three squadrons of tanks": link squadron
  • "European theater" --> "European theatre"
  • "Pacific theater" --> " Pacific theatre"
  • link 23rd Battalion
  • move the furlough link to the first mention
  • "the regiment's A Company was the" --> "the regiment's A Squadron was the"?

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • participated in the Battles of Greece and later in Crete not "on Crete"?
  • captured 260 German soldiers and three 88 mm guns. No convert?
  • On the night of 25 November, along with the 18th Battalion Night of 24/25 or 25/26 November?
  • I see three "However"s can you remove one?
  • the middle of the afternoon of 27 June Why not around 3 pm? It's in the middle of the afternoon.
  • some sections of the New Zealand government for the 2nd New Zealand Division No New Zealand Government? The rest of the countries' governments in the article do use a capital letter.
  • Savio the next day, having advanced 7 miles (11 km) Okay I just read kilometres as the primary unit and now miles is a primary unit maybe standardise them?
  • Galatas, 42nd Street, Withdrawal to Sphakia, Middle East 1941–44, Tobruk 1941 --> "Galatas, 42nd Street, Withdrawal to Sphakia, Middle East 1941–1944, Tobruk 1941"
  • These battle honours are taken directly from the source, so I am reproducing them as they appear there. I think that takes precedence over the stle guide. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence of Alamein Line, Ruweisat Ridge, El Mreir, Alam el Halfa, North Africa 1940–42 --> " Defence of Alamein Line, Ruweisat Ridge, El Mreir, Alam el Halfa, North Africa 1940–1942"
  • Pisciatello, The Senio, Santerno Crossing, Bologna, Sillaro Crossing, Idice Bridgehead, Italy 1943–45 --> " Pisciatello, The Senio, Santerno Crossing, Bologna, Sillaro Crossing, Idice Bridgehead, Italy 1943–1945"
  • Maybe standardise the ISBNs I can see both 10 and 13 letters ISBNs?
    • I'm actually not sure how to do that without creating creating check sum errors. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You get a Bot to do it. I've done this for you, although I don't thinks necessary; there is a Bot that goes round changing ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that! But it is not just a matter of adding 978-, there are also other numbers to change, how did you know the correct numbers? Zawed (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The check digit needs recalculating. The algorithm is described in our ISBN article. Here's the code of a Perl script I use: 
          #!/bin/perl

use English;
use Business::ISBN qw(%ERROR_TEXT);
use strict;
use warnings;

my $arg = shift;
die "usage: isbn <isbn>\n" unless $arg;

my $isbn = new Business::ISBN ($arg) or
        die "invalid isbn\n";
die $Business::ISBN::ERROR_TEXT{$isbn->error}, "\n" unless $isbn->is_valid;
print $isbn->as_isbn13->as_string (), "\n";

exit 0;

In the infobox

  • "1939–45" --> "1939–1945"
  • "Infantry (1939–42)" --> "Infantry (1939–1942)"
Done. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armoured (1943–45)" --> "Armoured (1943–1945)"
  • "~800 personnel" Replace the tilde with a circa template.
  • Is the citation in the infobox needed?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, I have responded above. Please note my comment RE the isbns. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, just checking you are happy with this article? Zawed (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA5: Are you happy with this article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, checking in here, are you happy to support? Zawed (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks good. I have some comments and suggestions. Please forgive this Australian's ignorance of New Zealand.

  • Lead: "embarking for Italy in October 1943 to join the Eighth Army" I would suggest "re-join", as the New Zealand Division had been part of the Eighth Army since Operation Crusader, and suggest adding "British".
  • "fighting in actions at Orsogna and later at Cassino" Instead of linking the places, I suggest linking Moro River Campaign and Battle of Monte Cassino.
  • "The new division would require nine battalions of infantry and consequently, several infantry battalions were formed from 1939 to 1940 with New Zealand volunteers." Not nine? But that brings up a question: was the 2nd New Zealand Division a volunteer force, or was it maintained by conscription?
    • It was actually ten infantry battalions: the 18th through to 26th, plus the 28th Māori Battalion, which was kind of floated between the brigades as required for extra fire power. The 27th was a machine-gun battalion. The initial personnel were volunteers but later in 1940, conscription was introduced.Zawed (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: this implies that the division was raised on the British establishment of nine battalions to the division, and therefore with British equipment? Was it equipped in New Zealand or in the Middle East?
  • "The 20th Battalion was the third such unit to be raised for the 2NZEF" The battalions were numbered in the order they were formed?
    • Kind of. The battalions were raised in echelons substantially corresponding to the brigades, each brigade having one battalion from each of the Military Districts. 4th Brigade with 18th to 20th was raised first, then the 5th with 21st to 23rd and the 6th last, with 24th to 26th. Within that, each battalion was trained at a camp associated with a particular military district, going north to south; 18th, 21st and 24th from the Northern Military District, 19th, 22nd, 25th, Central Military District, and 20th, 23rd and 26th Southern Military District. Zawed (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its personnel, all volunteers, were from the South Island of New Zealand... They were formed into four rifle companies, designated A to D and corresponding to the Canterbury, Southland, Nelson-Marlborough-West Coast and Otago districts." Were they affiliated with units from these districts? Was the territorial affiliation maintained?
    • There was no direct affiliation with the Territorial Force units although there were quite a few personnel that volunteered. The battle honours did get passed onto the TF units associated with the Southern Military District (which covered most of the South Island, and therefore the area from where most of the original personnel were drawn). Zawed (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I asked this one is that Australian battalions had territorial affiliations with particular states, and reinforcements were drawn from those states, preserving the battalion character. Talking about the 1NZEF, Charles Bean wrote: "In New Zealand the system was that each of the battalions and mounted regiments of the New Zealand Army provided a company or a squadron in the expeditionary force; these companies and squadrons carried the names and badges of their old regiments". But this referred to 1NZEF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link anti-tank rifle
  • SS Dunera should link to HMT Dunera. It is famous in Australia.
  • Link 5th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), Sidi Rezegh, Tobruk, San Bartolomeo in Galdo
  • "30 Corps" suggest "British XXX Corps"
  • "the brigade, now designated as the 4th Armoured Brigade" Link, since it has a separate article.
  • "Soon after this action, the regiment's tanks were replaced with the Sherman Firefly, which had a superior main gun to that previously used." All of them? Also: might as well say that the gun in question was the 17-pounder.
    • No, not all it seems. In the 19th Regiment, every troop got one Firefly according to a source I used for that, but I can't find a similar statement for the 20th Regiment. I have clarified this. Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While most of the German garrison quickly surrendered, some diehard elements were encountered who refused to surrender to either the New Zealanders or the Yugoslav partisans also present in the city. In fact, the partisans were reluctant to allow Germans to surrender to the New Zealanders at all." this leaves things up in the air a bit.
  • "it took several weeks for the New Zealand Government to decide whether the division would be needed for service in the Pacific theatre of operations." What was the decision? Was the plan to employ the whole of the 2nd NZ Division in Japan?
  • "The regiment was officially disbanded on 2 December 1945." In Italy?
  • "The battle honours awarded for its work as an infantry battalion were entrusted to the Canterbury Regiment, Otago Regiment, Southland Regiment, and The Nelson, Marlborough and West Coast Regiment." Do these regiments still exist? I tried finding their articles but none mention the 20th Battalion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been changes in structure as the NZ Territorial Forces became streamlined - for example, it looks like the Otago and Southland Regiments were merged. The Wikipedia article for Otago and Southland Regiment omitted mention of the 20th, although the source does mention that the regiment perpetuates the honours of the 20th. I have added that to the regimental article now. Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, thanks for taking a look at this (and sorting the isbns as mentioned above). I have responded with my replies and edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! Zawed (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
  • Sources generally appear to be of high quality.
  • Some concern about www.regiments.org, but it is used only for the battle honours.
  • Spot checks: fn 30, 52, 72, 111 -all okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 11 August 2021 (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) 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Battle of Independence

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Second Battle of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Of the four battles fought as part of Price's Raid between October 21 and October 23, Second Independence is generally the least studied. Fought on some of the same ground as the Battle of Little Blue River, at the same time as Byram's Ford, and on the day before Westport, Independence was where things fell apart for Price. Beginning with this battle, the Confederates were fighting Union soldiers on two fronts instead of one, and defeat was essentially an eventuality. I recently gave this one a top-to-bottom rewrite to remove a number of factual inaccuracies. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Battles where the Confederates were thrashed are my favourite kind of American Civil War Battles. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "suffering further defeats on the way before reaching Texas, having suffered heavy losses during the campaign" - bit repetitive. I'd also suggest splitting this sentance.
    • Split
  • "By September 1864, the Confederacy had little chance of winning the war" - I thought that the consensus is that the Confederacy was doomed by this point?
    • Rephrased to "had essentially no chance of a military victory", is this better
  • " With events east of the Mississippi River continuing to turn against the Confederates" - likewise, by this stage of the war the confederates were on the brink of collapse, with the war having long-since turned against them.
    • Went with "With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing"; is that better?
      • Yep. It is a bit tricky to write about this phase of the ACW: while the Confederacy's military and economy was collapsing, there was still the prospect of a victory if Lincoln lost the election, which historians agree was a real possibility for much of 1864. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the battle is good. If sources permit, I'd suggest creating an order of battle article ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An OOB would be very difficult to create - for some reason neither Sinisi nor Lause includes one, so it would have to be sourced very heavily to Collins and another sources focused on the tail end of the campaign after Confederate unit organization had gone to hell in a handbasket.
    • @Nick-D: - Many thanks for the review. I'm hoping to get this one to FAC fairly soon. Are the changes I've made satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Link "Major General" of the Union in the lead.
  • growing from 1,000 men to 7,000 --> "growing from 1,000 to 7,000 men" or "growing from 1,000–7,000 men"
    • Done
  • A Union cavalry division was formed on October 6 in Jefferson City --> "A Union cavalry division was formed on October 6, in Jefferson City"
    • Done
  • Blunt occupied the town of Lexington Maybe add state here? There are multiple Lexingtons in the US, especially in that area.
    • Done
  • the main Union position at Independence Same as above.
    • Done
  • The Civil War Battlefield Guide states that Union Written by whom?
  • Same as the "Reference" section in the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) ARC switch DD/MM/YYYY to MM/DD/YYYY.
    • Done

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, this looks pretty good to me. I only have a few nitpicks (please see below). Thank for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Confederate Major General Sterling Price and Thomas Caute Reynolds": was Reynolds also a major general? If so, it should probably read "Confederate Major Generals Sterling Price and Thomas Caute Reynolds..."
  • "Price's force, named the Army of Missouri, contained about 12,000 or 13,000 cavalrymen and 14 cannons": this seems at odds with the infobox which provides 7,000 as the strength. Have I missed something?
    • Not all of Price's force was engaged at Independence. The 7,000 figure comes from "Fagan's division with 4,500 men was left at Independence as a rear guard, and Marmaduke's division with 2,500 men was between Fagan and Shelby" later in the article.
      • Ok, no worries, if there is a way to make it clearer in the Opposing forces section, I would suggest doing so before taking to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what the best way to do this will be. I'm reluctant to put the 7,000 figure in there at the start of the campaign, as it's not necessarily comparable because those units were bloodied at the Battle of Fort Davidson and the Missouri units of Marmaduke's command may have benefitted from Price's recruiting/conscription Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe a footnote could be added next to the 12,000 to 13,000 number explaining that not all of these were ultimately engaged in the battle and that the total engaged was about 7,000. Would that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "joined by the brigades of Clark and Freeman" --> " joined by Clark's and Freeman's brigades"?
    • Done
  • "attacked in force further south, bringing on the" --> "attacked in force further south, resulting in the"?
    • Done
  • "supported by a party of Confederate troops" --> "supported by a party of Confederate infantrymen"?
    • Price's force was only cavalrymen, source just refers to them as "troops". I reckon it's probably dismounted cavalry, but neither Sinisi, Collins, nor Lause say that (I just moved and don't have access to Kirkman or Monnett at the moment, or I'd check them)
      • No worries, I definitely think this needs tweaking when you can get your hands on the sources as the current wording implies that the supported force (Hughey's battery) potentially weren't Confederates, which I don't believe is the intention. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clark's men resisted at Independence until about 17:00, when it began falling": the subject verb agreement is off here, I think. Suggest "Clark's men resisted at Independence until about 17:00, when they began falling..."
    • Corrected
  • "finish mopping things up. As part of the mopping-up process" --> "finish mopping things up. As part of this process"?
    • Done
  • "when Battery L, 2nd Missouri Light Artillery Regiment halted in Independence": do we know why? Did they disobey orders, outrun their supply line, or were they halted by enemy action for instance?
    • Of the three sources I have with me at the moment, Sinisi just says the battery "halted" and Collins and Lause don't provide any details on this
  • "Colonel James McFerran, remained in the rear and did not participate in the attack": do we know why?
    • Of the three sources I have with me (see above) Sinisi just says that he "lurked" with the horse holders while Collins and Lause don't provide any details on this
      • Ok, no worries, thanks for checking -- "lurked" seems to imply something less than admirable, but I'd stay silent on it in the article (as you have) unless sources can be found that clearly state a reason. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @AustralianRupert: - Checked Kirkman and Monnett, as well as a source I just acquired about Confederate cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi, and the halting of the artillery isn't mentioned at all, and McFerran is only mentioned in the context of being arrested later on in the campaign. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the infobox provides Union losses as "unknown, at least 10" but the Aftermath doesn't seem to mention this -- I think these are the losses attributed to the 13th in the body, but it could probably stand to be a bit more clearly articulated in the Aftermath section, IMO
    • Removed the "at least 10" figure from the infobox, as it's clearly incomplete due to being for only one regiment and overall losses for USA aren't provided in sources
  • "The battlefield has been covered over by the growth of Independence" --> "In the years since the engagement, the battlefield has been built over due to the growth of Independence"?
    • Done
  • "A self-guided tour covering 10 sites related to the battlefield has been organized": perhaps state who has organised this?
    • Added

@AustralianRupert: - Thanks for reviewing this. I've done my best to respond to the points, although there are three I don't have the details to really answer. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, added my support and a couple of follow up comments above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources are of high quality.
  • Spot checks: 10, 24, 46, 52, 55 - okay
  • fn 9 - Can't find the bit about Sedalia
    • Meant to cite Collins p. 63 and Kennedy, apparently forgot to add the Collins cite. Added now.
  • fn 49 - should be p. 215?
    • You may be using a different printing than me. fn 49 (Sinisi p. 216) supports and soon after that time, all of Clark's units except for the 8th Missouri Cavalry Regiment had crossed the river as well In my copy, p. 216 has Clark aimed to cross the Big Blue [...] By about 10 PM he had succeeded, while leaving only Jeffers's 8th Missouri on the other side
      We're looking at the same text. Might be because you have the paperback edition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944. A long time between drinks for this one. Sturm brought her up to GA ten years ago, and has worked on her sporadically since, and I've recently added quite a bit from a new book. We reckon she's now ready for ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've edited a slightly awkward sentence, but can't find much else to comment on. The article is impressively detailed, and quite interesting. I have only one suggestion:

  • "but this did not protect her from being sunk by British aircraft " - I'd suggest replacing 'protect' with 'prevent' given the AA guns would have at least complicated things for the attackers Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks Nick! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Added there. I have a lot of additional detail to add to a lot of Yugoslav ship articles as a result of Freivogel's recent books. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Greetings Peacemaker - I have a few comments for you to mull over. Pendright (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Zmaj was built in Germany as a seaplane tender for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in 1928–1930.
"between" instead of "in" might be the better choice of words here?
No, because then I'd need to replace the endash with "and"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>The en-dash and the em-dash may not be as clear to some as it is to you so, in my view, between 1928 and 1930 is clear, concise, and reader friendly. Pendright (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between mid-March and May 1943 she was [deployed] employed as a convoy escort in the Aegean Sea[.] , d [D]uring which [time] she was damaged in a surface gun duel with a British submarine, as a result of which she was damaged and several of her crew were killed [or] and wounded.
See what you thik?
Tweaked slightly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their service, she was renamed Drache, had her anti-aircraft (AA) armament improved, and was redesignated as an seaplane tender and later as a troop transport, in which role she participated in over a dozen convoys between the Greek port of Piraeus and the Greek island of Crete between December 1941 and March 1942.
  • How about -> While in their service?
  • Seems to read better w/o a comma after service?
<>No respones? Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't annotate every single change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace the comma after Drache with a semicolon.
<>Right you are, the pronoun "her" is an object and not a subject. Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between mid-March and May 1943 she was employed as a convoy escort in the Aegean Sea, during which she was involved in a surface gun duel with a British submarine, as a result of which she was damaged and several of her crew were killed and wounded.
  • deployed would seem more appropriate here?
  • Add the word time after the first which.
  • Drop "of which"
  • killed "or" wounded
<>No responses? Pendright (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You duplicated your comments here and I responded to the earlier ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>My apology! Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • It decided that a [specific type of] ship was needed to transport seaplanes between the bases and rescue downed aircraft after operations, as had been necessary during World War I.
Consider the above change or something similar?
No other type of ship would have been suitable, so I don't think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>You know this, but will the readership?

General char:

  • She lacked a traditional funnel as her engine uptakes were taken up through the lattice main mast amidships, which also served as the crane post.
  • She lacked a traditional -> I should think it would be "the" rather than "a"?
  • Isn't mainmast one word?
  • Zmaj was provided with six boats: two abreast of the bridge on either side; two abreast of the mainmast, one of which was a motor boat; and two dinghies on the stern.
  • My take here is that mainmast should be followed by a semicolon and no punctuation should follow motor boat.
  • I differ from your suggestion and the existing text and have changed all of the semicolons to commas. The last of which is necessary to set off the sub-clause "one of which was a motorboat".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Australian sources spell "motor boat" as one word?
<>Here is what one source says about punctuation and lists: It is usual to use commas to separate the items in a list. However, when the list items themselves contain commas, you can "outrank" those commas by using semicolons as the separators for your list items. Pendright (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four 40 mm (1.6 in) 67-caliber Škoda AA guns were mounted between the bridge and the mainmast in a twin-gun mount on each side of the ship amidships.
Since amindships means in the middle of a ship - "the ship" could be dropped.
Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav:

  • While en route to Yugoslavia she had a severe engine room fire on 9 September 1929 off Flushing, Netherlands, and was forced to return to Hamburg for repairs.
  • Think about adding "it" after and?
<>In which case, the second clause is now a dependent one and a comma would seem unnecessary. Adding it makes the clause an independent one and so the comma would be fine. Pendright (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell the reader she was yet to be commssioned?
<>My point: the reader should have been informed of this earlier and not later.Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These took almost a year and she was accepted by the Royal Yugoslav Navy on 20 August 1930.
Unclear?
Can you be more specific as it seems fine to me?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>If "these" mean the repairs(which I assumed to be the case), then the repairs were cmpledted before they were authorized? Pendright (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was finally commissioned in 1931 after she was armed and finished fitting-out in Kotor.[1][4]
You could add a comma after 1931 and substitute one she?
Agreed, a few too many "she"s in that paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be why she was converted to a minelayer the following year.
    • Change following year to “next year”
  • Following her conversion she made port visits to Piraeus, and Istanbul in Turkey, accompanied by the destroyer Dubrovnik and the submarines Hrabriand Smeli.
  • Drop 'in' between Isstanbul, Turkey and replace it with a comma.
  • Zmaj served as the fleet flagship in 1939 and her crew witnessed the new destroyer Ljubljana run aground and sink in January 1940 at the narrow entrance to Šibenik harbor.
Add a comma after 1939.
See above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after this incident, Zmaj was herself damaged while departing Šibenik harbor when the strong northern bora wind blew her onto rocks, and the squadron commander ordered her anchor dropped.
  • Add a comma bstween harbor and when
  • Is bora wind worthy of a link?
  • Add the definite aticle after onto
  • One propeller was damaged, and she soon sailed for Tivat in the Bay of Kotor for repairs.
Replace and with but
"But" would be appropriate for contrasting the last clause with the first one, but there's no contrast in this sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmaj was at Šibenik when the invasion began, and was attacked there by Italian Junkers Ju 87B "Picchiatello" dive bombers, but was only slightly damaged.
Consider adding "she" between but and was.
It doesn't seem necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Who was attacked? Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German:

  • She was transferred on 27 December to the Aegean and reclassified as a troop transport.
Consider this -> She was transferred to the Aegean on 27 December and reclassified as a troop transport.
Agreed. I generally think it reads best to have the date after the location or action.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However Schiff 50's guns were insufficient to save her when she was attacked by several Bristol Beaufighters of No. 252 Squadron RAF on the afternoon of 22 September 1944 while anchored in Vathy harbor on Samos.
Cosider this version -> However Schiff 50's guns were insufficient to save her when several RAF Bristol Beau fighters of No. 252 Squadron attacked her while anchored in Vathy harbor at Samos on the afternoon of 22 September 1944.
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • Yugoslav vs. Yugoslavia
Your usage of these terms confused me – in that I thought the first meant people and the second one meant country. Straighten me out!
Yugoslav is also the adjectival form for things belonging to Yugoslavia. Much like British is for Britain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough comments. I've signed my comments as Peacemaker may disagree with some of my responses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, but I would like you to read my responses to yours. BTW, disagreements often produce better outcomes. Regards - Pendright (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These changes are great, thanks for reviewing Pendright! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Pendright (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

  • The last sentence of the first para of the lead seems quite long. Suggest breaking it at "in which role she...". Perhaps "In the latter role she..."?
  • The second and third sentences of the background section both start "It decided..." Can this be varied?
  • Yugoslav section:...blew her onto the rocks,... There is no antecedence for "the" rocks, so "the" can be dropped.
  • German section: She was transferred to the Aegean Sea on... suggestion for those readers less familiar with the geography of this area.
  • German section: It is likely that ammunition for her original 83.5 mm guns was scarce

Looks pretty good, just a few minor nitpicks. Zawed (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed, all done. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I'm not sure about the reliability or otherwise of the publishing firm 'Despot Infinitus, but if Freivogel was published on this topic in Warship International this should be fine. All the other sources look highly reliable.
Yes, I don't think there is any doubt about Freivogel as an author in this field, he has been published several times in Warship International, and they have excellent editorial oversight. The three Despot Infinitus books I have bought suffer from variable issues around copy editing and lack of indexes, but I have found only a handful of very minor factual differences when compared to other reliable naval sources where they intersect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1a (Freivogel (2001), p. 48) - checks out
  • Ref 1b (Freivogel (2001), p. 48) - checks out
  • Ref 15 (Freivogel (2001), pp. 53–54) - this material appears to be on p. 54 only, which gives "the night of 15/16 October 1943" as the date of the incident, not 22 October. Rohwer states though that the sinkings occurred as "between 22 and 24 October".
G'day Sturm, could you crosscheck this detail? I think you have both sources to hand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Freivogel seems to have consistently mis-dated these events, so I've replaced the reference with better ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16 (Rohwer (2005), p. 281) checks out
  • No close paraphrasing in any of the above spot checks, but some of the text is strongly inspired by that in the source. While OK, I'd encourage branching out from the sources further. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2021 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tito–Stalin split

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

Tito–Stalin split (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets or is reasonably close to meeting A-class criteria. Since it became a GA, the article received a thorough copyedit from the GOCE and few other tweaks. -- Tomobe03 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In Eastern Bloc politics, the split with Yugoslavia led to the denunciation and prosecution of Titoists, including high-ranking officials such as Xoxe, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia Rudolf Slánský, Hungarian interior and foreign minister László Rajk, and General Secretary of the Bulgarian Workers' Party central committee Traicho Kostov." This sentence makes it seem like these individuals were *actually* Titoists, and that was the reason that they were purged. Is that really what the source says? (I have read that the reason for the Slansky trial was in fact that parts of the Czechoslovak Communist leadership felt it was necessary to hold a show trial to show their loyalty to Moscow.) (t · c) buidhe 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. The source says explicitly those were show trials and that the accusations were meant to remove those Moscow disagreed with, specifically designed to strengthen Soviet grip over corresponding parties/countries. I see how the sentence might be interpreted as saying that they were actually Titoists, so I have tried to add a clarification there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Catlemur

[edit]
  • Since the Greek Communist Party is abbreviated as KKE, you should also abbreviate the Democratic Army of Greece as DSE instead of DAG.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps you could mention that anti-communist Albanian agents were being trained in Greece by the Americans during the Albanian Subversion.
  • Was Tito plotting to annex a part of Greece with former members of the National Liberation Front (Macedonia)?
    • Yes. The article said that Tito sought to expand Yugoslav territory to encompass Aegean Macedonia even if DSE failed to seize power in Greece. I tweaked the wording now to clarify that Aegean Macedonia is in Greece.
  • Mention that the Soviets offered the DSE limited support because Stalin had previously signed the Percentages agreement with Churchill. Giving the British 90% influence in Greece.
    • Added now. I thought it would be better to simplify by saying that Greece was placed in the British sphere of influence under the Percentages Agreement instead of citing 90% exactly. I'm not opposed to citing exact number though if neccessary.
  • Did Yugoslavia seal its borders with Greece only in the military aid sense or in general? It is known that they allowed thousands of Greek leftists to settle in Yugoslavia or leave for other socialist countries.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources I have access to are not clear on this. Since Yugoslav borders were not really open for private travel at the time anyway, I assume the closure meant suspension of all travel/transport across the border, but none of the sources say so explicitly. They all agree that the support to the DSE ended, so I rephrased the wording to say so. I also added informaiton about direct motivation for the move (KKE siding with the Cominform).

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the article. I appreciate your feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Catlemur, are you happy to support promotion? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting.--Catlemur (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:EasternBloc BasicMembersOnly.svg - this needs a source; the makeup of the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia's and Albania's relationship with it are fairly basic facts that shouldn't be hard to source, but we do need a reference.
    • Tried to get a ref as concise as possible since it has to list all the countries and specify those years for Yugoslavia and Albania. Found one at Norman J. G. Pounds. “Fissures in the Eastern European Bloc.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 372, 1967, pp. 40–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1037711, specifically on pages 41-43. Should I add the ref to the article (in image caption) or to the Commons?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bojište u ulici Kneza Miloša 1944.jpg - this one appears to be unusable; anonymous photos had to be published before 1941 to be PD in Yugoslavia, and one taken in 1944 obviously cannot have been. Also, it would need a US tag, and it's not clear to me how it would be PD in the US.
    • I'm quite unsure about photographs such as this one for several reasons. All dates given in Yugoslav PD notices seem odd to me since the legislation did not actually specify any date - stating instead that, e.g. copyright on anonymous work expires on 1 January, 50 years following publication. I cannot explain the 1941 year at all other than to wonder if this is the final date when the particular legislation was in effect before dissolution of Yugoslavia. All Yugoslav successor states took over the Yugoslav Copyright Act without amendments and none of the dates exist there either - only the same periods. Later on (as far as I can tell) all some of the successor states extended the copyright protection for anonymous published works to 70 years (Serbia certainly did, according to the Serbian PD tag). The particular photo was published in Belgrade uncredited in 1945 in a book written by Vladimir Dedijer. Since this (the publication) happened more than 70 years ago, it would seem that the photo would be PD. Then again, I cannot explain the dates in the tags or find any source for them. That being said, no photo is a dealbreaker for me here, so... What do you recommend?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this (be begun to) be fixed by using {{PD-Serbia}}?
      • I think that would probably solve the country of origin aspect, but we'd still need the US copyright situation to be resolved. As far as I'm aware, because the book was still under copyright in Serbia (and the other successor states to Yugoslavia) as of 1 January 1996, the copyright of the book was automatically extended in the US; the term was extended to 95 years from publication, which would mean the photo would enter the PD in the US in 2040. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It turns out that Serbia introduced the 70-year copyright period in 2004. For example here [21] is the FRY Copyright Act of 1998 (articles 96-97). This means that the photo copyright expired at the latest on 31 December 1995 (possibly a year earlier if published elsewhere, but I have no such information). This means it was PD on 1 January 1996 - just in time not to be granted restoration of the copyright in the US (according to WP:NUSC). Which also means the commons tag is incorrect in several ways and that the photo is PD everywhere.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found the text of the Serbian Copyright Act here [22] and its Article 103 paragraph 2 indicates that the copyright for uncredited works expires 70 years after disclosure (presumably lawful publication). In this case that would mean that the photo has become PD on 1 January 2016. The act never mentions any of the years specified in the Yugoslav or Serbian PD tags (1941, 1954, 1966, 1973). I thought of the Yugoslav PD tag some more, and it makes no sense that Yugoslav Copyright Act on its own protects any work because there would be nobody to enforce it since 1992. Indeed the only practial use for the Yugoslavia PD tag would be to inform readers that a particluar work became PD while Yugoslavia existed. Later it has been superseded by copyright acts of successor states and PD Serbia tag applies since 1992 (at least in this case). As regards the years cited in the PD Serbia tag, I can only assume that the tag is incorrectly written.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would assume that the copyright laws of Yugoslavia's successor states aren't retroactive (in that they wouldn't retroactively restore works to copyright if they were already PD when Yugoslavia broke apart. So if a Yugoslav work meets the criteria on the template, it's the best one to use, since Serbian, Croatian, etc. copyright law wouldn't apply. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Confini Trieste-Istria2.jpg - this needs work. It looks like a US govt work, but we need a better source than the vague "American Foreign Policy".
    • I cannot determine where the particular map came from - even though it has appearance of being made in the period. However, there is a similar map, having a stylised topography background instead of plain colour fields and depicting the same lines as shown in this one in Jennings, on page 26. It has fewer settlements depicted though. The ones that are depicted are Trieste, Pula, Pazin, Motovun, Buzet, Monfalcone, Udine, the Morgan line, zones A and B, two exclaves of the zones A and B, Gulf of Trieste, Gulf of Venice, Tagliamento and Isonzo Rivers by name (others only by a symbol), pre-war and post-war borders, FTT and its borders. I could add this source (presumedly to the commons) if you find it acceptable.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Koçi Xoxe.jpg - this also has significant problems. It needs a US tag, it needs a proper source (i.e., is there a link to an archive we can verify the details?). Also, how exactly is it PD in Albania? We need a date of publication or the name of the photographer and their date of death to determine when it entered the PD in Albania (assuming it even has, which is fairly doubtful).
    • I cannot find the time of publication of this photo. If the photo was indeed taken at Xoxe's trial, it was in 1949 and it is quite possible that it was taken by a staff photographer for a newspaper article. That would account for 71 years since publication and thus PD in Albania per Albanian PD tag. On the other hand, I found the photo included in the Alamy catalog as a PD photo [23]. I assume that Alamy would cover their bases, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient verification or what should be done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Albanians appear to be most diligent legislators on the Balkans. They introduced the 70-year copyright period in 1995 [24] (articles 17-18). This means that the current image is not PD in the US and that everything published in Albania after 1925 is copyrighted in the US. Consequently, I have no option but to remove this image.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi Dimitrov in a radio broadcast.jpg - Again, major issues here. We need a date of publication to determine copyright status in the EU, and we also need evidence of what effort has been made toward determining the identity of the author. That we don't know who the photographer is today is not evidence of the photo having been published anonymously, which is what the law requires. Also, it needs a US tag, assuming the former problems can be sorted.
    • Replaced with another image - I believe it has appropriate licensing information.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That one needs a US tag as well, but I think it's still under copyright in the US for the same reason as second image above. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bulgaria had 50-year (+pma if non anonymous) copyright under 1993 act [25] (article 28 - "Авторското право върху произведение, използвано анонимно или под псевдоним, продължава 50 години след разгласяването му за първи път...") and the 70-year period seems to have been introduced in 2000 [26] (article 28, this time the link is in English). This means that the current photo (published apparently in 1947) is not PD in the US as only those published before 1 January 1946 would not have renewed copyright in the US. I'll check Commons if there are any and replace this one with such photo or remove altogether if none can be found.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done - by removal. Even though there are properly sourced commons images from 1940, the tag used is wrong. It would mean that the image is non-PD in the US unless another tag is in place to indicate that the image was PD before 1 Jan 1996 in Bulgaria. No such tag exists, so a replacement seems like unfeasible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Josip Broz Tito 1949.jpg - the source link for this states the image is still in copyright. Parsecboy (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just like in the case of the Belgrade image, I believe the PD tag there is incorrect since the relevant law does not mention any of the dates cited in the PD tag. I also think that the information card has become outdated since the publication, because the relevant law explicitly contradicts it. The image in question has been lawfully published in 1949 in the Annals of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts [27] on page 77 as uncredited image. That means that on 1 January 2021, full 71 years have expired since. The information card at the above link was published in 2014 (according to the information on the card) and that would make the publication in copyright at the time of the publication of the card (because that was within 70 years of the lawful publication). According to Article 61 of the Slovenia's Copyright Act [28] the copyright expires 70 years after lawful publication - in this case it has therefore expired on 1 January 2020. Again, it is perfectly possible to remove the image, but I think it would be incorrect in this case. What would you recommend in this case?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're probably right that the archive hasn't updated its database; I'd have thought they'd have built the site to automatically calculate it based on the publication year they have entered, but apparently not. The US aspect is still a problem though. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did some more digging prompted by PD-Slovenia tag citing the final Yugoslav Copyright Act regarding photographs: [29], specifically its Article 84 says "Autorsko imovinsko pravo na fotografsko djelo ... prestaje nakon proteka dvadeset pet godina od objave djela." meaning "Author's property rights to a photographic work ... shall expire upon expiry of twenty-five years since publication of the work". This means that on 1 January 1992 (the last 1 January it was in effect in Yugoslavia, before the successor states took it over) all photos made (presumably published) by 31 Dec 1966 became PD, and that all those published in the successor states by 31 Dec 1970 became PD by 1 Jan 1996 and therefore could not have had their copyright extened in the US. Slovenia amended the act in 1995, so in its case this would for photos published until 31 Dec 1969. FR Yugoslavia (and hence Serbia) amended the act in 1998 and Croatia in 1999, so 31 Dec 1970 cutoff remains in place. In conclusion, the photo seems to be PD in Slovenia and the US. I'll add the missing tags.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you for taking up this review. I have not dealt that much with image-related issues, so please excuse me if I as something that should be obvious to me. I'll try to address each of the above issues and add responses (indented further) directly below each bullet point you raised above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, I a couple of sources requested above, but I'm unsure where to add them (image captions or the Commons), and I have some questions regarding a couple of other images. I don't have much experience with these sort of issues, so I'm sorry if I'm asking things that should be obvious. I'm grateful for any guidance on the above matters and I expect to apply this to future noms too. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done anything re US PD tags until the above is resolved though. I'll circle back to that later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a good grasp on what is actually required, so I apologise for walls of text. I read WP:NUSC and if I understand it correctly it says that the works are indeed non-PD in the US if the work was not PD in the source country on the "date of restoration". The DoR is (according to the same page) is 1 January 1996 for all Yugoslav successor states, Albania, and Bulgaria.

The final Yugoslav Copyright Act provided protection for 50 years (+author's lifetime for non-anonymous works) and all the Yugoslav successor states initially adopted that same act as their own before amending it years later. For example, I know that Croatia had the same period in effect until 2003. [30] (See e.g. consoliated Croatian Copyright Act in 1999 [31] - Articles 81-84 contain the relevant period - pedeset godina meaning fifty years).

If I got this correctly, the Belgrade photo might be salvagable (i.e. PD in Serbia and in the US) if Serbia did not amend its Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period before 1996 - meaning US copyright was not renewed. I'll see if I can find relevant legislation to verify this. Hopefully their lawmakers were not diligent in that respect.

As far as Tito's image is concerned, if I understood the guidelines properly and even if Slovenia did not amend the Yugoslav Copyright Act in respect of the copyright period, the US copyright would still be renewed - but I could replace that image with an older one.

I'll also have a look at what was the situation in Albania and Bulgaria in 1996. Maybe they had copyright period of 45 years or so. Otherwise I'll remove relevant images.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the research done in the meantime {{PD-Yugoslavia}} makes perfect sense if it is interpreted as the cutoff dates for publication of works which became PD before breakup of Yugoslavia - with a separate date for photographs (1 Jan 1966) - and keeping in mind that those works may have become PD on other grounds or later. None of photos PD under PD-Yugoslavia would be copyrighted in the US because the DoR was only 5 years later.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that's left now is the Morgan Line map. As indicated above, I asked at the MILHIST, but if all else fails, I'll make a new map.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got the map. I trust there's nothing left now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think everything is in order now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Cites properly formatted
  • Some sources have ISBNs with hyphens and some don't. Standardize on one or the other.
  • Put Perovic in title case.
  • All doi's link properly.
  • Spot checks made on ISBNs

I've done all of the above. I'm not sure where dashes go in ISBNs, so I just removed them altogether. Thanks for having a look at this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

[edit]
  • "They established good bilateral relations which Yugoslav domestic and foreign policies did not appear to seriously affect"—not sure what the second part of this sentence is trying to say. (t · c) buidhe 11:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spiru was seen as the prime opponent of links with Yugoslavia and of direct ties between Albania and the USSR." Not sure about this sentence, from context it seems like he supports close relations between Albania and USSR?
    • Reworded. Yes he was supporting closer ties with the USSR.
  • Images are not supposed to be flipped, use the original (see MOS:SANDWICH)
    • Not sure which image is this in reference to. Could you point me to it?
  • "Border incidents" what are these exactly?
    • Difficult to tell. In some instances those would be attempts to cross the border (or successful crossings) covertly - either into the country or fleeing Yugoslavia. Also, the term included cross-border gunfire and the like. At any rate, the sources do not specify, but imply that it was different types of "incidents".
  • Otherwise, support on prose, I don't know enough about this to evaluate the other criteria. (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review this nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

G'day Tomobe03, great to see this here and another Milhist editor working diligently on Yugoslavia articles. A real watershed in post-war Yugoslavia and a major crisis with the potential for invasion. A bunch of high quality RS used for this, especially the relatively recent work of Perović which is of great comfort given the age of some of the other sources. Certainly enough for A-Class, sourcing-wise, although I would expect most of the key "Further reading" sources to be referenced in a FAC, especially Laković & Tasić, Dimić, Stokes and Vuchinich. Some comments:

Lead
  • suggest "especially under Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin respectively" as the split occurred entirely under their leadership, not "especially" under it
  • move link to Eastern Bloc to first mention
  • suggest "In particular, Yugoslavia hoped to admit neighbouring Albania to the Yugoslav federation, and fostered an atmosphere of insecurity within the Albanian political leadership, which exacerbated tensions with the Soviet Union, which made efforts to slow down Yugoslav–Albanian integration. Yugoslav support of the communist rebels in Greece against the wishes of the Soviet Union further complicated the political situation."
  • suggest "Stalin tried to pressure Yugoslavia and moderate its policies using Bulgaria as an intermediary."
  • suggest "The conflict also prompted fears of an impending Soviet invasion, with thousands of border incidents and incursions, and even a coup attempt by senior Soviet-aligned military leaders."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks Peacemaker67 for the comments and buidhe for the nudge.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • unlink London, too commonly known to need a link
  • suggest being a little less specific here "The remaining territory was broken up into several parts: in the east the Germans occupied the areas of Serbia and Banat, while the remainder became the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), a puppet state garrisoned by German and Italian forces."
  • government in exile→government-in-exile
  • Mihailović was just a colonel at this stage
  • unlink Moscow
  • suggest "King Peter and the exiled government"
  • briefly explain what the Percentages Agreement was
  • link Communist Party of Albania
  • "treating it like a Yugoslav satellite state" and link satellite state
  • "Tito's Partisans"
  • "and had to accept Yugoslav civil authority"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Except Communist Party of Albania is already linked (piped link) to Party of Labour of Albania as disambiguation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the link should be at first mention in the body, ie "Albanian Communist". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. Moved now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, the USSR and Yugoslavia" actually, the treaty was signed on 5 April 1945, before the war ended
  • say what month "Stalin called Yugoslavia's foreign policy unreasonable"
  • There is no real background to "The confrontation with the Western Allies"
  • suggest "Yugoslav fighter aircraft"
  • "in this direction had occurred in 1943" as this section is about 1945-47
  • "Yugoslav regionprovince of Kosovo"
  • "Also in 1943, the Communist Party of Albania (PKSH) had proposed"
  • "and a KPJ representative"
  • "two British Royal Navy destroyers"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Yugoslav support to the communist Democratic Army of Greece" maybe link Greek Communist Party here
  • "The Yugoslavs hoped that the perceived Greek threat would increase Albanian support"
  • "Albanian and Yugoslav armies washad been approved"
  • "In late 1944, had Stalin first proposed"
  • suggest "The Yugoslav position was the federation was possible, but only if Bulgaria were one of the seven federal units."
  • Pirin Macedonia is duplinked
  • "the Bulgarian Workers' Party leader"
  • "Molotov instructed the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders"
  • "On 5 February, just days before the scheduled meeting with Stalin"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done almost everything: I have implemented most of the changes as suggested and tweaked others a bit, but I think those changes also conform to the suggestions above. I've added a bit of background on the confrontation with the Western Allies as it was pointed out as lacking. I'm not sure about changing qualification of a region to province for Kosovo. Back then it was formally a region unlike Vojvodina which had a different status of province. Is there a better term to use here?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're good, I had forgotten about the pre-1963 name. Link "Yugoslav region of Kosovo" to Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo though, as it covers all that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, still more to go here, but I'll crack on once I get back from a few days away. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Thanks for the comments!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back to it. Some more comments, starting at "February 1948 meeting with Stalin":

  • say what role Bakarić had at the time
  • "(The USSR viewed the Yugoslav five-year development plan unfavourably because it did not align with the needs of the Eastern Bloc but prioritised development based solely on local development needs.[50])" doesn't need to be in parens
  • suggest "The PKSH central committee adopted a resolution that official Albanian policy was pro-Yugoslav."
  • "ascribed them to slander and misinformation" by whom? Or was he describing the claims themselves as slander and misinformation?
    • I meant to say the claims were described by Tito as slander and misinformation. T
  • "accusing him of being the primary source of Soviet mistrust" was he accusing Hebrang of misinforming the Soviets, resulting in them mistrusting Yugoslavia, or what?
    • I would say your interpretation is right. Banac provides here a quote (albeit translated in English) saying that: Tito went further and denounced Hebrang as the "main culprit in the [Soviet] mistrust of our CC." (CC stands for the Central Committee [of the KPJ] - likely Banac's translation of customary abbreviation of 'CK' meaning centralni komitet) I copied here the entire sentence (starting with 'Tito' verbatim. The quotation marks are given in the source. T
  • suggest "had become a spy for the ultra-nationalist and fascist Croatian Ustaše during his captivity in 1942"
  • suggest "in Bucharest two days later."
  • "claimed there arewere "healthy" members"

Down to "Aftermath" more to come, hopefully tomorrow my time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "In 1949, special-purpose prison camps were built for male and female Cominformists on the uninhabited Adriatic islands of Goli Otok and Sveti Grgur respectively"
  • "Hungarian Major General..."
  • "Chief of the General Staff"

That's it, Tomobe03. Great work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking if you've seen this, Tomobe03? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, saw it four days ago, but I was busy then - and it just slipped from my mind since. I'll address this today. Thanks for the nudge.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remarks Peacemaker67. I think I got all of them now - except for the two items I provided clarifications above. Do you have any suggestions on improvements of the two points?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, great work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Capture of Sedalia

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Capture of Sedalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A minor ACW cavalry action. Confederate cavalry commanded by an officer who technically wasn't in Confederate service swooped in, routed the militia defending the town and captured a large number of cattle and mules. Some degree of looting seems to have occurred, but the extent is debated. Hog Farm Talk 01:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
Source review—pass
  • Collins 2016, p. 186.—in the PDF this page is taken up by a map and I don't see it mentioning Newtonia
    • Collins 2016 p.186 is only to cover "towards the end of the month", there's a mid-sentence ref to Kennedy 1998 that supports Newtonia and the other stuff.
  • Thompson then moved north to rejoin Price's main body and rejoined it at the Salt Fork River—Salt Fork River not mentioned in the source on the cited page
    • Oops. I meant to cite Sinisi 2020 pp. 137-138.
  • Is there a pagination issue with this source?
  • Jenkins 1906, p. 52.—These three refs look good (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checked a few other refs and didn't find any other issues (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Link "brigade".
    • Done in both the lead and body
  • "Lyon was defeated and killed at the Battle of Wilson's Creek in August by the Missouri State Guard and Confederate States Army forces". Seems a bit distant from the topic to me.
    • Trimmed out of the article
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force". Optional: "to be" → 'as'.
    • Done
  • "had had their morale dented". Optional: → 'their morale had been dented'.
    • Done; avoids having to "had"s in a row
  • Link Jefferson City.
    • It's previously linked in the background material; do you think I ought to intentionally duplink it (although if I do intentionally duplink, someone on an AWB browser run will probably remove the link without reading the context)
Ho hum. I would, but I leave it to your judgement.
  • "of Shelby's Iron Brigade of Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion" → 'of Shelby's Iron Brigade, made up of Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion'.
    • Done
  • "Thompson, who had established a chain of relay couriers along his path, sent a courier to Price to inform him of this development, and initially decided to call off the attack on Sedalia, before changing his mind in the belief that the Union infantry was not heading in his direction and that Sanborn was too far away to interfere." This seems an overlong sentence.
    • Split
  • "some rifle pits defended the town. The town was defended by". Any chance of substituting one of the defended's?
    • Done
  • "shooting the mule a soldier was writing". "writing"?
    • Fixed.
  • "the looting was primarily restricted to stores". "Stores" has two meanings. Possibly reword?
    • Clarified
  • Cite 30: "pp." → 'p.'.
    • Corrected

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confederate government of Missouri is overlinked, as is Kansas City
    • Removed
  • given the shortness of the article, I would suggest ditching footnote "a" and just working that into the body of the article. For instance, "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's brigade of Shelby's division to Sedalia"
    • I've worked it into the prose into the body and the lead, but I think it may be best to leave it in the infobox. There have been issues of people inserting the MSG into the infobox under the basis that Thompson was in the MSG, when it's misleading to add that as the MSG was not really a participant here. I feel like the footnote is a way to possibly prevent that
  • " Not wanting to leave a large Union force in behind his army": "in the rear of his army"?
    • Done
  • "Elliott's regiment": full name for Elliott on first mention?
    • Added (Benjamin F.)
  • "Thompson believed that the element of surprise gave him the greatest": suggest making this the start of a new paragraph
    • Done
  • "Thompson catpured almost 2,000 mules and cattle": typo
    • Correct
  • the battle section seems a bit light on details about the actual fighting, which seems to be covered by half of the second paragraph in the section -- is there any more detail that could be added to expand this a little?
    • Not in the secondary sources I've seen, which focus more on the aftermath. The only two primary sources for this are Queen and Thompson, whose accounts do not agree in some points. (And Queen's report is pretty short, while Thompson discusses the aftermath in more detail). There just doesn't seem to have been much written about the combat at the time, and there's just not much for the secondary sources to work with here. I think this subject is notable, but not FAC-able due to the nature of the subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources, is there an OCLC for the USWD source?
    • Added
  • "while the modern historian Paul Kirkman" v "The historian Paul B. Jenkins" -- technically both would be modern historians, surely given that the American Civil War is part of modern history? I would suggest dropping "modern" and just mentioning the year that they stated what they did. Same for Sinisi
    • Done. I assume I was thinking to contrast Kirkman in 2011 to Jenkins in 1906
  • "the Confederates left Sedalia within hours": do we know when Union forces re-occupied Sedalia?
    • Checked Kirkman, Lause, Sinisi, Collins, and Monnett and none of them seem to say anything. As a militia post that appears to have been locally manned, it doesn't seem to get much attention in sources after the Confederates left. It's even possible that some of the paroled militia may have just hung around.
  • "Shelby's division": has Shelby been formally introduced in the article?
    • Glossed
  • "including Marmaduke": has this person been formally introduced earlier in the article?
    • Removed entirely, Marmaduke is not significant to this action
  • infobox: suggest removing ranks as we do not usually display them per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc
    • Removed
  • is there a link that could be added for home guard?

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I don't normally review articles on the American Civil War because it's well outside my area of expertise. I did take one unit of American history once as part of a plan to study in the US (which fell through) and this was a prerequisite. Unfortunately, the unit that I wanted to do, which covered from 1865 to 1925 was unavailable that year, so I was stuck with one that covered 1805 to 1865. Bob Carr used to be a genuine American Civil War buff, but used to cop it for researching an obscure conflict that few people know or care about. Which of course is our bread an butter here on Wikipedia. I'm reviewing this article in the interest of helping to clear the constipated A-class review queue. I'm unsure as to why you nominated it though.

Infobox

Can we have the form of the map that shows where in the US Missouri is?

  • Added
Lead
  • First of all, I don't like the term "Union" in the lead. It is one of those pro-Confederate terms generally deprecated. I would prefer "United States" in the first sentence instead.
    • Being raised in the States, "Union" is the term I've heard universally to refer to the North in the conflict. What was taught in school, etc. (although the public high school I went to was also an isolated rural one that had a Confederate flag in the school for awhile and didn't teach evolution because it was too controversial in the area, so maybe that's not the best comparison). @BusterD and Kges1901: may also have some thoughts on this. It's very widely used in ACW articles, as well. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      These items should be taken as suggestions only. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1864, with the war having turned against the Confederacy," I would delete this phrase; the first part we already know from the previous sentence, and the second part isn't germane. I would however preface Sterling Price's name with "Confederate" as it's not so obvious which side someone is on in a civil war. (Same with Thompson)
    • Done with the removal and for Price, I've done something slightly different with Thompson as he technically hadn't joined the CSA
  • "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and mounts for the men." I would say remounts instead of mounts.
    • Done in both lead and body
  • "In response," Suggest deleting this phrase too, as not responding to anything.
    • Done
  • "on October 15" Suggest deleting this too, as we already know this.
    • Done
  • " After paroling their prisoners" The article says he didn't parole them all.
    • Changed to "paroling or releasing their prisoners"
Prelude
  • "the southwestern portion of the state" Is this the Little Dixie referred to it the lead?
    • Clarified that Little Dixie was in central Missouri
  • "While the anti-secession legislators voted to remain in the United States" This is the sort of sentence EEng would appreciate. Like, why would they vote otherwise?
    • Rephrased this sentence to highlight that there were two governments of Missouri without having the "d'oh" sentence
  • "function as a government-in-exile" Which I take to mean that it was located outside Missouri.Any idea where it was located?
    • Various places and eventually Marshall, Texas. Added
  • "Union control of Missouri" I'm not sure what is meant by this.
    • Rephrased, is this better?
  • "At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of winning the war." Probably true, but I'm not sure how relevant this is. The reader will wonder why the fighting was continuing if the Confederates had given up.
    • Removed
  • Doesn't Atlanta count as part of the Western Theater of the American Civil War?
    • Yes, although almost everyone would consider Georgia to be part of the eastern United States. Rephrased.
  • "Price expected that the offensive" Repetition of "the offensive"; consider re-ewording.
    • Rephrased
  • Any idea how many men Price had?
    • Added
  • "Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's, whose commission was in the Missouri State Guard,[1] brigade " Awkward with the phrase after the possessive; consider re-wording. Especially given that this fact is already in Note (a). (And it's just Thompson, not the brigade that are from the Missouri State Guard, correct?)
    • I've tried to rephrase this to be less confusing; is the new version better?
Battle
  • "before changing his mind in the belief that the Union infantry was not heading in his direction " What infantry? So far we've only been talking about cavalry.
    • Clarified - it was the Union force at California.
Aftermath
  • "Some eyewitnesses reported seeing Confederates plundering supplies of whiskey by riding barefoot and keeping the liquor in their boots." This makes no sense at all.
    • Is Some eyewitnesses reported seeing Confederates riding barefoot and carrying their boots filled with stolen whiskey an improvement? Essentially, eyewitnesses implied that alcohol was involved in the mess. Thompson claimed to have kept things under reasonably tight control, but there's a lot to suggest that that version isn't very accurate
      Even in the article! One has to be suspicious of a report where the best that can be said is that no one was raped or murdered. They leaves plenty of scope for mayhem. Back in the Middle Ages this was called a "sack". The term "private property" always raises alarm bells, because the Confederates saw themselves as fighting a war to protect private property (ie slavery). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the first sentence of the second paragraph into the first paragraph.
    • Done
  • I'm really astonished that people can write whole books on the subject, when the details remain so sketchy.
    • More like chapters in longer books about Price's Raid, but the Confederate cavalry gets a lot of attention and Thompson was a bit of a colorful character, so stuff like this gets surprising coverage.

All in all, a sold piece of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 11 July 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Article may be too short for FAC, but I am sending it to A-class anyway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be appropriately licensed. I don't think the article is too short for FAC—assuming that it covers the subject thoroughly. For improved readability, I would divide "Eisenhower's response" section into subsections, at 13 paragraphs it's way too long. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this article here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

Good to have the expert on World War II taking an interest in it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered both Montgomery's proposed advance on the Ruhr and Berlin and Bradley's prosed advance on Metz and the Saar, and assessed both to be feasible" - repetition of 'both'
    checkY Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This caused a complete turnaround in the operation situation." - this seems an over-statement. The modern literature on the Normandy Campaign tends to note that the German forces were well on the way to collapse before Operation Cobra, and the decision to fight for Normandy rather than pull back into France had advantages of the Allies given that the Germans were heavily exposed to Allied sea and airpower in Normandy.
    checkY The German forces had been worn down, and unlike the Allies had not received a stream of reinforcements to replace their losses. I p have seen the argument that pulling back would have been a better strategy, but I doubt it personally. Deleted sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the Germans were, happily, doomed to be thrashed regardless of what they did. They were outclassed by the Allied armies, and utterly outclassed by Allied air power. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but following the breakout from Normandy, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, ordered a regrouping of his forces" - wasn't the 12th Army Group established per a pre-invasion plan? (I can't remember if this was triggered by a date or a set of criteria)
    checkY By a date. The 1st Army Group was established in the UK. Its headquarters was used to form that of the 12th Army Group. Its deployment on 1 August (and that of the Third Army, which became active the same day) was agreed between Bradley and Eisenhower at a conference on Cobra on 20 July. (Bradley, p. 351) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sections need to note the considerable divergence from the Overlord Plan - what was originally envisioned as a steady advance through France (with a period of consolidation once Normandy and Brittany were secured) ended up being a very different campaign which started with painfully slow advances and ended with some of the fastest progress of the war as the German Army seemingly collapsed. The article doesn't really capture the combination of the vacuum in planning and 'victory disease' which was at the centre of this debate.
    Looking at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisenhower's decision to forego the capture and development of the ports of Brittany in favour of an advance to the German border left the Americans wholly dependent upon the Normandy beaches" - the Germans also demolished the ports so thoroughly that little use could be made of them. Capturing the channel ports had a lot of advantages as well.
    That's Montgomery thinking. It is true that the ports would have been damaged, but the Allies were good at repairing ports. Here's where the flawed American organisation comes in. The Channel ports were allocated to the British. Bradley's decision in early August made it inevitable that the Brittany ports would not be captured quickly, but there is no indication that the logistical implications of his decision were considered. SHAEF recommended abandoning development of the Brittany ports on 3 September (which Eisenhower confirms on 7 September), but the logistical data is in the hands of COMZ. Only then does COMZ examine the situation and reports that the American Army is going to need the Seine and Channel ports (which had not yet been captured). At this point a stretch of bad weather alerts Eisenhower to the impending crisis. He noted that Bradley first raised the issue of Antwerp on 21 September. COMZ only decides to use Antwerp for US forces on 27 September. Only towards the end of September does Eisenhower focus on Antwerp, and he orders Montgomery to pull out all the stops on 9 October. At this point 12th Army Group does not believe that Antwerp will be open before 1 December. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to defer to your superior knowledge here, but capturing ports in Brittany wasn't going to deliver benefits given that the Germans were very good at demolishing them in ways which made them very slow to return to service. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the destruction caused by the Allied air forces and artillery. The damage to the railway system was also significant. There was some debate about the Brittany decision, which has been called the "Critical error of World War II". What really went wrong is that decisions were taken without proper consideration of the consequences. It takes weeks for the Americans to realise that if not Brittany, then they need alternative ports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't Montgomery continue to advocate for a narrow front advance after September 1944?
    No, but he continued to lobby for the ground command for another four months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Controversy' section feels incomplete given that it's focused on old works when this issue continues to be debated (though the general view today seems to be that Eisenhower made the right decision and Montgomery was somewhere between obsessional and insane, which I suspect is a bit unfair).
    That not what the sources here have to say. The consensus is that Eisenhower's broad front was doomed to failure from the start. Let me know if you have sources worth a look. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I'm thinking of the works which debate whether Market-Garden was a totally bad idea or not, as well as some works which are keeping the Bradley vs Montgomery dispute going 75 years later. These might more relate to Monty's campaign to be ground forces commander though (but I think that the goal of that was for the unified forces under his command to make a single thrust into Germany?). The underlying issue is that unfortunately the Germans weren't beaten enough and their leadership was too irresponsible for the Allies to win the war in 1944 so both the narrow front and broad front options weren't going to deliver victory until 1945. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see what I can dig up. What makes least sense to me is the anti-British feeling in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: have you had any luck here? Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't found much, I'm afraid. Will add a bit more. Do you think the maps in Ellis far under the Open Government Licence? ie [33] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I'm pleased to support this nomination then. My understanding is that British Crown Copyright is 50 years like Australia (but don't quote me on this! - the relevant tag at Commons should have the right details), so Ellis should now be PD. Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: As if on cue, someone has written a new book on the subject. [34] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Helpful, though the thesis being advanced in the book looks dubious to me. It's also odd how some authors want to blame the Allied leadership for not finishing off the Germans in 1944, rather than the German leadership for prolonging the war despite it being obvious they were beyond the point of recovery. I really don't see how the Germans were beaten-enough to be destroyed in 1944, especially given that such arguments are based around the western Allied leadership not running a perfect campaign (surely what they did was pretty good!). Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. I've said that in the article. There was no chance of victory in 1944. Yet even in 1945 there as a feeling that, given the resources committed, that there were a lot of things that could have done better. But I don't think they could have done that much better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, agreed. Re-opening Antwerp a lot faster and not being taken by surprise in the Battle of the Bulge were probably the most realistic things they could have achieved. The fact that I've recently created articles on two 1944 battles which cost the Germans around 40,000 troops against minor Allied losses and another editor recently created an article on the mass-surrender of 20,000 cut off Germans in France says a bit about how well the Allies actually did not being recognised. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Brigade Piron

[edit]

Although I have no particular expertise in this, the article looks excellent and must be close to A-Class. I do think, however, that it really needs a map to show the status quo on the Western Front in c.August 1944. At a push, this would look adequate and I am sure there are better ones out there. Also, the title seems a bit unwieldy - why not remove "in World War II"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That map is in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, I'll have a look at this. Do you want a straight ACR review, or should I comment as if it were at FAC, pre-empting a likely nomination. ACR is less work for me, but on a skim I can see a couple of things which are fine for ACR but which would be issues at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article could garner enough reviews at FAC to warrant nomination, but if there would be issues at FAC I would like to know what they are, as this would definitely preclude nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
The following review is against the FAC criteria then.
  • Optional: I would put the first 11 words in bold.
    Requires re-wording but done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They achieved tactical and operational surprise". Consider linking both "tactical" and "operational".
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that "but not its pride" is either encyclopedic or adds anything to the article.
    Removed. It does tie in with the article, but the reader can probably infer it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 12th and 21 Army Groups kept together to advance". '21st'?
    Ooops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". "Montgomery's proposal" section relies heavily on quotes. Not a problem at ACR, but would be at FAC. I can see the advantage of using Monty's own words, but IMO the block quote overdoes it and most or all of this would be better in Wickipedia's voice.
    I've removed a couple of the quotations. I think it is important for the reader to hear Montgomery and Eisenhower in their own voice. (I once wrote a whole article in Sir Humphrey Appleby's voice.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It was the extent of the quote(s), not the principle, which caused me to think you were pushing the MoS boundary. (I like that! Which one?)
  • "Montgomery contended that the 21st Army Group needed the assistance of at least twelve American divisions, and to provide the logistical support for them, he recommended that Patton's Third Army be halted.[23] In August and September 1944, the US First Army consisted of nine divisions, so giving twelve to Montgomery would have meant handing over the entire army to Montgomery." "Montgomery" appears three times in the sentence. Perhaps the last mention to 'him'?
    Tightened the wording to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dempsey's British Second Army advanced 400 kilometres (250 mi) across France and Belgium to capture the port of Antwerp largely intact" Any chance of dating this?
    On 4 September. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A complication was the Ultra secret". What this was should be briefly explained in line.
    Added "whereby German encrypted messages were being read by the Allies" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the article is a little quote heavy. Personally I think that you use them judiciously and appropriately and stay just about on the correct side of MOS:QUOTE. If this were FAC others may disagree.
    As noted above, I have cut back on the quotations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article and a good summary of the debate. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Eisenhower's reputation has been slipping in the 21st century; possibly because the generation that knew him are dying off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised it was, but I probably have less than half a dozen works on NW Europe from this century. Supporting, great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Looking good. A few comments from me:

  • "Montgomery's primary mission was to defeat Germany as quickly as possible" wasn't this also the US mission? This seems to imply otherwise by noting he was British.
    Of course. I have rewritten this: "

Like his American counterparts, Montgomery's primary mission was to defeat Germany as quickly as possible, but as the senior British commander in north west Europe, he also operated under political pressure to achieve two other objectives. The first was that, given Britain's precarious economy and manpower situation, a victory in 1944 was preferable to one in 1945. He was therefore inclined to grasp at the most tenuous prospect of this, whereas Eisenhower was more ready to accept that it was unachievable." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest unpiping the link to Walter Bedell Smith, as he is far better known as that than with the initial.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the point it mentions "The decision to continue the pursuit beyond the Seine" there has been a good summary of the British advance during Monty's offensive, but there is a dearth of information about the American advance, where it was up to, what had been captured etc.
    Added bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stretched the logistical system" the American one, or the Allied one? The implication is it is talking about the American one.
    Yes. Added "American". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • explain why "Bradley did not comply".
    I've added a new paragraph:

    While Bradley acknowledged the value of the Ruhr, he contended that instead of First Army encircling it from the south with a crossing of the Rhine near Cologne like Montgomery recommended, it would be preferable to undertake a wider envelopment of the Ruhr with Third Army crossing in the vicinity of Frankfurt. Even more so than Eisenhower, Bradley was a proponent of the broad front doctrine taught at Fort Leavenworth. Since he considered that the German Army in the West had been completely defeated, he saw no reason to halt Patton's drive on the Saar, which he saw as providing a tactical windfall. Eisenhower relented on 5 September, and agreed that Patton's advance could continue. Bradley continued to support Patton's to the extent of starving First Army units of fuel, and allocating Third Army two divisions released from front in Brittany. This resulted in Eisenhower issuing a more explicit statement of his intent on 13 September.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can correct the typo in "with you conception" your
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • he could support the 21st Army Groups? Group?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subsequent defeat at Arnhem make it clear" made?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "many of these were incomplete because of the fact that Ultra – whereby German encrypted messages were being read by the Allies – was kept secret until 1974."
    Altered along the lines suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually von is dropped after initial use in the full name (ie Blumentritt wrote that von Rundstedt)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The consequences if the narrow front advance had failed, should also be considered." what consequences does Andidora refer to?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a final query. Could more be said about the role of the failure to clear the Scheldt estuary and therefore put Antwerp into operation to support Montgomery's idea?
    Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, supporting. I have also done a source review, and all the sources are reliable. No spotchecks conducted as the nom has a long history at ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 14 July 2021 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment (Confederate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Originally consisting of men drawn from a headquarters guard, the 13th Missouri Cavalry Regiment was originally armed with experimental cannons before becoming a more traditional cavalry regiment. Often associated with Sterling Price, it served under him in the Camden expedition and Price's Raid. Over the course of its life, the unit played an undistinguished role in a number of battles and burned a depot, a bridge, and an entire train. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Missouri State Guard had left to join Confederate States Army units Shouldn't be there an article before "Confederate"?
    • Rephrased
  • after reaching a brickyard 0.5 miles (0.80 km) from the town Is it possible to remove the third nought? It looks unnecessary.
    • Suppressed the trailing zero
  • found that it consisted of 400 men in eight companies Shouldn't it be "found that it consisted of 400 men in 8 companies"?
    • Probably. Done.
  • On April 15, Steele took the town of Camden, but had trouble securing Maybe add the state here to clarify where this happened?
    • Done
  • who launched several futile attacks on April 30 in the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry --> "who launched several futile attacks on April 30, in the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry"
    • Done
  • It then spent the summer of 1864 defending an outpost at Princeton, Arkansas Per MOS:SEASON try to avoid or clarify seasons for our readers in the southern hemisphere or those who live around the equator who doesn't have the normal four seasons.
    • Done
  • Red River campaign is overlinked.
  • No link for Jefferson City?
    • Linked
  • bypassed Jefferson City and reached Marshall via California Maybe add the state here because there are multiple cities or towns who bear the same name in the US.
    • I've added the state for California because that's a plausible mixup, but I think between placing the start of the paragraph at Cuba, Missouri and the end at California, Missouri, it should be reasonably clear which state its in
  • Blunt's men fell back to Independence Same as above.
    • Done
  • Simultaneously with the October 23 fighting at Byram's Ford --> "Simultaneously with the October 23, fighting at Byram's Ford"
    • Rephrased
  • 50 of the prisoners were from Wood's battalion Per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid opening a sentence with a number's symbol.
    • Spelled out fifty
  • Note b: Do we know what kind of cancer Claiborne Fox Jackson had?
    • Added
  • Can you standardise the dates in the "References"? It's just weird to see the section uses DD/MMM/YYYY instead of the rest of the article's MM/DD/YYYY.
    • Done
  • Can you give dates in the "Map of Price's Raid" and "Sterling Price"?
    • Added in the caption for the map, it's unclear when the picture of Price was taken. Based on the uniform, I'd guess prior to 1861, but that's just original research

Looks good to me with exception of the comments above. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]

Let's see if I can remember what to do around here.

  • Three sentences in a row start "After.." in the lead ("After spending the summer of 1864 at Princeton, .." then "After entering the state in September, .." and then "After participating in some further fighting and operations against railroads, ..") The repetition also means all three follow the same format, which increases the repetition. (Ie. "After this thing, the unit did another thing.")
    • Rearranged and reworded so that now only one of the three starts with after
  • "..the unit suffered 72 casualties, 50 of them in prisoners of war." For me, "as" would be preferable to "in", but maybe that is just personal preference or a Br/Am thing.
    • Changed. I'm not sure if it's proper in AmEng, either
  • "Another Confederate attack and subsequent fighting through the streets followed, .." and "A lull in the fighting followed," is a tad repetitive.
    • Rephrased
  • "Opposing Steele was 7,500 Confederate commanded by Price.." In BrEng this should be "Opposing Steele were 7,500 Confederates commanded by Price.." Is this a EngVar thing? Even so, it is very tough reading for any Brits reading it, so rephrasing might be worthwhile even if it makes sense in AmEng.
    • Pretty sure it should be "were" in AmEng too.
  • "..enough food to feed his army." food and feed aren't both needed: trim to "..enough food for his army."
    • Fixed
  • "..were harried by pursuing Confederate during the retreat." This feels like it should either be "Confederates", plural, or be something like "Confederate forces" or "Confederate soldiers".
    • Grammar error. Corrected.
  • "The ten companies were designated with the letters A–K and I.." This doesn't make any sense, "I" comes before "K". Should it be "A–I and K"?
    • That's a bizarre error. Surprised it wasn't caught before

That's it from me on a first read. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Sources section, suggest adding the relevant page range for Bearss' article in the Arkansas Historical Quarterly
    • Added
  • "New York, New York" --> I think by tradition we drop the second "New York" here, as it isn't necessary
    • Removed
  • "and was under the command of Brigadier General John S. Marmaduke" --> directly commanded, or assigned to Marmaduke's formation with Wood as their direct commander?
    • Assigned to Marmaduke's formation. Does replacing "command" with "authority" help here?
  • "was too poorly disciplined to be an effective combat unit": do we know what was done to rectify this situation?
    • Source doesn't say. If I had to guess; probably not much.
  • "Steele was sent from Little Rock with 8,500 to thrust" --> "8,500 men"?
    • Done
  • "Opposing Steele were 7,500 Confederate commanded" --> "7,500 Confederates"
    • Done
  • "One such party was sent out on April 17, with the purpose of gathering supplies" --> "One such party was sent out on April 17 to gather supplies"?
    • Done
  • "the Confederates moved to attack it, bringing on" --> "the Confederates moved to attack the Union party, resulting in"?
    • Done
  • "but was soon disengaged to get captured wagons into movable condition" --> "but was soon disengaged and tasked with moving the captured wagons"?
    • I've rephrased this. The source specifically states that they were tasked to prepare the wagons for moving, not moving the wagons.
  • "After the fighting ended, some captured African American soldiers were massacred; postmortem mutilations were also inflicted on some of the Union dead" --> was this by members of this unit (14th Missouri Cavalry Battalion)? I think you probably need to be clear here if it was
    • None of the sources I've seen implicate this specific unit. From what I've seen, there's no real consensus on who exactly did what, but some Texans and the Confederate Choctaw units seem to get blamed the most.
  • "enabling the Confederate to focus on Steele" --> "enabling the Confederates to focus on Steele"
    • Done
  • "Price expected that the offensive would create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri, divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat (many of the Union troops defending Missouri had been transferred out of the state, leaving the Missouri State Militia as the state's primary defensive force), and aid McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln;[26] on September 19, Price's column entered the state". This is a very complex sentence -- suggest splitting it
    • I've split the final clause off and turned the paranthetical into a footnote, so this should be a much simpler sentence now.
  • "While four companies of recruits were added to Wood's battalion while" --> reword to avoid saying "while" twice
    • Done
  • "continued the fighting with night combat": was this rare for the time?
    • It was unusual. Added.
  • "which was known as the Battle of Mine Creek" --> "which became known as the Battle of Mine Creek"?
    • Done

@AustralianRupert: - Thanks for the review; I've tried to reply to all points. Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks, I have added my support above. Sorry for the delayed return; got caught up in an area without secure internet due to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After a few months of low activity due to RW stuff, I'm back with yet another Yugoslav ship. This one served under five names and three flags over a nearly forty-year career, at various times being used as an admiralty yacht, submarine chaser/gunboat/escort, anti-submarine warfare training vessel and motor gunboat tender, and for several decades after WWII as a presidential yacht for the Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito. I brought it up to GA standard a few years ago, but never felt it was detailed enough for A-Class. The recent publication of a comprehensive book on the Yugoslav Royal Navy by Zvonimir Freivogel has meant that much more detail on her service has been able to be added, and I consider she's ready for ACR. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Good to see you back at ACR; will review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like the phrasing of "The ship had a length overall of 60.45–65 metres (198 ft 4 in–213 ft 3 in)," can be improved. Are the two sources giving differing statements of overall lengths? Did the ship have different overall lengths in different parts of the boat? Is the exact overall length unknown, but it's known to be within that range? The current wording is unclear here.
Thanks HF, good point. Is it clearer now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much clearer. I have to admit that I initially read it as 60.45-60.65 meters, not 60.45-65.00 meters. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing appears to be of good quality and a good breadth of sourcing.

I can't find much to complain about here, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • In 1969–1970 she was serving as a dispatch boat That's sourced to a book published in 1969. I presume the author did not have a crystal ball which would tell them that it would continue to serve as a dispatch boat the following year, even if this was likely.
Good point, not sure how that got there. Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Peter II of Yugoslavia's 1954 memoirs, he visited the ship while she was in Malta in 1943. Since this seems like the rare time the royal yacht was actually used as a royal yacht, if a secondary source can confirm this that would be nice to mention.
Nice find, added. I think for detail of this sort, his memoirs are fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any special significance to the name "Beli Orao (White Eagle)"? I'm seeing it prop up in other places related to wartime Yugoslavia.
Yes, it is largely a Serbian thing within the former Yugoslavia, the Serbian national football team is called the White Eagles, it has featured in Serbian heraldry and vexillology for centuries. I've noted that she is named after the double-headed eagle on the Yugoslav coat of arms and linked the latter, do you think I need to do more? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done I think, Indy beetle. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "She was captured by the Italians during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941" → 'She was captured in April 1941 by the Italians during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia'.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was captured by the Italians during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and was re-armed and saw service as a gunboat in the Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy), briefly as Alba then Zagabria, undertaking harbour protection and coastal escort duties." Bit of a long sentence.
Split, good point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she became a motor torpedo boat tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats". 1. The link to motor torpedo boat tender refers specifically to US vessels of this type 2. "she became a motor torpedo boat tender for a flotilla of motor gunboats" reads a little oddly.
Both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And in the main text?
Doh, also fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: "60.08 m (197 ft 1 in) (pp)", perhaps the "pp" could be linked?
Done, and oa. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her engines were rated at 1,900–2,200 brake horsepower". Each?
Clarified, sources vary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Her engines were rated at either" still leaves me unclear as to whether each engine was so rated or whether this was the rating of their combine output.
Better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. All done I reckon, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of follow up queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check you are happy with those changes, Gog? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

[edit]
  • Beli Orao (White Eagle) was a royal yacht From which language is this translated?
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italians during the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 This sentence sound really odd to me. I'm not really familiar with using a proper noun like WWII as an adjective here.
This sentence has been changed as a result of earlier review comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this role she operated out of Malta, and in the Tyrrhenian Sea Pipe Malta to Crown Colony of Malta.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beli Orao was ordered from Cantieri Riuniti dell'Adriatico (CRDA) No article here?
It is linked? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • several times by the Yugoslav government No Yugoslav Government?
linked Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • rated at 1,900–2,200 brake horsepower (1,400–1,600 kW),[2][1] Re-oder refs here?
This sentence has been changed as a result of earlier review comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5! See what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @Indy beetle and CPA-5:, any further comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Sources generally look good and of high quality.
  • Leo Niehorster seems to be okay. Has an article on the German Wikipedia.
  • Spot checks not done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 6 July 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): The ed17 (talk)

Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hey all! Chile's Esmeralda was the world's first modern protected cruiser, a ship type that made British shipbuilder Armstrong Mitchell (later Armstrong Whitworth) a fortune. Variously lauded and criticized for its design particulars at the time of its construction, Esmeralda was quickly outpaced by rapid advances in naval technology. When Chile found itself falling further and further behind in an arms race with Argentina, Chile sold the ship to Japan to help fund a new armored cruiser. Izumi, as the ship was renamed, took part in the Russo-Japanese War and was the first warship to spot the Russian fleet during the decisive Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Afterwards, the ship served in subsidiary roles for the rest of the war and was scrapped in 1912. I'm looking forward to any and all comments y'all can provide! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A Chilean cruiser that saw combat with Japan is certainly a curiosity! It's also good to see you at ACR Ed, after what I think might be a bit of a break? I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I think that the 'design' section should start with material explaining why the Chilean Government ordered this ship, and wanted such an advanced vessel
  • Relatedly, the material in the second and third paras of the 'design' section and the 'public reaction' section feels a bit jumbled. I'd suggest restructuring this material as background on why the ship was ordered and the Chilean Government's requirements, a summary of the design, and then material on expert and public reactions.
  • It's a bit unclear whether the ship was actually superior: the RN's critique of the design seems pretty devastating. I'd suggest being clearer about this as well - e.g. Armstrongs claimed the ship was the bee's knees and a number of other commentators were impressed, but the RN thought it was actually fatally flawed.
  • How did this ship end up with the Congressionalist faction during the civil war? Did all the Navy side with this faction, or did the ship's officers and/or crew make a decision here?
  • Why did Chile dispose of this newish and powerful ship during the arms race with Agentina? Was it considered out of date, and the funds used from selling it would be better employed on new vessels?
  • From checking my copy of Kaigun, the ship is mentioned only once, as part of a table. I'd suggest removing this as 'further reading' unless I'm missing something here.
  • The article seems a bit under-illustrated given what's available on Commons - File:Twms gen twcms 00 6077 large.jpg for instance would be a good addition. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I've been woefully slow in following up here. I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed, especially given the limited sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Esmeralda1884.png: source link is dead, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I've updated the source and public domain tag. As the photograph was published in 1884, it is in the public domain in the US and is assumed to be in the public domain in countries that use the 70 years after the death of the creator criterion. As it was published in the UK, I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not it needs PD-UK-unknown as well... I'm honestly not sure. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exact complement of 296 needs cited
  • Where is the 600 tons of coal figure in the infobox coming from?
  • Namesake does not seem to be explicitly cited
  • Source link for the infobox image appears to be dead
  • Be consistent with how you use locations for USA places - some have city, but no state (I'd recommend for Sater definitely including the state, as Athens, Georgia is not going to be the obvious Athens to think of), while some have the state abbreviated and others spell it out
  • Recommend adding ISBNs to the books that have them
  • Sources look fine, as does image licensing (aside from the dead source look). Prose is good. Anticipating supporting. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Parsecboy

[edit]
  • Can you crop the infobox image?
  • Link magazine (artillery) in the lead
  • Also in the lead, you might add the years of the Russo-Japanese War
  • Move the link for displacement to the first use
  • Armstrong's argument is very similar to that of the Jeune Ecole, which was in vogue at the time (and was what drove countries like Italy to buy Armstrong's cruisers) - probably worth making that connection
  • Were the main guns in proper turrets, or in open barbettes with gun shields? The lead image appears to suggest the latter (and Conway's says barbettes)
  • Any specifics on the boiler type? Conway's says "cyl boilers", which is their shorthand for fire-tube boilers
  • Link "compartments" to engine room, and I'd link ihp and knots in the text
  • "along its belt" - I'd switch belt to waterline, to avoid giving the impression the ship had belt armor

More later. Parsecboy (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Sondhaus Naval Warfare, 1815–1914, in a chapter helpfully titled "The Jeune Ecole", he directly links Giovanni Bausan to the Jeune Ecole, same with Japan, and the early US cruisers, of which he states: "The emphasis on cruisers reflected the Jeune Ecole spirit of the times - pages are 149–154. Sondhaus is also pretty explicit in linking Esmeralda and all of her derivatives to the Jeune Ecole in Navies of Europe. There's an article in Mariner's Mirror vol 91 that covers it as well.
  • Also, I came across an article in Warship 2004 that will probably help on this point (and perhaps on other topics more generally - see snippets here) - @Sturmvogel 66: has a copy in his library and may be able to help you out there. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Warship article links the Esmerelda-type cruisers to the Jeune Ecole via the latter's belief that cheap, specialized fast cruisers with only a few large-caliber guns could deal with battleships. I can scan that page for you and add the article to the bibliography if you like. The Mariner's Mirror article is a book review of Arms and the State: Sir William Armstrong and the Remaking of British Naval Power, 1854–1914 by Marshal J. Bastable, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004 ISBN 0-7546-3404-3 which definitely should be consulted to firmly pin the two together.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better book on the Jeune Ecole would probably be Roksund, Arne (2007). The Jeune École: The Strategy of the Weak. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-15723-1.. I have a scanned copy if you can't get it locally.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello both! I've added a sentence on Jeune École to the Armstrong paragraph; it's based on Naval Warfare, 1815–1914. I own Bastable, and despite the book review the link between Jeune École and Esmeralda is frustratingly not explicit; it gets close, but says only that "this dynamic market for cruisers lasted throughout the 1880s, fuelled [sic] by the belief among many naval strategists that the days of the battleship and 'command of the sea' were over and the era of submarines, fast cruisers and wars on commerce had begun." (Basically, all the tenets of Jeune École but he doesn't mention it for several more pages, and even then it's simply the "French strategy of war against British commerce.") Google previews show that Roksund's book doesn't mention Esmeralda, but I imagine it could be used to add a paragraph or contribute to a short "legacy" section that includes info on the general trend. @Sturm can you send the Warship article page? That sounds like it would be incredibly helpful. I would also appreciate getting Roskund if it's easy aka scanned already and only requires attaching it to an email. There's an ebook available at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, but no public access is allowed due to COVID. @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three 14 inches (360 mm)" - add the adj=on parameter
  • There are some rounding issues that need to be fixed - the above example, a 6" rounded to 150mm, 18" converted to 460mm, "2,800 long tons (2,800 t)" - there may be others I haven't noticed
  • "It was launched" - "it" here is ambiguous - does it refer to the keel? I like to use "the completed hull" or similar
  • "with Esmeralda's arrival and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war" - this seems oddly US-centric to put directly in the text. It might be better to move it to an explanatory footnote
  • "two well-maintained 1870s central-battery ironclads, and two 1860s armored frigates." - I'd just as soon link the classes. Even if they're redlinks, I'm sure you, Sturm, or I will get to them sooner or later
  • Not a ton to go on from this source, but it mentions Izumi as having taken part in the Japanese invasion of Taiwan (1895) - might be worth looking into
  • this provides an arrival in Japan in February 1895
  • According to this, the ship was involved in the Itata incident during the Chilean Civil War
  • this references a bombardment of Vladivostok in late April or early May (it only states that it took place after the sinking of Kinshu Maru on 26 April and before 12 May)
  • According to this, Izumi carried Itō Hirobumi to Korea, where he became the Japanese Resident-General of Korea
  • this gives some additional details on the ship's activities at Tsushima
  • Per this, Izumi briefly engaged Dmitrii Donskoi at Tsushima
  • This places Izumi in the main squadron in home waters in 1900, and gives an account of that year's training exercises, which may be of use

I hope some of those are useful. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these are done except:
    • I kept the 'US since their civil war' mention in there because I assumed it would be an obvious question for most readers accustomed to the United States having the most powerful navy in the Americas (for more than a century). I'm definitely not against removing it or moving it to a footnote, but it's a thought.
    • The two ironclads are definitely Almirante Cochrane and Blanco Encalada, and I've added that to the text. The "armored frigates," as defined by the sources, are harder to pin down. My suspicion based on List of decommissioned ships of the Chilean Navy is that they're actually corvettes, specifically O'Higgins and Chacabuco, but I can't be sure.
  • More to come later. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added info from many of the books. I found what I think is a more reliable accounting of the Itata incident and used that in the article; Esmeralda and Charleston were in Acapulco together at one point, but it doesn't mention a near-fight, so I've omitted that. I don't think that there are additional details in Proceedings beyond what Corbett gave, and I decided against adding what seems to have been just a couple long-range shots between Izumi and Dmitrii Donskoi. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I forgot to come back to this for a while, but I think my comments are all addressed. Nice work Ed, and glad to see you're still writing ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Not in my area of expertise, so please be somewhat kind if I don't hit the mark on some/any/every/all comments

  • I've been told that direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited later (here)
  • No link to War of the Pacific?
  • No link to something for 'ironclad'?
  • Jeune Ecole is duplinked
  • Royal Navy linked on second mention
  • Linking in general is haphazard, suggest reviewing the whole article for missing one, duplinks, out of place links
  • I'm seeing at least a "10-inch" in need of conversion, may be others
  • "would be hailed by" what does 'would be' mean in this context? When did it happen?
  • " in press outlets:" can you be more specific as to what's being quoted? Presumably not every press outlet published the same quote?
  • "Esmeralda was also favorably compared " by who?
  • what is a 'primary position'?
  • "Notably, except for the designs which immediately followed Esmeralda" What is 'notable' about this?
  • I'd appreciate a little more context about the Chilean Civil War
  • " Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough" 'close enough'?
  • I honestly don't understand from this article what the 'Itata incident' was
  • would it be possible to use {{inflation}} for prices?
  • When did Japan actually purchase the ship, and when did the transfer happen? I'm a little hazy on the dating from the article

Interesting read, from a non-expert pov. Some comments, nothing too major. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eddie891! Great name we share, and I appreciate you bringing a very useful non-expert eye to this article. I've addressed most of these issues. In particular:
  • For "in press outlets" I tweaked it to add the specific outlet I got the quote from. His remarks were published elsewhere as well, but they tended to summarize things differently; if I remember right, The Record ran the longest summation that I could find.
  • What kind of context are you looking for about the civil war?
  • I tweaked the Itata incident description to make the sequence of events clearer, and I hope it now makes more sense.
  • The {{inflation}} template is a tricky one for things like warships. It's a capital expense, so calculating it with that template can only be handled for the US and UK. See the top orange box there for more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the ping @Eddie891:. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Hello Ed - I have a few nitpickdrs for you! Pendright (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • In 1894, Esmeralda was sold to the Empire of Japan via Ecuador, an action which brought down the latter's government.
  • "an action" -> Since it was a specfic action, shouldn't it be "the action"?

Public reaction:

  • Unusually, the ship was also visited by the Prince of Wales, who would later inherit the British throne as Edward VII.[11
The Prince of Wales would seem to be the subject of the sentence and it is he who performs the action?
  • Across the Atlantic, the US Army and Navy Journal published an interview with an American naval officer which expressed his belief that Esmeralda could stand off San Francisco and drop shells into the city while being in no danger from the shorter-ranged shore-based batteries covering the Golden Gate strait.
  • the US Army and Navy Journal published an interview -> Why does US preceede Army and Navy Journal?
  • an interview with an American naval officer which expressed his belief that Esmeralda -> Replace which with who
  • "Chili [sic] has today the finest, fastest, and most perfectly equipped fighting war ship of her size afloat," he said."
warship is one word!
  • This perspective was only one of several published during this time which intended to sound alarms about the underfunded and underequipped state of the United States Navy.[15]
  • Add a comma between time and which.
  • underequipped -> It's under-equipped

Analysis and criticism:

  • In particular, although the Chilean ship's freeboard was higher than the Armstrong design which preceded it, it was still a mere 10 feet 9 inches (3.28
m) from the waterline.
  • "In particular or although" couldd be dropped?
  • Change which to that
  • it, it - back-to-back?
  • This perspective was only one of several published during this time which intended to sound alarms about the underfunded and underequipped state of the United States Navy.[15]
  • Add a comma after time
  • underequipped -> under-equipped
  • Rendel gave Esmeralda large ten-inch guns and a speed with which the ship's captain could choose the range at which they wanted to fight.
  • a speed -> the speed (definite)
  • With which -> change to that
  • at which -> seems unnecessary

Specifications:

  • The ten-inch weapons were able to be trained to either side of the ship, raised to an angle of 12°, and depressed to 5°.
  • Were able to -> Suggest changing to could.
  • Suggest replacing the comma after ship with a semmicolon and removing the comma afrer 12
  • Notably, the ship was not equipped with a sailing rig.[9]
Is sailing rig worthy of a link?
  • The ship's coal bunkers were also designed to be part of the protective scheme, but as they were not subdivided, their utility if damaged in battle were also severely questionable.
  • Is coal bunkers worthy of a link?

Chilean service:

  • Esmeralda's keel was laid by Armstrong Mitchell in Elswick, Newcastle upon Tyne, on 5 April 1881, and was given the yard number 429.
Since it's the keel that is the subject, shouldn't the sentence begin with the definite article?
  • Nevertheless, with Esmeralda's arrival and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war, Chile was able to lay claim to possessing the most powerful navy in the Americas: their fleet was centered around the protected cruiser, two well-maintained 1870s Almirante Cochrane-class central-battery ironclads and two 1860s armored frigates.
The phrase "and the United States having neglected their navy since the end of their civil war" is supplemental information and is usually is set off by commas?

Chilean Civil War:

  • Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough to fire shots at Imperial, the cruiser was unable to reach its maximum speed due to dirty boilers and therefore lost track of the transport that night.
Although Esmeralda as able to get lose enough to fire shots at Imperial
as (was)?
  • In August, Esmralda participated in the last naval operations of the war by supporting the landing of Congressionalist troops in Quintero Bay
In August, Esmralda participated in the last naval operations of the war by supporting the landing of Congressionalist troops in Quintero Bay
"in Quintero Bay" -> At is used for specific locations
  • Finally, on the 22nd, Esmeralda attacked the forts of Viña del Mar together with the ironclad Almirante Cochrane, with a successful result.
The comma after "Finally" should be deleted because the first four words of the sentence make up the introductry phrase.

Transfer to Japan and Ecuadorian ramifications:

  • These efforts went as far as asking Armstrong to give plans for upgrading the ship's weapons, replacing its propulsion machinery, adding superstructure, and more.
  • "provide" or "furnish" might be more suitable than "give"?
  • "superstructure, and more." > Consider deleting the comma?
  • As Japan was in the midst of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Chileans did not want to appear to be violating its official neutrality, the latter induced the Ecuadorian government and its president Luis Cordero Crespo to serve as an intermediary: the older Esmeralda would first be sold and sailed to Ecuador, who would briefly take formal possession of the ship before selling it to Japan.[34]
  • This is about a 67-word sentence -> Seems like it could easily be broken up for ease of reading.
  • Who -> when referring to a country as to its government, the word which is usually used.
  • This arrangement was facilitated with a considerable payment given to the Ecuadorian president.[55]
"Given" seems redundant?
  • Prior to the battle, Izumi was assigned to support a collection of auxiliary cruisers that were charged with the Russian fleet so its Japanese counterpart could move into position to engage.
How about a comms after fleet?
  • Moreover, its crew had trouble finding the Russians after erroneously located spotting reports were radioed in by the auxiliary Shinano Maru at 4:45 am.[63]
Unclear, at least to me?

Finished - Pendright (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pendright, and long time no see! All of these should be dealt with, though not always in the manner recommended. For example, for "Izumi was assigned to support ..." I divided the sentence instead of adding a comma. I also kept the comma in "superstructure, and more" because I enjoy a good Oxford comma. ;-) The changes should all be in this diff, I think. Please let me know if you spot any other issues! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: All good, supporting! I hope all is wel with you. Pendright (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will commit to doing one. Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Fuenzalida Bade, "Capitán de fragata Policarpo Toro Hurtado," Revista de Marina Journal 90, no. 692 (January - February 1973): 112." - Seems to be missing the author's first name, Rodrigo. Also should indicate a parameter stating what language this is in, and (ideally, if it can be done with decent precision) provide an English translation of the title
  • Ditto re language and title translation for Quiñones López 1989 and López Urrutia 2007 and Thomas Cavieres 1990 and Vio Valdivieso 1933
  • The external link appears to be used as a source, so it can probably be used
  • Source reliability looks fine

Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hog Farm! I'll be getting to these as soon as possible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: these should now be addressed except for calling out the language. I'm using Chicago style, and while translating the titles is recommended, adding what language the source is in is not. I hope that's alright, and thanks for taking a look! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:13, 6 July 2021 (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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

12th (Eastern) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division was a second-line Territorial Army division, during the Second World War. Under-trained, it was taken off guard duty in the UK and dispatched to France as a labour division. It was intended to be used to help construct airfields and pillboxes. However, in May 1940, when the German advance through the Ardennes caught the British and French off guard, the division was thrown into the frontline. It was then spread-out, overwhelmed, and defeated by several panzer divisions, although it did manage to cause some delays and buy precious critical hours for the BEF evacuation. What was left returned home, and the division was broken-up in order to bring other formations up to strength. The article has had the once over by the GOCE, and has just passed its GA review. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK. Please do not use collapsed tables, it's not allowed per MOS:COLLAPSE. (Collapsed navboxes are OK though). (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the image review. Per the policy, they are allowed if the material within is a repetition of what is in the article or supplementary. In this case, all important units are already mentioned in the article. Or they can be set so that they default open, but can be collapsed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I'm surprised this hasn't attracted any reviews, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • How well equipped were the infantry units at the start of the battle of France? Did they have at least small arms and some anti-tank weapons? (the rapid destruction of units by German tanks suggests they didn't have any significant anti-tank capability though)
    Ill take another look at the sources to try and provide some more insight in the article.
    I have added in a little extra info, after re-reviewing the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnants of the 12th Division were evacuated back to England. For example, only 75 men of the 578 men of the 6th RWK and 80 of the 605 strong 5th Buffs returned" - is it possible to provide other figures on the numbers of soldiers who returned to the UK?
    I have not found any source that provides a breakdown of the BEF's casualties by division or formation, and very few sources that discuss the labour divisions in any detail. The official summary of casualties for the BEF comes from The Army Medical Services, Campaigns, Volume I by Francis Crew. However, those casualties are presented on only one page (per the index I have seen), which makes me conclude they just provide the entire BEF losses and not a breakdown.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I consulted about a dozen other sources on the subject, and was unable to find overall casualty information. I was able to source the 35th's brigades casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what the units which remained in the UK did while the rest of the division was in France? Were they attached to another unit, and were they able to continue training and equipping?
    After reviewing additional sources, I haven't been able to find anything that discusses what the elements of the division that remained in the UK. If I had to WP:SYS and WP:OR, they were purportedly training but probably didnt do much of it on an actual level based off the lack of equipment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any historians provided a more critical assessment of the destruction of this division and the other similar divisions? Losing the infantry component of an infantry division in one-sided combat is a very heavy price to pay for slowing the Germans down slightly. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources treat the labour divisions as a footnote. Several do all make the same point about inflicting delays, but I was able to find a couple that provided more of a critical overview. I have rewritten a paragraph with this in mind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I missed these responses. I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review this once I get through an FAC review I've been meaning to do for awhile. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having to stop now, will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work here, that's all my comments, I think. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Without the means to stop them, the Germans overwhelmed and destroyed the division" --> "Without the means to stop the attacking Germans, the division was overwhelmed and destroyed"?
    Tweaked, per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to recruit over their establishments (aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations)": this forms part of quite a long sentence and probably could be boiled down to "to recruit over their establishments (aided by improved pay and conditions)". The extra details could then be placed in a note if you feel they are necessary
    I have reduced the sentence per your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 12th (Eastern) Infantry Division was widely dispersed": might be a good idea to very briefly explain that this wide dispersal weakened its positions/front?
    I have added a little area, I hope this works?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Fraser likewise wrote...": probably need to explain who Fraser is here
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 25 October, the 2/6th East Surrey Regiment and the 5th Buffs were exchanged between the 36th and the 37th Brigades": do we know why?
    Joslen does not provide any context. The Buffs and East Surrey histories dont appear to either.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As 1939 turned into 1940, the division became" --> "In early 1940, the division became"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnants of the 12th Division were evacuated back to England": was this via Dunkirk?
    It appears the 36th did, and the rest of the brigade evacuated via Cherbourg. I have updated the article to reflect.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]
  • I'm not so sure about including "Unskilled labour" in the type field - it was an infantry division, not an unskilled labour division, and plenty of grunts have been used in manual work over the ages
    Fair enough, removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "score political points" - this strikes me as a bit slangy - is there a better way to put this?
    I have made a alteration here, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Pillbox (military) in the lead (and you've got "pillboxes" in the lead but "pill-boxes" in the body)
    Linked, and edits made for consistencyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1937 and throughout 1938" - as far as I'm aware, Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia didn't begin until after the Anschluss
    I dug out my copy of Bell, to take a look at what I was referencing. During 1937, the Sudeten German Konrad Henlein agitated for the Sudeten autonomy. The November 1937 Hossbach conference, was an internal discussion about the seizure of the country. On 7 December 1937, a directive was issued that started the process for Operation Green to be planned. Bell argued that from the 5 November meeting onwards, Hitler's goal was to crush the Czechs.
    With that and your comment in mind, I have fleshed that part out a little. Do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British prime minister Neville" - when used as a title, PM should be capitalized
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2/5th, the 2/6th, and the 2/7th Battalions" - it might be worth including an explanatory note on unit designations that might appear to be fractions to lay readers
    I have added in a note that explains what this is all about, just at the end of the para introducing the various battalions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done up through the initial service section - will finish later. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments so far, I have attempted to address all of them. Look forward to additional notes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth pointing out that the German invasions of Belgium and the Netherlands were a feint to draw the Allies north - most readers won't know the intricacies of German planning (or be familiar enough with the geography to know that the attack on Belgium/Netherlands and the Ardennes happened with different units in difference places).
    I have reworded this slightly, do the changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such forces Petreforce could" - force and Petreforce in a row seems repetitious - maybe swap force for opponents or something?
    I have also reworded thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was only one Boys anti-tank rifle per company, and one ML 3-inch mortar per Battalion. In comparison, a fully equipped division was to have 361 anti-tank rifles and 18 three-inch mortars" - can we compare apples to apples? I don't know how many companies were in a British infantry division at that time, and I figure I know more than the average reader
    I was trying to stick closely to the wording of the source. However, I have updated the article to provide a battalion comparison as suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for two and half" - don't know if this is a British/American thing, but I'd say "for two and a half"
    It was probably just a me thing lol, I have fixed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see casualty info is lacking, so I take it there's no idea of how many were KIA vs taken prisoner? Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the sources I consulted, none provided overall casualty information for the division nor really broke it down for the units they did provide it for.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your fixes look good to me; no worries on the casualty info, if the sources don't say there isn't anything to be done. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, AustralianRupert, and Parsecboy: Any supports? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Cockpit

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Cockpit was the first of a series of hit and run aircraft carrier raids conducted by the British-led Eastern Fleet during 1944 and 1945. Dubbed "perhaps the most cosmopolitan naval operation of the war", it included an American and a British aircraft carrier, a French battleship and ships from the Australian, Dutch and New Zealand navies. Amazingly enough, the American carrier had been dispatched there from the Pacific in order to prevent the British from having to cancel aircraft carrier raids in Norway! The attack on the Japanese-occupied island of Sabang on 19 April 1944 was successful, with the Allies suffering the loss of only a single plane. It failed to divert Japanese forces away from other areas as hoped, as the Japanese did not consider the Eastern Fleet a serious threat.

I developed this article during the first half of last year, and it was assessed as a GA in July. I've since expanded and copy edited it (aided by libraries re-opening since then), and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

This is a blast from the past. I worked on this article way back, only a few months after I created my account. It's changed so much since. I'll claim my seat here and post comments during the week. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it did not inflict heavy casualties on the Japanese, the Royal Navy learned useful lessons. Such as?
    • The source doesn't say unfortunately - Hobbs states only that "the strike had no effect on Japanese plans to oppose the American landings in Hollandia but the Royal Navy learned a number of valuable lessons". I presume that he's discussing lessons in conducting offensive carrier raids in the region given this was the first such operation. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm inclined to agree with you, but the lede specifies it provided useful experience in carrier tactics for the British and if the source material does not specify this it has to be removed.
  • Was the British's ability to reinforce their Eastern Fleet facilitated by say, the decline in action in the Mediterranean? One would wonder why it was only in 1944 that they decided to give them more ships. If this was the case, a brief note might be helpful.
  • The IJN's 9th Base Force was the main unit stationed at Sabang, and was commanded by Rear Admiral Hirose Sueto from February 1944. This is sourced to combinedfleet, which is ok but not the best source. Could this information be found elsewhere?
  • They considered also using surface ships to bombard Sabang, but decided against this. This was done in later raids, why not then? Fear of placing their ships in a more vulnerable position?
    • The source doesn't discuss the rationale, but a safe assumption is that as this was the Eastern Fleet's first offensive operation they didn't want to run extra risks. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British pilots failed to engage a number of worthwhile targets of opportunity. Which included?
  • For what it's worth, this resource seems to list all of the Allied ships involved in the operation. Might be UNDUE to mention them all, but putting it here in case it proves useful. It also states two Japanese warships were destroyed.
  • According to the Dutch government, (here) US Naval aviator Joseph C. Clifton led the actual air attack on Sabang. His New York Times obituary confirms this, and says that for this action he was made an Honorary Companion of the British Distinguished Service Order.
  • This work seems to suggest that Somerville thought the raid had shown that the Allies had some faulty intel interpretation.
    • I'm afraid that I don't have access to that book, but I've added some related material from one I can access. I'll also follow up on this ahead of a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indy beetle: Thank you again for this review, and sorry for my slow response. I think that I've now addressed your comments as best I can. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article is in pretty good shape, but I have some nitpicks:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA

[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nick, not a lot stood out to me. Overall it looks quite a tidy article. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Operation Cockpit was an attack against the Japanese-held island of Sabang on 19 April 1944" --> "Operation Cockpit was an Allied attack against the Japanese-held island of Sabang on 19 April 1944 during World War II"?
  • "Illustrious's air group comprised two squadrons equipped with 14 Vought F4U Corsair fighters": suggest maybe making it clear these were Fleet Air Arm squadrons given that they are US aircraft it might be confusing to readers
  • "the afternoon of 20 April Renown mistook the Australian destroyer HMAS Nepal for a Japanese vessel and briefly engaged it": did Nepal suffer any damage from this?
  • in the Works consulted section Cox should come after Brown
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of protected cruisers of France

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of protected cruisers of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list covers all of the protected cruisers built by France from the 1880s to early 1900s - these ships represented a competition between different elements in the French naval officer corps. Some favored long-range commerce raiders, others preferred small fleet scouts, while others wanted ships suitable for patrolling the French colonial empire. This led to a wide variety of ships being built, from small scouts like the Troude and Forbin classes, large but lightly armed raiders like Guichen, to large and heavily armed colonial cruisers like D'Entrecasteaux. The French eventually decided on relying on armored cruisers for all of these roles by the early 1900s, so no further protected cruisers were built. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The actual list portion of the article appears to be very well sourced and appropriately detailed for a list.
  • I have concerns about this sentence in the lead A third group sought more cruisers to expand and defend the French colonial empire. It's not apparent from the article (unless you can point it out to me) that there was a third clique of officers specifically advocating for more colonial service vessels. The closest is The acquisition of French Indochina during this period gave leverage to the [commerce raider supporters]. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • No DABs, external links OK
  • , all of which had three members Suggest rephrasing as "three-ship x classes"
    • Good idea
  • the three Alger-class vessels filled the requirement for the three medium cruisers. How does this fulfill Aube's building program as detailed in the Davout section?
    • Should have been large cruisers, good catch
  • Capitalize "Bay of Nouadhibou" as it's a proper name
    • Fixed
  • but what ultimately became of the ship is unknown. Suggest something along the lines of "her fate is unknown"
    • Done
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
De nada--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Claiming a spot. Hog Farm Talk 07:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "two more vessels of similar but larger designs—Tage and Amiral Cécille followed shortly thereafter." - I may be wrong, but it feels like there should be another dash, as it seems to me to be setting off "Tage and Amiral Cecille"
    • Fixed
  • "Like Sfax, Tage was intended to operate as a commerce raider, and as such originally carried a barque sailing rig." - I find it odd that the sailing rig isn't mentioned for Sfax, especially when the picture of Sfax clearly shows it.
    • Good point, added to the Sfax section
  • Likewise, is there a reason why what appears to be a sailing rig on Amiral Cecille isn't mentioned?
    • No, but added
  • "In total, she evacuated around 1,200 people to Fort-de-France" - Link Fort-de-France if that's the correct place.
    • Done
  • Was Forbin scrapped in 1919 or broken up in 1921? I may not be comprehending something, but this seems to be a contradiction
    • Fixed
  • "She took part in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919 before being sold to ship breakers in 1920" - so she was sold to ship breakers in 1920 but not broken up until 1933 (per the table)
    • Fixed
  • "while Cassard lingered on in service until 1924, when she, too, was sold for scrap" - Just to clarify, Cassard was sold for scrap in '24 and then not scrapped until the next year?
    • Corrected
  • "Flota II Rzeczypospolitej i jej okręty" does not appear to be an English source. Can the reference include what language it is in, as is standard for non-English sources so far as I have seen?
    • Done
  • Can we get a publishing location for Everett?
  • Sources look reliable enough for what they're citing.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very thorough review. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have only the following comments:

  • The first para should say what a protected cruiser was
    • Excellent idea
  • "and she was deployed later in the conflict" - should this be 'late in the conflict'?
    • That's tough - Jordan & Caresse aren't clear about when the ship was transferred there, and I haven't been able to track anything down in other sources. Friant was sent there in 1915 after the Entente had more or less conquered Kamerun, but it's unclear when she turned up in Morocco to be converted to a repair ship (which would of course tell us when Surcouf had been sent to replace her. "Late in the conflict" to me implies 1918, and given what little we know about Friant's activities, I'd assume it was probably 1917, but we can't say for certain.
  • The sentence starting with 'Lavoisier was the only' is a bit over-complex Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Armenian Genocide

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is an important article that I rewrote almost entirely and it was just elevated to GA status. My ultimate goal is to bring this to FAC. The article has a solid basis in recent research, but it probably needs some more polishing before it's ready, so I'm hoping to get feedback here. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

Claiming my seat. Genocide material is tough stuff to write, and it seems like a very solid article. I'll post comments as I think of them.

  • On 29 October 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers by launching a surprise attack on Russian ports in the Black Sea. Haha, I wrote the article about that "surprise attack" ages ago! Considering all of the intrigue involving the Ottoman's entry into WWI—fears of territory loss to Russia and the Balkan countries, German interference, Enver Pasha's scheming with the Germans, a cabinet crisis—the Ottomans entering WWI doesn't seem like it was a foregone conclusion. Do you think it's perhaps worth mentioning that the entry was achieved with some political difficulties in Istanbul?
    • I agree that it's a complex issue, but I think that the complexities are too much to get into here and don't necessarily have impact on the genocide itself, given that the empire ultimately did go to war. I did add a sentence about the alliance with Germany.
  • Acknowledgment of the genocide is punishable under Article 301 of the Penal Code, which prohibits insulting the Turkish nation and state institutions. Has anyone ever been fully prosecuted for genocide recognition, and if so, do we have any statistics on that?
    • After doing some research I can tell you Yes, and No. During the Akçam vs. Turkey case before the European Court of Human Rights, "The Government further pointed out that between 2003 and 2007 the number of sets of criminal proceedings instituted under Article 301 (Article 159/1 of the former Criminal Code) was 1,894. Of those, 744 cases had resulted in convictions and 1,142 in acquittals; 193 cases were still pending following the Court of Cassation’s decisions to quash the first-instance courts’ judgments." (This would include cases not related to the Armenian Genocide). Akçam's lawyers noted that "individuals had been successfully prosecuted in the past under Article 301 and other provisions of the Turkish Criminal Code for describing the massacre of Armenians as “genocide”", but they didn't give an exact figure. In the earlier Dink vs. Turkey case, "the Court found that the Court of Cassation sanctioned any opinion criticising the official thesis on the Armenian issue. In particular, criticism of denial by State institutions of genocide claims in relation to the events of 1915 was interpreted as denigration or insulting “Turkishness” or the “Turkish nation”" Source:[37]

-Indy beetle (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to be a recurrent theme throughout this article that Christianity was seen as central to Armenian ethnic identity, but this is not said explicitly.
  • In the nineteenth century, a few urban Armenians became extremely wealthy through their connections to Europe as the Greek War of Independence raised doubt over the loyalty of Greek Orthodox subjects. Err, why? Because the Turkish elite began to favor the Armenians for business dealings instead of the Greeks?
    • Removed, as after double-checking the source this aspect is not emphasized so it may be WP:UNDUE.
  • the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants, as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas. Is it known why the Ottomans wanted to reduce their population in this specific area? To dilute their political cohesiveness?
    • Astorian doesn't state the reason. I checked Kevorkian and Suny books and they don't give a clear citable reason either although they imply that the sultan was trying to bring these areas under stronger central government control or just hold on to them. Will need to keep researching this point.
      • After additional research I'm not sure that any source directly ties this demographic policy to a clear motivation. I don't think there's anything that I can add here that wouldn't be synthy. (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the goal of the Ottoman state in much of the late 1800s was to try encourage the Armenians to leave, is it known if many left and where they ended up, and how they were treated in their new lands?
    • A lot of them went across the border to Russian-controlled areas. Others emigrated, among other places to the US. Russia encouraged Armenians to settle but did not really follow a pro-Armenian policy but also repressed Armenian language and culture and many Russian bureaucrats had anti-Armenian attitudes.
  • When news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire. Ottoman soldiers did not protect Armenians and instead armed the rioters. It's not exactly clear whether the Muslims rioted in support or in protest of the coup attempt. Were the attacks on the Armenians due to the Dashnaktsutyun's connections to the CUP?
    • Suny appears to say that those involved in the massacres were both supporters and opponents of the coup, and that harmful rumors claimed that Armenians were trying to restore the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.
  • On 8 February 1914, under heavy international pressure, the CUP agreed to the 1914 Armenian reforms, which were never implemented due to World War I. A few words on what these reforms would have achieved (de facto European trusteeship of the Ottoman Armenians, by the looks of it) would be nice.
    • Added a bit of clarification
  • Other Dashnak leaders having been killed, If the Ottomans were deliberately targeting and assassinating Dashnak leaders before this point, that would seem worthy of mention.
    • It wasn't a consistent Ottoman policy but rather Cevdet decided to have them killed.
  • Russian forces liberated Van on 18 May, finding 55,000 corpses in the province Is there a link for the Russian offensive that brought them to Van?
  • the deportation and murder of Armenians did not grant the empire any military advantage and actually undermined the Ottoman war effort. It might be worth spelling out how this undermined the war effort, such as by diverting government security resources. Or are you referring to the economic problems explained by the "Confiscation of property" section?
    • Rogan states, The bitter irony is that the annihilation of the Armenians and other Christian communities in no way improved the security of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies never mounted an attack on the Cilician coast to justify the deportation of Armenians there. The deportations actually undermined the Ottoman war effort in Mesopotamia when Armenians working on the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway were condemned to a death march. The extermination of Armenian communities in eastern Anatolia did nothing to protect the Caucasus from Russian invasion. Tsarist forces met little resistance in conquering the fortress town of Erzurum in February 1916. The Russian army swept through the Black Sea port of Trabzon and the market town of Erzincan later that year—defeats that could not be blamed on Armenian collaborators after the deportations. As far as military consequences, Suny states: In July 1915 the commander of the Ottoman Third Army, Mahmud Kamil, was forced to request reassignment of soldiers to agricultural labor since “all Muslims have been conscripted and the Armenians in their entirety [kamilen] been deported.” He accurately predicted that the region would fall into “dearth and famine” and the army would be without supplies. Now I've mentioned military supplies and lack of essential labor.
  • Although the majority of able-bodied men had been conscripted, others remained if they were too old or young, had deserted, or had paid the exemption tax. Conscripted for what?
    • Clarified that this is military conscription
  • After hearing from German politicians that they expected surviving Armenians to be allowed to return home after the war, Talat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916. So Talat feared his German allies would pressure him to return the Armenians to their homes, and so he decided to kill as many before the war was over?
    • Yes, Kieser states, Talaat.. became an obsessive anti- Armenian whose political hate included growing fear... Mixing political hate with a cultural and biological understanding of Armenians, Talaat increasingly apprehended the latter’s survival outside Anatolia as a possible starting point for a reversal of his political “achievements” for the Türk Yurdu. This went on file when Matthias Erzberger, a German deputy who was responsible for propaganda abroad and thus influential in foreign policy, visited him in February 1916. Henceforth, Talaat tangibly feared that after the war, Armenian survivors would return to their homeland and that Germany, in Erzberger’s words, would support them, as Talaat secretly wrote to Enver on 16 February. Active extermination in Northern Syria, beyond deliberate starvation, started in March 1916.
  • I'm curious if there's any information to be shared on how word got out of the killings. The international reactions section mentions witness testimony and newspaper accounts; was the Ottoman government simply unable to stop journalists from investigating and reporting the story?
    • An interesting question. It was NOT possible for foreign journalists to visit the affected area, but by the end of 1918, "American editors had by then found other sources to confirm the scenes of horror: the memoirs of victims, letters from Germans on the scene, and reports by eminent Americans who were listening to missionaries in the region."[38] The Ottoman Empire also threatened Germans who took photographs of the atrocities.
    • According to David Gaunt, the famous "crimes against humanity" declaration in May 1915 was sponsored by Russia after Russia uncovered the massacre in Haftevan. The source for the "Blue Book", the most comprehensive compilation published during the war (all of its sources were cross-referenced and verified), "Apart from that furnished by Bryce from the Armenian diaspora and his personal contacts in America, most of Toynbee's material came semi-officially via the United States. The main channel was the Reverend James Barton, Head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who had direct access to American consular reports from the interior of the Ottoman Empire. The State Department was evidently content for many of these reports of local eyewitness accounts to be published abroad, provided the source of information was concealed. The collection of documents released in October 1915 in fact formed the basis of Toynbee's Armenian Atrocities. He also obtained the cooperation of the Swiss publishers of Quelques Documents sur le Sort des Armeniens, 1915, as well as further material from its chief compiler, the lawyer Leopold Favre."[39]
    • However, none of this is remotely emphasized in sources so I think it may be UNDUE in this article (Although it would belong in International reaction to the Armenian Genocide). (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in Eastern Asia Minor.[218] It should probably be noted that this treaty went unratified.
    • Added
  • Dutch historian Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that... Most of the historians in this article are not labeled by their nationality, why him?
    • Removed for consistency.
  • n late 2019, in the wake of the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, both houses of United States Congress voted to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide, soon thereafter passing sanctions against Turkey. Seems like recentism bias. Why is US congressional recognition important enough to be mentioned by name when other countries are not?
    • OK, removed.
  • Academic study of the genocide began in the 1980s. I find that hard to believe. Is Lemkin's study not considered academic? Does this have more to do with the discipline of history rather than legal scholarship?
    • OK, after doing some more research I've taken it out. Although it's supported by the cited source, it's contradicted in this paper.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Tomobe03

[edit]

I'd like to have a look at the article too. I'll post comments/questions below gradually as I go through the article sections. I'm not a native speaker of English though, so please let me know if I misunderstood something in the prose. Also, I won't comment on any grammar issues unless they appear obvious omissions to me.

  • Reading [f]ollowing the Byzantine Empire's fall in 1453, two Islamic empires—the Ottoman Empire and the Iranian Safavid Empire—contested Western Armenia; it was permanently separated from Eastern Armenia by the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab, I was under impression that the Ottoman and Safavid empires both claimed Western Armenia and understood the passage to imply the Eastern Armenia remained under Armeinan control. After reading the linked Treaty of Zuhab article I got the impression the Safavid Empire controlled the Eastern Armenia and that both empires claimed all of Armenia. It seems to me this particular sentence could be clarified to eliminate the possibility of incorrect interpretations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded for clarity
  • I assume that the arriving Muslim refugees and immigrants (mainly Circassians) were a result of a war (at least the refugees). Do any sources identify the cause of their displacement?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many came following the Caucasus War but there were others from the Balkans.
  • Were the parts of eastern Asia Minor, the Balkans, and Cyprus ceded by the Ottoman Empire after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 transferred to other states before or at the Congress of Berlin?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a complexity that I don't think needs to go in the article. After the war, Russia forced the Ottoman Empire to accept a favorable deal with much territory lost to Bulgaria. In exchange for ceding Cyprus to Britain, the Ottoman Empire was able to get a better deal at the Congress of Berlin and keep parts of the Balkans that it initially had agreed to cede to Bulgaria. Russia also demanded reforms in the treatment of Armenians, which was ultimately watered down at Berlin. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Young Turk Revolution section, is there any way to identify the "Muslims" in [w]hen news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire? From the context, I understand those were not the Ottoman Army. After reading Adana massacre, judging from the resentment of wealth cited as the cause there, it think that is a reference to armed civilian population of Adana, but I'm unsure if it was an otherwise existing force (a local garrison, CUP or countercoup supprter units) or not. Could you clarify?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's complicated because supporters of the countercoup, CUP supporters, as well as soldiers sent in to restore order all participated in the massacre and committed violence and looting.
  • Do any sources identify more closely the "Muslim militias" in [a]round 150,000 Greek Orthodox from the Aegean littoral were forcibly deported in May and June 1914 by Muslim militias secretly backed by the government? Looking at the caption of the image found in the Balkan Wars section I'm wondering if they/some of them are the çetes. Similarly, in 1914 Greek deportations, (at least some) of the violence is attributed to bashi-bazouk irregulars. I understand the current wording as "undetermined Muslim (Turkish, Circasssian, European-Muslim refugee etc.) forces brought from outside of the community", so if this is the intended meaning, I'm fine with it as is, but I'd rather have the perpetrators identified as specifically as possible (within reason and remaining concise).--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, your understanding is correct. Emre Erol does highlight çetes as the initiators of violence and states, "In short, the initiators of the violence and ousting were armed bandits who were not from the county." But most sources don't specify çetes; Suny says "militia" and Kieser refers to a "secret combination of gangs, the army, the central government, diplomats, and the central and local branches of the CUP", while Kaligian blames "mobs" "well-armed bands", "regular troops sent to restore order" and the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa for causing attacks. I have changed the wording to "Muslim bandits secretly backed by the CUP and sometimes joined by the regular army". (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence starting with Russian forces liberated Van on 18 May..., I'd use "took control of" or "captured" instead of "liberated" as a more neutral term. I'd think "liberated" is fine if the city were a part of the Russian Empire before the war.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  • In Death Marches section, what do you mean by "give away" in ...mothers would give away their daughters before their sons? Does this refer to Childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews would come to the camps to buy Armenian children from their parents; thousands of children were sold in this manner. (in the Destinations sections) or does this somehow refer to giving food away to them?
    • The former, reworded for clarity.
  • In Islamization section, in [m]ost of them endured exploitation, hard labor without pay, forced conversion, and physical and sexual abuse, does "forced conversion" mean forced conversion to Islam?
    • Yes, added clarification
  • In Confiscation section, in [a]ll traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased, does the "systematic erasure" mean systematic destruction or repurposing or any combination of those? This does not apply to animal and place names as the linked articles clarify the situation.
    • A combination of both. For example, many churches were destroyed and others were converted into mosques.
  • In International reaction section, in ...condemning the Ottoman "crimes against humanity" and... the quotemarks could be interpreted as MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Unless they are meant as scarequotes (I did not get that impression), I'd recommend you to reword this as "...condemning the Ottoman actions as crimes against humanity and..." or something like that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded
  • There is a link to Requisition disambiguation page in Entry into World War I section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • In [t]he 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in eastern Asia Minor, but was not ratified, "large area in eastern Asia Minor" should probably be linked to Wilsonian Armenia. Or you could even modify the one-sentence paragraph to have it say something like "...a large area in eastern Asia Minor referred to as Wilsonian Armenia..." to avoid linking to unexpected destination if you think that's necessary.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linked.
  • Checklinks returns no errors except for Bedrosyan ref, but I accessed the source manually and everything seems fine, i.e. this looks like a checklinks tool's fault and no action is required here.
  • I'd recommend archiving the web sources and adding archive information to the refs to prevent decay. I don't think that such archives are required by relevant criteria though, so no action is required as far as I can tell.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Spot checks not done.

  • Cites 122, 178, 180, 243: "p." → 'pp.'.
  • Armenian Genocide (2010); Dündar (2011): page ranges?
  • "Seeing like a nation-state: Young Turk social engineering in Eastern Turkey, 1913–50". Any reason why this is not in title case?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will do; I hope to get to this very soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On 8 February 1914, the CUP reluctantly agreed to the 1914 Armenian reforms, which stipulated the appointment of two European inspectors for the entire Ottoman east and putting the Hamidiye in reserve, were never implemented due to World War I" - Phrasing is a bit rough in my opinion, the "were never implemented due to World War I" doesn't seem to fit the phrasing of the rest of the sentence.
    • Split into two sentences to avoid run-on.
  • Are Erzerum and Erzurum the same place?
    • Yes, standardized spelling.
  • " leaving about 200,000 deportees alive by the end of 1916" - in the lead, recommend clarifying that this is Ackam's estimate
    • I prefer to keep the lead as streamlined as possible, and I don't think attribution is necessary because the estimate is also endorsed by other reliable sources.
  • Was the Cankaya Mansion confiscated from an Armenian? It's in an image and caption, but not elsewhere discussed in the article.
    • Yes, clarified. Any other image I could use in this section would also be an individual example of the general theme.
  • "$1.7 billion adjusted for inflation" - Recommend noting what year this calculation is as of
    • I use a template that updates every year, so adding a year in the text would make it out of date if it wasn't updated.
  • "focused on Talat's responsibility for genocide and became "one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century"" - IMO, it's generally best to attribute direct quotations inline
    • Done
  • "In February 1920, after capturing Marash, Kemalist forces massacred thousands of" - Is there a way to link or gloss who the Kemalists were?
    • Added clarification and link
  • "in the displacement of more than half million" - recommend either "a half million" or "half a million"
    • Done
  • The lead says 30 countries have recognized the genocide, but the body says 31
    • right, that was updated in the body but not the lead, now harmonized
  • I find the "lay summary" link for Suny 2015 to be a bit odd. I've never seen something like that before, and it almost seems like an external link attached to a references, as it seems to be an general article by Suny that cites the specific book as a source, among others.
    • The article is basically a summary of the book, with some passages word-to-word identical between them. However, if you think it's confusing I will remove it.
      • It's fine since that's the case
  • Sources all appear to be high-quality

Very good work on what had to be a very difficult subject. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the "international recognition" map slightly
    • done
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • I'm not very good at alt text :( I did copy some from other articles that were added by other editors.
  • File:Den_armenske_leder_Papasian_ved_Der-ez-Zor_-_PA_0699_U_36_150_(restored).jpg: source link is dead, as per the tag please include details on first publication. Ditto File:Sultende_barn_på_gaten,_den_Armenske_republikk_-_PA_0699_U_34_143_(restored).jpg
  • File:Maunsell's_map,_Pre-World_War_I_British_Ethnographical_Map_of_eastern_Turkey_in_Asia,_Syria_and_western_Persia_01.jpg: the source credits this to Royal Geographic Society, which is not part of the UK government; why is Crown copyright believed to apply? Also, what is the author date of death for the life+70 tag?
    • I guess I can't confirm that Crown copyright applies, although the author was a British Army officer. Added info on the author and death year (1936), so it's PD in both UK and US considering its pre-1926 publication.
  • File:AdanaChristianQuarter.jpg: when/where was this first published? Ditto File:Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg, File:Armenians_rescued_from_Arabs_LCCN2014706724.png, File:Turkey._Ankara._Palace_of_Attaturk_(i.e.,_Ataturk)_LOC_matpc.16728_(cropped).jpg
    • For File:AdanaChristianQuarter.jpg, File:Armenians_rescued_from_Arabs_LCCN2014706724.png, and File:Turkey._Ankara._Palace_of_Attaturk_(i.e.,_Ataturk)_LOC_matpc.16728_(cropped).jpg, Library of Congress says there are no copyright restrictions.
    • The Pietschmann image was discussed at the Assassination of Talat Pasha FAC. I stated "I believe that this is considered a simple photograph as it doesn't "involve artistic interpretations". If so, it was either unpublished or else published in Pietschmann's 1940 book, so the copyright would have expired by 1996."
  • File:Lest_they_perish_LCCN2002711981_restored.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • 1927, added.
  • File:İkdam,_4_Kasım_1918.jpg: what is the author's date of death and what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for your detailed review! (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 14 June 2021 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

List of commanders of the British 2nd Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After completing a write-up on the British 2nd Armoured Division during the Cold-War and moving it to the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, I created a series of sub-articles after some advice on how to save space on my new pet project. This is the first of those sub-articles, and also the first list article that I have created. I present, a heavily sourced list of the 80 or so gentlemen that have commanded the British 2nd Division during its on and off again 200 year-history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Enigma, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this list. Lists aren't my strong suit -- still trying to work out what is, actually -- but I have a few minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 02:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " by Everard Wyrall; the compiled of the 2nd Division's First World War official history" - something seems off grammatically here, I don't think "the" is the word you want
    Thank you for the catch, I have tweaked this sentence.
  • " In was temporarily transformed into an armoured division, before being disbanded at the end of 1982." - I think you want it, not in. Also, it would be nice to have the year in which it became an armoured division.
    I think I went to add the year in, and forgot about it? I have tweaked this too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend adding the total number of commanders somewhere in the lead, as this is currently a list of commanders with rather little about the commanders in the lead
    I have added a figure for all permanent GOCs, at the end of the first para.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add an exact date for when it disbanded after Crimea in the table, so there is something for when Markham ceased to command? "The end of the war" isn't going to mean much to many readers who aren't familiar with the Crimean war.
    I have tweaked that. The cited source does not provide a date the division or the expeditionary force disbanded, other than it did so during 1856. I was unable to find a Gazette article announcing Markham stepping down from his role; likewise a Gazette article discussing the end of the expeditionary force or the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be appropriate to indicate for each officer why they ceased to command the division?
    I could add that in, for most (some would just have to have a year, such as Markham above). Most of the cited material includes the dates the officers left their appointments, so it would just be a little time and formatting. Were there are gaps between the Gazette appointment dates and no indication of who took over, I have mentioned the unnamed acting GOC in the list; for example, between Charles Douglas and Bruce Hamilton. I would note that on other division articles (where the GOC list is embedded in the article), I have always went with the date they took over as they are generally continuous unless there was an acting GOC.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be appropriate to use date ranges when feasible? Or is it safe to assume that the terms were continuous between the two?
    Per the above comment. I will await your reply.

Not familiar with how these lists are generally formatted, so feel free to not do anything that's not feasible. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. Sorry it has taken me a few days to act on them, and I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done some minor copy editing as I have gone through. Let me know if you don't like or don't understand any.

"was responsible for the administrative, logistical, medical, training, and discipline of the division.". You still can't say "was responsible for the administrative ... of the division."
I have made a further tweak ... I think I have it this time?!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. You have indeed.
  • "Leith was scheduled to take command of the division on this date, but never actually did." Delete "actually".
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following injury at the Battle of Albuera." Was ha injured or wounded?
    I relooked at the sources, and it seems I had inferred his leave as a result of him being wounded. The sources dont stated that, so I have removed this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as part of the Army of Occupation afterwards. " Can we be told where was being occupied.
    Location addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after de Lacy Evans had been injured"> Or wounded?
    I have left this as injured, as it was not the result of Russian action. I have added the context that he had fell from his horse. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cubitt was promoted to Lieutenant-General during his tenure as division commander." 1. Lower case l and g. 2. Why is Pennefather's similar promotion treated differently?
    I haven't made a change here yet. In Pennefather's case, he was a major-general and given acting command. When de Lacy Evans was invalided home, Pennefather was promoted and given command of the division (and not in an acting capacity). In Cubbit's case, he was just given command of the division from the get-go. Would it read easier, if Pennefather's two entries were merged and this explanation added to the notes?
  • "The division fought in the Burma campaign of 1944–45". Is it known where? And/or what battles, if any, it took part in?
    I have added two, which are mentioned by Joslen.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I have made no comment then I am content with your change and/or explanation. Just one grammatical issue to untangle. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

I have done some minor copy editing as I have gone through. Let me know if you don't like or don't understand any. -- Gog

  • "The 2nd Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which was formed numerous times over a 203-year period." I'd appreciate the years of this period asap when reading, preferably in the first couple sentences
    I have reworded the opening with this in mind, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a reason to refer to it as the "peninsula war" rather than "peninsular war"? The latter seems much more common to me.
    I am going to blame this on a typo, and I have fixed it throughout.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It served throughout..., it was stood-down would it be possible to eliminate the two uses of it? Something like It served throughout the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855), had an critical role in the Battle of Inkerman, and was stood down at the end of the war in 1856, perhaps?
  • I have reworded per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It took part in all the notable battles" what does 'notable' mean here?
    There were four major battles to the relief of Ladysmith, and the division was present for each of them. I have reworded the sentence to " It took part in all the battles that comprised the Relief of Ladysmith,". Better?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentences beginning In the subsequent Battle of France,, 'it' is used repeatedly, as is the "In [BLANK], it [DID SOMETHING] structure". Could you vary it any more?
    I have made several tweaks with this in mindEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the division do anything from the 1990s to 2012?
    I have added in that it was a training formation
  • "command of the nucleus " What does 'nucleus' here mean?
    The 5th Division was only forming when he was given command, but that isnt really important here so I have removed this part.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments, I have attempted to address each of the points raisedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Pluto

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review despite the fact that it took six months to get my last article through. I originally intended to fix it up a bit, but it required more than a little bit of fixing and a complete rewrite was required. Most of the original article is now the lead; I always try to retain as much as possible of the work of others even in a rewrite. The subject of this article is fairly well known, but many readers will be surprised by what it says. Recently passed GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Mostly OK. Some of the UK photographs which the website says were taken in 1944 or 1945 are dated on Commons as 2012, ideally that would be fixed but it's not strictly required. The only issue is the last image, which appears to contravene WP:NFCC, but I asked the uploader and hopefully it can be sorted out. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Looks interesting, will take a look at over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In the event, the port of Cherbourg was not captured until 27 June,[37]" - Might be worth stating this date in D+ or in days behind schedule, as well, for an easier comparison to the planned dates
    It was captured on D+21, and was opened on D+49. I'm forced to adopt the planning stage notation because D-Day was postponed from 5 to 6 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Hamel when it encountered a sharp edge" - Sharp edge through a pipe construction flaw, something on the bottom of the ocean, or an anchor snag or something? I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what this is saying
    Added on the ocean floor. Probably a rock outcropping, but there's so much debris at the bottom of the English channel, one can't be certain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting, I could hardly find anything to comment on. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I was quite interested to see a small chunk of a Pluto pipe at the Docklands branch of the Museum of London a few years ago, but yet don't know much about this project aside from a vague awareness that its results have long been over-hyped. The article is very interesting and informative, and I'm pleased to support this nomination with a couple of minor comments:

  • "Pipelines would reduce the reliance on coastal tankers ... and required vulnerable storage tanks ashore" - this is a bit confusing: perhaps something like "and needed to be offloaded into vulnerable storage tanks ashore"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heavily mined" - link 'mined' here.
    checkY Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is headed to a FAC, I'd suggest looking to add a section on the historiography on this topic: it has a reputation for being one of the cunning British weapons which won the war (as opposed to the 21st Army Group and 2TAF slugging it out with the Germans...), but the reality is less impressive. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something very British about the whole thing. Less enthusiastic about FAC than I was yesterday, but I'll give it a go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon this has legs for a FA, and is a topic which is of perennial interest - the current average of 143 page views a day is pretty high for this kind of topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - Support

[edit]

This is in good shape. Just a few comments:

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got concerns about the reliability of two of the web sources. It's unclear how reliable Kent Past is, and CombinedOps appears to be self-published by one Geoff Slee. Is there anything that makes these two sources particularly reliable?
    • Kent Past is a magazine put out by the Kent City Council. It's in the article for the mention of the Corby Steelworks, which another editor thought important, but everything else it says checks out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CombinedOps is a veterans' site, funded by subscriptions for a memorial. It is a virtual memorial, something that was common in the early 2000s (the subscriptions funded a conventional monument as well). Geoff Slee currently maintains the site. The page in question publishes the personal reminiscences of Captain Frederick Arthur Roughton (1913-2013), who was involved in the laying of the pipeline (for which he was mentioned in despatches in 1945 [43]) and its salvage (for which he was awarded the MBE in 1950 [44]). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 18 May 2021 (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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

French battleship Liberté

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

French battleship Liberté (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is another ill-fated battleship from Sturmvogel and me, and yet another one that was destroyed by an accidental explosion, which was the culmination in a series of major ammunition fires that resulted from unstable French propellant charges. The ship was in service for just three years, but nevertheless had a significant effect on French naval regulations after her loss. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dumelow

[edit]

Hi Parsecboy, looks excellent to me. I just had a few comments on the prose; some of these may be personal preference so feel free to ignore - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Liberté and the rest of 1st Squadron and the armored cruisers Ernest Renan and Léon Gambetta went on a cruise in the western Mediterranean in May and June, visiting a number of ports including Cagliari, Bizerte, Bône, Philippeville, Algiers, and Bougie. By 1 August, the battleships of the Danton class had begun to enter service, and they were assigned to the 1st Squadron, displacing the Liberté and République-class ships to the 2nd Squadron - you've not mentioned the 1st and 2nd Squadrons before. The last we heard (Sept/Oct 1909) the Liberté was in the 2nd Division of the Mediterranean Squadron. Was there some reorganisation of the divisions/squadrons in between?
    • Good catch, added a line on the reorganization.
  • At 05:31 on the morning of 25 September, crewmen in other battleships began reporting seeing smoke coming from Liberté, originating from her forward starboard casemate. - "began reporting seeing" feels awkward to me
    • Fixed
  • But at 05:53 a tremendous explosion rocked the harbor. Liberté was badly damaged by the blast, - Maybe it's obvious but the article doesn't actually state at this point that the explosion was on the ship.
    • Good point, clarified
  • Liberté was badly damaged by the blast, with both central 194 mm turrets thrown overboard, the deck amidships collapsed, and the forward 55 m (180 ft) of the ship was completely destroyed - possibly something not right with the tenses here, reads a little bit strange to me. In relation to the 194 mm turrets I was unclear as to where these were located, without looking at the drawing (the reader is only told there are six single turrets). Is it worth elaborating in the design section?
    • Good catch, the "was" is wrong. I've added a line in the design section on the arrangement of the turrets.
  • The forward turret was blasted apart, and only one of the guns was recovered, having been hurled into the muddy bottom of the harbor - maybe clarify that this was one of the 305 mm turrets? It follows quickly after mention of the 194 mm turrets. "Hurled" is also repeated in the next sentence, perhaps a synonym can be used?
    • Done
  • An explosion aboard a gunnery training ship killed six in August 1908, and an explosion on a cruiser killed 13. - was the cruiser explosion also in August 1908? MOS:NUM would have both death tolls either as numerals or words, I think?
    • Added the date and fixed the numeral.
  • The wreck of the ship remained in Toulon until 1925, though work on clearing or marking navigational hazards began immediately. On 21 February, Liberté was refloated and towed into a drydock in Toulon, where she was broken up. I am presuming she was refloated in 1925? Perhaps would be clearer if reordered
Excellent, those changes read well for me and I am happy to support on the prose. One query, with regards the secondary turrets yous say The single turrets were arranged in pairs, one set abreast the funnels, another two amidships, and the third pair abreast the rear funnel should that be "one set abreast the forward funnels"?
Also, I know it is French practice not to use title case for books etc. but I have a feeling I have been picked up for being inconsistent between references before - Dumelow (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed as well. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • carried a main battery of four 305 mm (12 in) guns Per MOS:UNITNAMES mm should be written fully.
    • Done
  • the ships of the 2nd Division crossed the Atlantic to the United States Atlantic Ocean is too common to link.
    • Removed
  • guns had a lower rate of fire than the smaller 164 mm (6.5 in) guns Same as the first comment.
    • Done
  • Ten days later, the combined fleet steamed to Cherbourg This is an MOS:EGG.
  • The explosion threw a 37-metric-ton (36-long-ton; 41-short-ton) This is the only sentence where we use short tons?
    • Fixed
  • The navy convened a commission to investigate --> "The Navy convened a commission to investigate"?
    • I don't think "navy" here is acting as a proper noun (the same as you'd say "the 2nd Division" and "the division")
  • The Navy Minister also rescinded Who was he?
    • Still Delcassé
  • insufficient, but the navy only made modest improvements --> "insufficient, but the Navy only made modest improvements"?
    • Same as above

Just some nitpicks. Cheers. :) CPA-5 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

This is in very good shape, it was hard to pick up any issues.

  • Move the wikilink on Démocratie to its first mention.
    • Good catch
  • ...under control. But at 05:53... seems a bit jarring to start a sentence with "But".
    • Removed
  • Leon Gambetta is linked twice and the second link lacks the accent on the e of Leon that is present in the first link.
    • Fixed
  • No link or first name for Gaschard?
    • Looks to have been Jean
  • ...requiring that propellant charges older than four years would be discarded.
    • Fixed

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tomobe03

[edit]

As noted above, the article looks very good. I have just two issues to point out, but I'm not a native speaker of English so please ignore if I got something wrong.

  • Should the While Liberté's sea trials data has not survived... be "While Liberté's sea trials data have not survived..." since "data" is plural?
  • Wouldn't it be better to use "the same day" or "by the end of the day" or something similar instedad of repeating the date in [t]he navy convened a commission to investigate the incident on 25 September--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable, and formatting looks fine.

  • "and possibly the other explosions as well" - going by the Gbooks pagination of the Windsor source, you want p. 653 for this citation, not p. 651
    • Fixed
  • This old edition of Compressed Air Magazine includes a one-page description of the refloating the Liberte, if that's something that's desired to be added and Compressed Air Magazine is HQRS.

Well, this is looking pretty good - doesn't seem to exclude significant sources, sources are RS and formatted correctly. Passing source review on the understanding that the pagination issue will be corrected. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 14 May 2021 (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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Edgar Kain

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

Edgar Kain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Edgar Kain, also known as Cobber Kain, was the Royal Air Force's first flying ace of the Second World War. A New Zealander, he joined the RAF in 1936 and served with No. 73 Squadron in the early stages of the war. His successes saw him develop a high profile in the media during the Phoney War and Battle of France. A bit of a reckless flier, he was killed when he beat up his airfield on his way back to England on leave. This article was made GA in June last year. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to review. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor prose comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • interestingly enough, I happened to run along Kain Avenue in Randwick only a couple of weeks ago when I was in Sydney on course; it is surrounded by several streets named after aces including Bluey Truscott, Les Clisby and Paddy Finucane, and battles including Lone Pine, Romani, Hamel, etc.
  • flight time at that time: is there a way to avoid saying "time" twice in the same sentence?
rephrased. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • help weed out: seems a bit informal; perhaps "help identify"?
Have gone with filtered. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand slang for a friend: not really actionable, but of course the term was also prevalent in Australia; my earliest memory of my grandfather is of him introducing me to a "6th Divvy cobber" in the main street of in the small town I grew up in
TBH, I've always thought of it as Aussie rather than NZ slang myself. I've checked Burns to see if it referred to Australia using this term but it doesn't. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • although its pilots had yet to be fully proficient --> "although its pilots were not yet fully proficient"?
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • was published in the London Gazette: italics for the title?
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest maybe joining the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the Second World War section
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the next two weeks and the squadron --> "the next two weeks and his squadron"?
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This second Bf 109 may have been flown: probably best to attribute the opinion in text, e.g "According to X, this second..."
Done. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • spend time with Joyce Phillips: probably just Phillips here as she has been introduced already
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • attend his wedding to Joyce Phillips: same as the above
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had been receiving an influx of fresh pilots --> "It received an influx of fresh pilots"
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was grounded by No. 73 Squadron's commander: do we know why?
Not explicitly, but it was probably for a rest. I have added more context for his physical/mental state at the time so that the reader can make the connection. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • City of Randwick, on the outskirts of Sydney, Australia, it might be because I am from the country myself, but I wouldn't have thought that Randwick was on the outskirts of Sydney; its an eastern suburb.
Rephrased.

Thanks for the review AR, I have responded to most points. For the rest, I will pull out my copy of Burns to deal with those. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, I have finished this off now, see my comments. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, your changes look good to me. Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HF

[edit]

Will take a look soon. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "By early February 1940, the thaw was well underway but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which prone to bogging" - I think there's a word missing here
  • ", the squadron was in the process re-equipping with updated Hurricanes" - Process of re-equipping?
  • "Kain had a high-profile both in Britain and the Dominions" - With the current use of high-profile, it is an adjective. Do you mean the noun form as "high profile"?
  • Does the EL really add anything signficant?

Looks good besides those points, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

Is it necessary to link aviation?
It's neither here or there for me, I have removed the link. Zawed (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He completed his flight training the following year and was posted to the RAF's No. 73 Squadron where he flew the Gloster Gladiator and then the Hawker Hurricane.
How about a comma after Squadron?
Done. Zawed (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He began flying operational sorties during the Phoney War and gained his first victory in November 1939. A second followed days later.
  • "victory" -> How about aerial victory?
  • A second followed days later. -> What is the subject of this sentence?
  • In March 1940 he claimed his fifth victory and became the RAF's first flying ace of the Second World War as well as its first recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross.
  • Victory, same as above?
  • Add a comma after victory
  • The Phoney War ended on 10 May 1940 when the German invasion of France and the Low Countries began.
A comma after 1940 will recognize this for what it is, an introductory phrase or element.
  • On 7 June 1940, having bid farewell to his squadron and in a gesture to his comrades, he took off in a Hurricane to perform a series of low-level aerobatics over Échemines airfield. He crashed at high speed and was killed instantly.
The transition between these two sentences is rather abrupt -> How about beginning the second sentence like this: While performing one of these maneuvers, he crashed at high speed and was killed instantly?
  • At the end of the lead, consider adding where and when he was buried?

Early life:

  • He was passionate about aviation from an early age and was eager to fly.
Second "was" can be deleted
  • He was also seen as a natural leader. However, he was also academically unmotivated.
Consider combining these two short sentences into one?
  • He started working as a clerk in his father's warehousing business but also became a member of the Wellington Aero Club.
but also -> and also might be the better choice here?

Military career:

  • He was told to reapply once he had acclimatised, the lengthy voyage from New Zealand having taken its toll on his fitness.
Isn't a semcolon called for here rather than a comma?
  • This had effect from 8 March 1937, for a probationary period of 12 months calculated from the commencement of his elementary training, and with the service number 39534.[8][9]
Consider this version: His probationary period of 12 months began on 8 March 1937, and it was calculated from the commencement of his elementary training along with the assigned service number 39534.
  • He gained his wings on 25 June 1937 and went onto RAF Ternhill a few months later for advanced training on fighters, flying the Hawker Fury.
on, onto, and on?
  • By this time, he was becoming [Kain had become] proficient in aerobatics[,] but he had also been disciplined for performing stunts at too low a height.[10]
Consider the above suggestion?

In mid-September 1938, during the Sudetenland crisis, the squadron was placed on standby although its pilots were not yet fully proficient in the Hurricane.

  • Add a comma after standby
  • Add the word flying between in and the.
  • In June 1939, Kain crashed during a night flying exercise[,] when he forgot to lock the undercarriage while landing.
Consider the above suggestion
  • He had become distracted by the aircraft's handling which, because a panel had come loose, had been compromised.
Unclear?
  • n fact, he had been promoted to flying officer earlier in the month.[19][20]
  • Did the promotion change his responsibiltes
  • You might change he to Kain?

Note:

  • This section is realy about military aerial training?
<>An nteresting point of view, but section headings are topical - they are about the subject at hand and should be stated in a clear and specific way. Your call, though! Pendright (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War:

  • It was intended that it should go to France as the Air Component of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), designated part of No. 60 Mobile Wing, along with No. 1 Squadron.[21]
  • Change should to would
  • Chage the comma to a semicolon
  • Add as between designated & part
  • Remove the comma after wing
  • Weather prevented flying for much of the next two weeks and his squadron moved to an airfield near St. Omer towards the end of the month.[24]
Add the definite article before weather.

Phoney War

  • No. 73 Squadron's new base was close to the border between France and Germany and No. 60 Mobile Wing was attached to the Advanced Air Striking Force (AASF), several squadrons of Fairey Battles of Bomber Command.[26]
How about a comma after Germany?
  • With the wing now re-designated as No. 67 Wing, weather affected the flight operations for several days[34] but Kain had another successful encounter on 23 November, near Conflans, when he shot down another Do 17.
  • Add "conditions" after weather
  • Add a comma after days
  • had "another" - shot down "another"?
  • There was little flying from December to February due to the weather[.] and Kain spent some of this period in England on leave with Joyce Phillips,[37] a theatre actress he had met while completing his flight training in 1937.[38]
Consider the above suggestion?
  • The weather still permitted the occasional patrol; on one in late January, his flight encountered a Heinkel He 111medium bomber but Kain's guns failed to fire, which was later put down to them being frozen.
  • Shouldn't it be patrols?
  • Suggest removing the comma after January?
  • "which wwas later put down to them being frozen" -> Think about some rephrasing here?
  • His aircraft received damage from the He 111's gunner and on landing, he found it to be a write-off.[40]
  • Change gunner to guns?
  • Place a comma after gunner or guns?
  • Remove the comma after landing?
  • write-off -> Consider a substitute word or words?
  • By early February 1940, the thaw was well underway but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which prone to bogging.
Remove the comma after 1940 and place after underway
  • Conditions improved on 1 March 1940, and the following day Kain fought an action with two Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters while in pursuit of some He 111s.
"Weather" conditions?
  • In mid-March, he was informed of his impending award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in recognition of the action earlier in the month during which he had shot down his first Bf 109.
Considet removing the comma after midMarch and placing it after (DFC)?
  • He managed to destroy one Bf 109 and then a second but shortly afterwards his Hurricane's engine was damaged by a cannon strike from another Bf 109.
Add a comma after second
  • Landing near a French unit, he was driven back to Rouvres in the evening.
Could a few details of the event be added?
  • Tensions were high as a result of the German invasions of Norway and Denmark and the Luftwaffe had increased its presence along the French border with Germany.[59]
How about a comma after Denmark?

Battle of France

  • No. 73 Squadron was immediately involved, as several Hurricanes were scrambled to deal with a number of German bombers.
Is "were" needed?
  • On the last patrol of the day he shot down a Do 215 although cannon shells from a Bf 110 damaged the fuselage of his Hurricane.[68]
A comma after 215, will join the two independent clauses?
  • The aerodrome at Reims was bombed again on 12 May but[,] this did not affect the squadron's operations[,] and in the afternoon, it flew a number of missions.
"this did not affect the squadron's operations" -> This phrase is supplemental information and is usually set off by commas because it is not essential to the meaning of the sentence?

*Over the next two days, Luftwaffe activity around Sedan increased in support of the tanks of Panzer Group Kleist as iKain had no successful engagements on 13 May to add to his official tally of destroyed aircraft but the same day a newspaper reported that he may have destroyed as much as eleven enemy aircraft and Kain himself had "lost count".[70]

  • There's an issue with your cut and paste here, that isn't one long sentence but part of two with a third (which wasn't included above) in between the two (the last sentence of that cut and paste is approximately 40 words). Zawed (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

iKain -> Sp Pendright (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratched, my apology! Pendright (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Officially, he shot down his tenth enemy aircraft, a Bf 109, the next day.
Since this is just a 14 word sentence, deleting the comma after Officially might be a better read?
  • On 15 May, Kain's section encountered a Do 17, flying on its own, and began to initiate an attack.
"flying on its own"?
  • Without having fired his guns, Kain saw the crew of the bomber promptly bail to leave the now pilot-less bomber to fly on deeper into France.[72]
  • "Without having fired his guns," -> Without firing his guns?
  • "the crew of the bomber" -> Previous sentence identifies the aircraft as a Do 17?
The Do 17 is a bomber. When mentioning a particular type of aircraft for the first time, I give the designation and its role. For the Do 17, it is first mentioned in the early part of the Phoney War section. Zawed (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "promptly bail to leave the now pilot-less bomber to fly on" -> Do you mean "balout and"?
  • pilot-less -> British dictionaries seem to spell it as one word?
It received an influx of fresh pilots and Kain helped with their introduction to operational flying before,
  • Suggest breaking the sentence here?
  • Can a number be assigned to influx?
  • Before does not seem to fit?
  • The first two days of June were quiet but then the squadron received orders to move to Le Mans and operate from an advanced airfield at Échemines.[87]
How about comma after quiet?
  • Battle of France -> Battle for France?

@Zawed: Finished - Pendright (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pendright:, as always you provide a thoroughly considered review, thank you. I have responded to your points with comments and edits. Note that one of your comments related to a sentence in the second paragraph of the Battle of France but the text you cut and pasted from the article was incomplete so the comment provided didn't make sense, so you will need to look at that again. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: - Thank you for all of your responses and kind words. I've replied to one in the Military career section and the other in the Battle of France section, nether require further action. Supporting! Pendright (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Zawed (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- pass

[edit]

Hi, just noticed this and don't want to slow things with a copyedit and prose review so will restrict myself to a source review, which would be needed before promotion. Formatting looks fine, as does reliability except I'm a little unsure of Burns, which is heavily relied upon (unsuprisingly as it's the only full-length bio present) -- I might be ignorant but I'm just not familiar with the work, the author or the publisher, and when all three of those turn up a negative for me I like to know what makes this a reliable source (and, for that matter, since I assume FAC is the next stage) a "high-quality" one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, thanks for stopping by. Burns is a source for Kain's entry on the NZ Dictionary of Biography, see here, and according to the author bio on the back cover of the book, he was a commissioning editor for Blandford Press' military books. The bio says he has written several military aviation books including "Bader - The Man and his Men" (1990), "The Queen's Flight - the Authorised Fiftieth Anniversary History" (1986), and "Spitfire! Spitfire!" (1986). It also says he has written articles and reviews for a wide range of military and aviation magazines. Random Century doesn't seem to exist anymore but I think at the time, it may have been a New Zealand imprint of Random House. On the publishers page it says "Associated companies, branches and representatives throughout the world". Does that help? Zawed (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate, I'm happy with that -- being reasonably experienced with WWII Commonwealth ace bios it was a bit surpising to draw a complete blank with this source but then I've never worked on a WWII Kiwi ace... ;-) I'd like to have done a full review but perhaps if it goes to FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2021 (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 Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Buidhe (talk)

Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This Israeli law was famously used to prosecute Adolf Eichmann and Ivan Demjanjuk, and less famously to prosecute around 40 Holocaust survivors accused of collaboration. Since war crimes were among those penalized by the law, it is within the project scope. I am thinking about a possible FAC in future so any comments on potential improvements are most encouraged. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned/

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "It was motivated by anger of survivors" → 'by the anger of survivors'.
    • Done
  • "and the desire to". Optional: "the" → 'a'.
    • Done
  • "The law punishes crimes against humanity". A law doesn't punish, courts do.
    • Fixed
  • "of which two-thirds were convicted". "which" → 'whom'.
    • done
  • "Three non-Jews were also prosecuted under the law". Optional: delete "also".
    • Done
  • "upheld by both Israeli and United States courts." Should United States have an apostraphe?
    • No, this is used as an adjective, the same way as US court, US law.
  • "executing the orders of Nazi's." Why the apostraphe?
    • Reworded
  • "the drafters of the law". As this is its first mention in the main article, I think that the full title is merited.
    • Done
  • "Knowledge of the Holocaust and understanding of what Jews faced at the time, in Israeli society, in general, was limited at the time the law was passed." "at the time ... at the time".
    • Reworded
  • "Some Knesset members including Hanan Rubin and Eri Jabotinsky believed that". Should there be a pair of commas in there?
    • Linked
  • Link exculpation.
    • Linked
  • "Several provisions in the law are considered "exceptional"." By whom? In line I mean.
    • Well, literally all authors who comment on this aspect emphasize how exceptional these provisions are. For example, there are no other Israeli laws that apply exclusively outside the country or mandate death sentences.
  • "It applies not only to past events (ex post facto law) but those that occurred before the creation of Israel". As it stands, this doesn't work, events "those that occurred before the creation of Israel" were also "past events".
    • Rephrased
  • "The law applies extraterritorially to crimes committed exclusively outside of Israel". Er, how else might it apply extraterritoriality?
    • It is much more usual for laws with exterratorial application to also apply to crimes committed inside the country as well (E.g. Germany's law criminalizing genocide under universal jurisdiction applies both to genocide committed in Germany as well as other countries).[45][46]
AH. Fair point.
  • "The rules of evidence are relaxed". 1. A little detail on this would be good. 2. Add a period to the end.
    • Done
  • "Yehezkel Enigster [he] / Jungster" Is this MoS compliant?
    • I don't know, I just thought it would be helpful to note radically different spellings of his last name.
  • "another paradigm shift". I don't recall mention of a first one.
    • The first being after the Enigster/Jungster verdict. Reworded.
  • "led to another paradigm shift in which defendants were viewed as" → 'led to another paradigm shift to one in which defendants were viewed as'.
    • Reworded
  • "If Barenblat was convicted it could lead to" → 'If Barenblat had been convicted it could have led to'.
    • Done
  • "inappropriate to judge those who". I am not sure about "judge": 'try', 'punish', 'hold to account'?
    • Reworded
  • "others added unverified information to their testimony". I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think that "unverified" says it.
    • If the source said "false" then I would, but in this case I worry that would be OR since what the source says is "In other cases, witnesses added unverified information to bolster testimonies that were truthful at their core."
  • On a first reading the "Adolf Eichmann" section seems to me to "go into unnecessary detail." A more summary style may be appropriate.
    • I tried to cover all the legal aspects, but not non-legal ones. A Wikipedia article on the Eichmann trial would spend much more space on the non-legal aspects, such as its effects on perceptions of the Holocaust. I'm open to trimming it if you have a good idea what seems to be UNDUE.
I am not going to let it stand in the way of a support at this level, but IMO everything between "charged with fifteen counts of violating the law." and "Convicted on all fifteen counts" needs to go. It is not appropriate in an article on a law to give so much detail on a single case, however famous.
Thanks for the suggestion, now split off into Eichmann trial. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which confiscated property of deported Jews" → 'which confiscated the property of deported Jews'.
    • Done
  • "the court determined that this the purpose of such confiscation". Is "this" a typo?
    • Fixed
  • "he was found guilty for deportation of parts of the population of Lidice" → 'he was found guilty of the deportation of part of the population of Lidice'.
    • Done
  • "Attorney General Haim Cohn filed dozens of indictments under the law, but later changed his mind". This compares actions with attitudes. Maybe 'Attorney General Haim Cohn filed dozens of indictments under the law, but later said' or similar?
    • Done
  • Page range for Bazyler, Drumbl (2019) and Kremnitzer?
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to take a look over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " where a Jewish leadership (known as Judenrat) and Jewish Ghetto Police was appointed to execute Nazi orders." - Since there's two things "was" is referring to ("a Jewish leadership" and "Jewish Ghetto Polic"), should this be "were" not "was"
    • Done
  • "Knowledge of the Holocaust in Israeli society was limited at the time the law was passed" - It's a bit unclear what this is trying to say. Is this saying that knowledge of the full extent and horror of the Holocaust was limited? It can also be read as saying that much of Israeli society was unaware that the Holocaust happened, which seems implausible.
    • Reworded
  • "On 27 March 1950, Minister of Justice Pinkhas Rosen introduced the renamed "Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Law" to the Knesset" - By renamed, are you saying that the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law is a renamed and reworked version of the previous genocide law? Also, is the singular of Nazi intentional here?
    • Clarified ("introduced the bill to prosecute Nazi collaborators, now renamed "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law", to the Knesset...")
  • "no distinction between acts committed by an SS man and a Jewish prisoner" - SS needs glossed here.
    • Done
  • Do we know what the final vote total for and against the law in the Knesset was?
    • I tried to figure it out, but can't find it in any English language source. I've posted a query to a Hebrew-speaking Wikipedian to see if we can figure it out.
      • Update: It turns out that the vote wasn't recorded [47]
  • "Servatius challenged the jurisdiction of Israeli courts over Eichmann's crimes" - who is Servatius?
    • Eichmann's defense lawyer, clarified.

Looks good to me beyond that, although I'm a non-expert on the subject. Hog Farm Talk 16:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) - Supporting as non-expert. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (Hebrew: חוק לעשיית דין בנאצים ובעוזריהם, תש"י-1950‎) No Arabic name since Arabic is one of the official languages of the state?
    • I don't think that Arabic would make sense here since Arabs were not affected by the law.
  • Is it written only in Hebrew? If no then add Arabic if yes then nevermind
  • This one isn't addressed.
  • prosecution of crimes against Jews and other persecuted people This is the only moment I see "other persecuted people" in the body it only uses "Jews"?
    • In "Provisions" section it is stated that most provisions of the law apply to all persecuted people not just Jews.
  • committed in Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe And how about its allies?
    • It does; clarified this point.
  • as well as a variety of lesser offenses It's also vague here what were those offences?
    • There's a long list detailed in "Provisions" section but I don't think they can all be listed in the lead.
  • brought petitions to Israeli police alleging Isn't it Israeli Police? If so link it as well.
    • Linked
  • Shouldn't "police" have a capital letter?
  • was drafted in August 1949 by deputy justice minister Haim Wilkenfeld --> "was drafted in August 1949 by Deputy Justice Minister Haim Wilkenfeld"
    • Changed this as I realize that "deputy justice minister" wasn't his official title.
  • "destroying or desecrating Jewish religious or cultural assets and values" (aka cultural genocide) Add an "also know as" template here.
    • Added

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enigster, the editor-in-chief of Yediot Aharonot I have the feeling an article before Yediot Aharonot is needed same with Davar.
    • I don't think so. As a native AmEnglish speaker, the only reason that I can think of where I would put an article in front of a foreign language publication was if it was something like "the newspaper Yediot Aharonot", but that would be duplicative of the section heading. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-native speaker I refuse to accept it since it's against my English feeling. I'm not chaniging my view but I don't mind if you use it even though I think it needs one even in American English.

That's anything couldn't find anything else. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I was on the verge of pinging CPA–5 to check they were happy with this but then noticed it looks like there may be an outstanding comment from 7 March above regarding the name of the Israeli police? Zawed (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed to "Israel Police" as requested. (t · c) buidhe 10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: hey, just checking that this has your support? Zawed (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

What a fascinating and tragic story. I took a class in international law several years ago, and we discussed the Nurembourg Trials and the "extraordinary rendition" of Eichmann. This one really got the gears turning in my head. My comments:

  • Was the domestic codification of the Genocide Convention by the "Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law" designed to lay a basis and make room for the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law", or was the codifying law passed on its own merits in the view of Israli justice officials and legislators? Similarly, if that wasn't the case, was the Nazi Collaborator Law seen as compensating for a deficiency in the Genocide Law? Zertal writes that the Nazi Law was "perceived as the 'natural' sequel" to the Genocide Law. I'm just curious if there's anything more to add here, not demanding that something necessarily be done when there isn't need for it.
    • I believe it was the former. Many countries passed laws at the same time to codify the Genocide Convention into their domestic criminal law. But I don't think there's anything more to add here.
  • In page 106 of Wenig's paper here, footnote 23, he notes that in comparison to the Nazi Law no one has ever been prosecuted in Israel under the Genocide Law, due to Israeli focus on WWII events and preference for using the Nazi Law there. This seems worthy of mention.
    • In my opinion, the reverse would be more surprising. The genocide law is prospective, so it can't be used retroactively. No genocides have occurred in Israel since 1948 and Israel has a low amount of immigration of non-Jews so it would be surprising if any perpetrators of post-1949 genocides ended up in the country to be prosecuted. The source is also from 1997 so ideally if we were going to include this factoid (I am not convinced of the relevance) there would be a more recent source to confirm that it is still the case.
  • Aside from the Ohio case of extradition, is it known if this act has had any discussion or implications in non-Israeli domestic or international law?
    • I'm currently trying to research this. Sorry for the delay, bear with me.
      • OK, the main thing I have found for this is that Eichmann trial was cited as a precedent during later genocide trials. However, this is an issue of case law related to the Genocide Convention and not the Israeli law specifically so I'm inclined to consider it out of scope for this article.[49][50]

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • The sources themselves look OK.
  • Bazyler & Tuerkheimer looks to be a chapter in a book; shouldn't the format be as per the 2019 Drumbl source?
  • No publication locations given for any sources, but that may be your preference?
  • In the provisions section: Many usual defenses are banned, including the necessity defense;[36][12] You may want to reorder the refs here. Ditto the first block quote in the "Judges and prosecutors" section.
  • Doing some spotchecks using Bazyler & Scheppach and Drumbl 2016 since they are retrievable online:
  • notes 4 and 5: OK
  • note 8: OK
  • note 17: OK, I almost thought the new name of the bill wasn't covered until I saw the footnote in the source.
  • note 30: OK
  • notes 61 and 62: OK
  • note 68: Demanjuk is actually identified on pg 229 so the cite range should be across pgs 229–230, not just pg 230
    • Done
  • note 77: Chief Judge Frank J. Battisti is not explicitly mentioned in the source.
  • note 79: OK. Also, the two instances of this cite could be consolidated to one since they follow each other over without any intervening cites.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Shuttle-Centaur

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Shuttle-Centaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I came across this in my reading and decided to create a new article about it. Rather than use an expendable rocket with a Centaur upper stage, NASA decided to put the Centaur in a Space Shuttle. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text review support (16-02-2021) by Neopeius

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • "The probes were ultimately launched" Add "slated for use with the Centaur" after "The probes."
Background
[edit]
  • "Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." This is an odd line since we never learn of its critics in this brief background.
{{yo:Hawkeye7}} I forgot about this one. Can you delete "and most of its critics too"? Either that or make a note somewhere preceding that the Centaur had critics and why? --Neopeius (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle upper stages
[edit]
Deep space probes
[edit]
  • "The JPL" delete "The"
  • "It would be the fifth spacecraft to visit Jupiter, and the first to orbit it, while the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere." As of this paragraph, there is no separate probe. In the original concept, was the whole thing going to plunge into Jupiter, or was it a bus and probe combo? As it stands, "the probe" seems to refer to the whole spacecraft, making "while the probe" superfluous.
    checkY Re-worded. Changed to "the probe it carried". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward" A less judgmental word or set of words would be preferable (less costly, less time consuming, etc.)
    The source says it was a mistake not to have gone with Titan IIIE, failing which it was a mistake not to have gone with Shuttle-Centaur. The driver of the whole thing was the decision that all future space launches would use the Space Shuttle. That necessitated everything that followed. There were a lot of undesirable consequences, some of which are detailed in the final section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "In retrospect, doing so would have proven cheaper, faster, and safer than the option ultimately chosen, but..." Also, I suggest swapping the two paragraphs (lead with the shuttle-centaur -- then when you get to this line, you're discussing something already known to the reader rather than leaving it hanging for the reader to find out.) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've swapped them round, but now the text talks about IUS, then Shuttle-Centaur, then Titan IIIE, before looping back to Shuttle-Centaur again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a disdain for expendable launch vehicles" by whom?
    checkY Added "at NASA".
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur
[edit]
Congressional approval
[edit]
Management
[edit]
  • "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced, with 28 months on it from January 1984 to April 1986." Suggest "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced with 28 months on it, from January 1984 to April 1986."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two missions were scheduled:" "Two Shuttle-Centaur missions were scheduled:" Also, this is an abrupt way to start a section (mobile readers may not read the preceding) so perhaps add a date or additional context.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome
[edit]


@Hawkeye7: Excellent work. Please ping me when you've reviewed and acted. --Neopeius (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Just the one remaining issue. Then you've got my support for A and FA. --Neopeius (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: What is the remaining issue? I have lost track. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: You're good now. Support! --Neopeius (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]
Background
[edit]
  • Style choice, by I would use {{Main}} to link to the Centaur page at the top of the section.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly attractive prospect" Remove "particularly," as the point already gets across by saying it's an attractive propsect; it comes across as WP:EMPHATIC
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The development of Centaur was dogged by technical difficulties..." Are these the same issues as discussed earlier about cryogenic fuels and hydrogen leaking? It should be explained what the difficulties are. Also, I would replaced "dogged," as that strikes me as a figure of speech.
    "Dogged" is not a figure of speech. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "radical weight-saving features" I would argue the features are no longer radical if they have a successful track record. I would remove "radical."
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The technical problems were overcome," Which technical issues are being referred to here? It's not clear.
    checkY Added more detail about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." What competitors are being referred to here? The Titan rockets? Also, I would remove "most of its critics too," as that's comparing human lives to a hardware program, and it's not like the Centaur has remained unchanged since the initial development.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "handling liquid hydrogen proved crucial to winning the Space Race" I would remove this and just state it was used in the Saturn V and Space Shuttle. I understand that it's important for the Saturn V, but there are so many other developments that enabled Apollo 11 to land on the moon that I think it's a stretch to call any one of them a "crucial," since they were all important in some way or another.
    checkY Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(albeit with the internal bracing that Wernher von Braun preferred)" This isn't necessary when discussing the Saturn V upper stages; it's clear that they are different rockets, and it's not implied that it uses no internal bracing by saying that it used liquid hydrogen as fuel.
    checkY Deleted. So long as the reder is in no doubt that the Centaur design remained controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Centaur was placed atop the United States Air Force (USAF) Titan IIIE" This makes it sound like the Titan IIIE was already a launch vehicle that had a Centaur added on top of it, but as far I can tell, the Titan IIIE was the Titan III booster with a Centaur upper stage. I would say that it was used for the Titan IIIE.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "create an even more powerful launch vehicle system" This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; upper stages are exclusively used to make the launch vehicle system more powerful. As far as I can tell, this isn't different than a Centaur being added to an Atlas rocket.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "impressive record of 53 successful missions against two failures." This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; remove "impressive record."
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Titan IIIE-Centaur was only used seven times" as the launch record is already stated above, and while seven launches isn't the most of any launch vehicle, I think stating it was "only seven launches" makes it sound like the program was unsuccessful, when it was just replaced.
    checkY It wasn't replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal opinion here, but I think it can be argued that that Titan IV eventually replaced the Titan III, even though it didn't also have the Centaur upper stage like the Titan III-E. Regardless of the debate on the significance of its seven flights, it's stated twice in this section. My take is to remove the second mention. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Titan IV did use the Centaur upper stage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a stretch to say that the Titan IIIE was viewed as the last expendable launch vehicle. While Mr. Wilford and Mr. Beggs believed in the future of the Space Shuttle, the development of the Titan IV indicates there were still efforts being made towards expendable vehicles.
    Continue reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either remove "Nonetheless, a cautious USAF ordered ten Titan IV rockets in 1984" or just say that they ordered ten Titan IV rockets. Adding "Nonetheless" comes across as WP:EDITORIAL, and using "cautious" has a bit of a negative connotation that the Air Force wasn't embracing the new technology.
    The USAF was keeping Titan alive in case the Space Shuttle proved a failure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The USAF was approached for assistance, and an agreement was reached on 11 July 1974..." Saying the Air Force was approached personifies the Air Force and makes it sound more casual than such an agreement would be. I would say something like "A joint NASA-USAF agreement released on 11 July 1974 commissioned the development of an IUS"
    checkY Agreement was reached at the Pentagon on 11 July. Four days later, Schlesinger and Fletcher shook on it. Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of study contracts were let, resulting..." Is there more info on these study contracts (who conducted them, what the results were, etc.) to explain? If not, I would just add on to the previous sentence that the ultimate result was an expendable solid-fuel upper stage.
    checkY Plenty of info on the study contracts, but the point is that an expendable solid-fuel upper stage was chosen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would shorten the national defense explanation about Galileo. While interesting, it has little to do with Shuttle-Centaur, other than the Galileo mission being a motivating factor for the program. Maybe just state that USAF scientists wanted to improve autonomous and radiation-hardened spacecraft with an interest in applying it to their own satellites.
    checkYTrimmed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Galileo national defense paragraph personifies the USAF by saying it was interested in Galileo's autonomy and radiation hardening. If those phrases are left in the section, I would say something about it being USAF satellite engineers (or the like), not the organization as a whole.
    checkY The organsation as a whole, not satellite engineers (who were not part of the USAF). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight..." To what is this compared? This makes it seem like the IUS was accidentally overweight and needed to be slimmed down, instead of what I assume means it had to carry more propellant for the heavier probe. I would just state that the three-stage IUS and probe were 3,200 kilograms above the Shuttle's current capacity.
    checkYAgainst its design specifications. Added this. The Shuttle's capacity depended on several factors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "special lightweight version of the Space Shuttle external tank" Is this just referring to the LWT? I would link to it specifically.
    checkY Yes, but it doesn't have its own article, and the one on the external tank is already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle orbiter stripped of all non-essential equipment" It's not really clear what non-essential equipment is here. Does that mean no other payloads would be carried, or does this mean significant changes have to happen to the orbiter (removal of internal storage compartments, reducing seats on board, planning for a short-duration mission that only focuses on the probe deployment)?
    checkY All of the above. The downstairs sets would have been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While a Mars slingshot was still possible in 1984, it would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupiter." The order of this makes it a little confusing. If a Mars slingshot would be possible in that the probe could reach Mars but can't make it to Jupiter, it wouldn't be helpful for the Galileo mission; I would state that delays until 1984 meant that the probe couldn't reach Jupiter, even with a Mars slingshot.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Transportation Systems, John Yardley, directed the Lewis Research Center to determine the feasibility of integrating Centaur with the Space Shuttle. The engineers at Lewis concluded that it was both feasible and safe." This is pretty wordy, and personifies the Lewis Research Center. I would combine these sentences. Yardley launched the study and directed the Lewis engineers to conduct it, who determined it was feasible/safe.
    He ordered the center to study it. I can't save any words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase the quote given to Thomas O'Toole; it's not a quote from someone of particular notability, and doesn't say anything that profound beyond that the Centaur is a powerful upper stage.
    checkY paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward, but this was not apparent in 1979" It sounds like the page is providing commentary, even though it is a sourced opinion. NASA decision makers did not know about the Challenger disaster and were hopeful about the future of the Shuttle, so this commentary makes it sound like willful ignorance instead of making the best decision with the info they had.
    checkY Willful ignorance would be closer to the truth, but rephrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disdain for expendable launch vehicles at NASA" This is pretty strong; "disdain" makes it sound like there was hatred towards expendable launch vehicles, rather than a belief that the crewed Shuttle would be the better option. I would remove it and state that national policy was that all launches should used the Space Shuttle.
    checkY Rephrased. Of course, the national policy was only in place because NASA administrators pushed for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really clear what the USAF-NASA issues were (the way its written personifies both organizations). I would rephrase it to say that NASA management did not want to use a USAF-controlled launch vehicle, because of difficulties during previous joint missions (and state what the issues were).
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just state the Ulysses renaming without going into the backstory.
    checkY Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ESA would therefore supply the sole spacecraft" Remove "therefore"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun; engineers joked that it would never be closer to the Sun than when it was sitting on the launch pad in Florida." Since it's not stated that the spacecraft would make a close approach, I think this can be left out. Regarding the joke about being close to the sun, while it's funny (and correct), I don't think it belongs in this description either.
    The point is that it was going via Jupiter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not take out the joke and then combine the last three sentences; something like "It wouldn't make a close approach to the sun but would instead travel out to Jupiter to use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two Ulysses sentences are wordy. Combine the last two sentences of the Ulysses description; something like: "Like Galileo, the Ulysses probe would travel out to Jupiter, where it would use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane."
    That would not be correct though; Galileo was not leaving the ecliptic plane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposed description may have been off, but as it stands in a wordy way of describing the Ulysses mission. I would combine the sentences.
    checkY Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The final sentence made for an abrupt end to the paragraph; I combined it with the previous sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur
[edit]
  • "not in favor of using Centaur" This article has the word "utilising", but has American English here. To satisfy MOS:ARTCON, one national variety should be used. As this is an American program, my viewpoint is that it should be MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, but I definitely have my bias towards the American spelling variety.
    checkY The article is in AmEng, but my spellchecker is not. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way to tie in the Senate support for Shuttle-Centaur? While it's a part of the story, it seems out of place that the Senate makes a decision and the paragraph ends making it seem like NASA could and would disregard any Congressional order.
    Yes, that's correct. Under the American system of government the executive is not answerable to the legislature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "price tag" seems informal; I would replace it with "cost"
    checkY Changed to "estimated cost". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the cost of $506 million, that makes it seem like it's a per-unit cost, but I'm assuming its development of the IUS. If so, that should be changed to make it clear what that price is referring to.
    checkY Changed to emphasise that this is the development cost, not the per-unit cost, and the $506 does not include the $179. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pricing scheme is a tough to follow. From reading this, my understanding is that the Air Force paid the major development fees (the $506 million) and NASA was on the hook for $179 million to make the three-stage IUS. Since this was considered as a joint Air Force-NASA program, it really isn't clear how one organization was prepared to pay for most of the development and NASA was unable to pay its minority share.
    The Department of Defense had a much larger budget than NASA, and could more easily absorb cost overruns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were the four advantages listed the official reasons given by NASA for selecting Centaur? This reads more like a commentary on the two programs instead of the reasoning to use it. They are good points to bring up, but the section is about the decision to use the Shuttle-Centaur, so it shouldn't have commentary made by non-decision makers.
    checkY Made it clear that these were the reasons advanced by the Lewis Research Center. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the advantages are left in
  • The power advantages/time saving should be quantified; it's not really clear how "good" a two-year flight time is.
    checkY Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences about the advantages of the time reduction are wordy and could be combined. I would remove the commentary-sounding "This was not merely a matter of impatience" and just state that longer flight times had more wear and tear and used more energy/propellant, and that gravity assists require closer passes to the sun.
    checkY Removed, but the JPL account emphasises the frustration of scientists who had to wait years for their experiments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine the sentences about the second advantage, and instead of saying that it was gentle, state that its lower thrust generation resulted in reduced jerk on the probe.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explain the flexibility provided by using a restartable engine. I'm assuming the advantages are mid-course corrections and multi-burn flight profiles.
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's confusing to say that Centaur was proven and reliable, but then state that solid rockets were safer. Was the concern for safety of the Shuttle crew or the mission as a whole? If it's the latter, it seems like safety and reliability are somewhat interchangeable, as not getting the probe to its destination is a fail regardless of what caused the failure.
    The astronauts' sole concern was for the safety of the crew. They weren't concerned about the unlikely event of Centaur not working correctly (like the IUS on STS-6). What they were concerned about was not the failure of Centaur but of other Space Shuttle components such as the main engines exploding when they went to full power (never attempted), or shutting down (which actually happened more than once). In that case, they would have to dump the fuel in the Centaur and attempt to land. Solid rockets like the IUS were considered safer than liquid ones, but ironically it was a failure of the Space Shuttle's supposedly safe solid rocket boosters that killed the entire crew of the Challenger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It just occurred to me that you can't dump the fuel from a solid, so in the event of an abort with the IUS on board the Shuttle would have to land heavy. On STS-51-D Discovery blew a tire on landing because the landing gear was not intended to carry the ultimate weight of the Shuttle. Doing that at KSC would have put the Shuttle in the swamp. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional approval
[edit]
  • The first and last paragraphs don't appear to have anything to do with Congressional approval, so they appear out of place in this section.
    checkY Moved to the previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the first paragraph is kept and relocated, I would reduce it and state that heavy-lift advantages. I would remove the part about pleasing planetary scientists and welcomed by the industry; it's enough to say that its lifting capabilities can lift heavier satellites/probes.
    Industry and scientists were important NASA constituencies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That those groups make up important NASA constituencies is important, but it's not clear how they factor in to Congressional approval. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IUS flight isn't really relevant to Centaur, other than that the IUS was mentioned as a competitor program. Its mission success doesn't have any impact on the Centaur, and it's not really fair to compare the success rate of a flown spacecraft with something unflown.
    Its lack of success meant that there was no alternative to Shuttle-Centaur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the IUS was successfully flown on later missions; this makes it seem like the program was a failure instead of having a bad first mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the organizations that are unhappy with the Centaur choice, because it seems like their disappointment is just because they didn't receive the contract, not a decision based on the merits of the competing programs.
    That's not the point though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I think the issues that Boeing and the MSFC would have with Shuttle-Centaur would be related to NASA deciding to go with another option. I'm sure there was a belief that the IUS option was inherently better, but I think that's tough to separate that from the pursuit of funding that any aerospace contractor would want. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "vociferously" when describing Schmitt's opposition; while I have no doubt he believed in Centaur, there's not other mention of his opinion or work on the matter, and adding a superlative like vociferously makes it sound like he led the charge.
    checkY Deleted. Yes, he led the charge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "(a common practice in the USAF)". While I can't speak to what your sources state, there are regulations against Air Force organizations getting a contract without a tender process. I'm sure it still happens, but it's a stretch to say that the common practice in the Air Force is to violate this process.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to "vociferously," I would remove "staunchly" when describing Sen Lowery's actions; there's no further explanation of his actions.
    checkY Deleted. His connection to General Dynamics is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Design
[edit]
  • Why isn't the Magellan description under the probes sub-section? It seems like it would be more fitting there,
    The article is in chronological order, and the decision to use Shuttle-Centaur with Magellan and MilSat came after Shuttle-Centaur had been authorized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But it seems out of place, since the section is titled "Design" and then the start of the paragraph is another mission that was approved for it. I think trying to keep things chronological is good, but this belongs under the discussion of the probes. Since Shuttle-Centaur never flew, its not like these launches have to be kept in some sort of order. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dealing with them was not always easy. Telephone conversations with General Dynamics regarding the project had to be conducted over secure phone lines." This makes it sound like Air Force contracting personnel were unpleasant partners, when instead it seems more like they had to follow procedures for handling classified material. This makes it seem like the Air Force is to blame, when a defense aerospace contractor would presumably have the infrastructure, capabilities, and experience to work on classified projects.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think its necessary to specify that development was conducted over secure telephone lines, as that would be the expectation with any defense contract of this nature. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is the point: that it was a defence contract. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a 10-centimeter (4 in) stroke known as the Super*Zip separation ring" I would reword this, as "stroke" isn't a term that the average reader will be familiar with; it's not listed on the spring (device) or coil spring pages either.
    Stroke length refers to the amount of compression a spring can be put under safely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I learned that (admittedly after some Googling). My point is that I don't think that's a common term that a casual reader looking for space history pages will understand. My take is that the amount of compression in the coil springs isn't an important detail to someone trying to understand Centaur deployment, and can be removed entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase "or the planet below" as that makes it sound more like a dangerous collision for both objects than a Centaur reentering the atmosphere.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle" is linked twice before Challenger and Atlantis, and has already been linked in the article. Also, it's linked twice before both orbiters in the lead.
    checkY Tweaked template calls. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Management
[edit]
  • "which they claimed had experience with cryogenic propellants and more experience with the Space Shuttle, which they regarded as a complex system that only their three centers understood." This is wordy starting two phrases with "which they"
    checkY Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its experience with Centaur was the greatest of all the NASA centers; it had managed the successful Titan-Centaur project" This is a little repetitive; I would rephrase/combine the statements.
    This is something that I think should be addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it boasted a highly skilled workforce where the average engineer had thirteen years of experience" I'm assuming all space centers had highly skilled work forces? It's not really clear that thirteen years, on average, of experience makes Lewis the superior center.
Preparations
[edit]
  • I would remove the nicknames from the links for Hauck and Van Hoften
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since STS-61-G never flew, I think Fabian's replace by Thagard doesn't require an entire sentence, but instead something like "John Fabian, who was later replaced by Norman Thagard, and James Van Hoften."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they would fly into a very low orbit, just 170 kilometers (110 mi)" I would refrain some saying things like "very low" and "just 170 kilometers" since that seems to provide uneeded commentary on the mission parameters, and maybe say "into a low 170 kilometer orbit"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the list of astronauts in the caption of the SC-1 rollout, as it's really long, and instead mention them by name in the paragraph. Their names are in the file's page as well, so it's not like the info isn't available to someone taking a close look at the photo.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was the best that the Space Shuttle could do with a fully fueled Centaur on board" This makes it sound like the low orbit was the best the Shuttle could do in the event of an in-flight issue or failure; maybe something more like "which was the hightest orbit the Space Shuttle could achieve with a fully fueled Centaur"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorder up the deployment-Space Adaptation Syndrome section; it's a little confusing why the 7 hours post-launch deployment is significant until later in the pargraph. Something like "Satellite deployments were not normally not scheduled for the first day to allow for astronauts who came down with space adaptation syndrome. Both Shuttle-Centaur crews were composed of astronauts that had already flown in space, which allowed the probes to be deployed seven hours into flight.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move Hauck being a project officer up to when the crews are described; it's disjointed that the crews are introduced, the mission summary is given, and then its goes back to the crews.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "key Shuttle-Centaur meetings, which was unusual for astronauts" This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it's not like there were other Shuttle-Centaur flights, so other astronauts wouldn't be attending key Shuttle-Centaur meetings. Also, if he's a project officer for it, wouldn't Hauck be expected to attend meetings about it?
    Apparently not. The sources are very clear about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link the aborted mission profile to [[Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Ascent_abort_modes]] and shorten the sentence; something like "main safety issue concerned an aborted mission during the ascent." Also, its wasn't just a failure of the main engines that could result in not reaching orbit, so I wouldn't single it out.
    checkY Linked. The only aborts were caused by main engine failures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it needs to be specified that a Space Shuttle abort was dangerous as is without the Centaur.
    I think it does, as otherwise the reader might think that Shuttle-Centaur was the reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a concern for the astronauts, who feared fuel leaks and explosions" This makes it sound like either the astronauts were the only ones worried about this and nobody took them seriously, or that they were worrying too much. Either way, I think the potential loss of a mission and crew was a concern for a lot of non-astronauts as well.
    That's exactly the situation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the Young quote; it's just a nickname he had for it, and there's only one more mention of his concerns, and nothing specific. Plus, they needed to make the Centaur more difficult to destroy than bullseying womp rats with your T-16.
    I spent some time thinking about the quote, and ultimately decided to add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why include it though? It's just a nickname Young had for it, as there's no explanation on why he thought it called it that, and it's not a particularly fitting nickname (as it would be for a military space station or the like). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is: the playing of the Star Wars theme music. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that has anything to do with Young's quote; a song that was played during an event that Young didn't attend doesn't seem to be a likely reason that he would give the spacecraft a nickname of a space station from the movie that music is from. If it was, that connection is not clear to the reader. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote appears in every reference. An explanation that Young (incorrectly) considered the mission to be be excessively risky is provided. The question is: if the quote is removed, will I be accused of whitewashing Shuttle-Centaur, resulting in one of those NPOV tags? What is your reason for pressing for its removal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument against it is that it's not really clear what is meant by "Death Star," as it can imply powerful and good, evil, or just some thing that explodes. Young's concerns are already voiced throughout the article, and his concerns are well-explained. I find adding a nickname he had to just be an extraneous detail, especially when the analogy between the nickname and the Shuttle-Centaur isn't really clear. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Alright. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to a fanfare not seen since the days of Project Apollo" I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the national events around Apollo and the moon landings to a rollout of a Shuttle payload to a crowd of 300 that were mostly the employees that had worked on the project. Also, was only Star Wars music played?
    The point is that nothing like it had occurred in the decade since the Apollo landings. The sources support this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dawson & Bowles source says "excitement had rarely been seen since the glory days of the Apollo program" which doesn't describe the fanfare of the actual event. An impressive fanfare implies large crowds and notabile attendees; there were certainly events bigger than 300 attendees in between Apollo-Soyuz and August 1985. Even in the realm of spaceflight, every Space Shuttle launch certainly had a larger crowd and more coverage; Ronald Reagan attending the STS-4 landing could be considered a bigger event as well. It seems arbitrary and unfounded in actual metrics to describe the Centaur rollout as the biggest of these events. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY My mistake. The other source says "reminiscent of the halcyon days of the space program in the 1960s". Removed the clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who were the dignitaries giving speeches? Were they anyone particularly notable, or senior General Dynamics leadership? If its just the latter, I would leave it out.
    Senior NASA and General Dynamics officials. Stofan is pictured. Video is available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to identify the man sitting behind Stofan. I have most of the others Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concerned that this was too few, Nieberding lobbied Moore to allow the engines to be run at 109 percent. Moore approved the request on the spot" I would combine these sentences, as also rephrase "on the spot," which is a figure of speech. Additionally, I would reintroduce Nieberding, since the reader may not remember him from the many names given in the previous paragraph.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many days were now possible launch days with the increased engine output? That should be included
    Unfortunately, the source only says "a reasonable number". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "supposedly safe", as that comes across as providing commentary on the mission. There is a lot of backstory about the safety approval of the SRBs, but I don't think it needs to be included on this page.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellation
[edit]
  • "Too many key personnel were involved in the analysis of the accident for the missions to proceed. The earliest they could be flown was in thirteen months." I would just say that the shuttle flights were suspended, since this makes it sound like it was the Shuttle-Centaur flights that were specifically postponed.
    Correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is this makes it sound like it was only the Shuttle-Centaur missions that were delayed as a result of the Challenger disaster, instead of the grounding of the entire fleet. It doesn't make sense to say that the earliest they could be flown was thirteen months, as the entire fleet was grounded for two years. I'm assuming the thirteen months was an estimate made at some point based upon when they thought the Space Shuttle would be up and running again, but it doesn't make sense here, as the Shuttle wasn't flying thirteen months after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct; the Shuttle-Centaur missions were delayed as a result of the Challenger disaster. For how long was not known for some time. The grounding lasted much longer than anyone expected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although completely unrelated to the accident, Challenger had broken up immediately after throttling to 104 percent power. This contributed to an increased perception at the Johnson and Marshall Space Flight Centers that it was too risky to go to 109 percent." Who in power had this perception? While everyone is guilty of bias, it makes it seem like NASA decision makers disregarded facts and went with their feelings on increasing RS-25 power, which I assume is not the case.
    The sources don't single out anyone, but the fact remains that they were never run at 109 per cent on any mission. In testing in 2018 and 2019, the engines were run at 113 per cent without problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's true that the SSMEs were never flown at 109% despite successful tests at that level, it's speculation to say that this decision was made because of the Challenger disaster when there isn't an official account of this being the reason. According to the source, the pre-Challenger opinion of the JSC and MSFC was opposing 109% thrust, so it's not like their stances only changed after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Tweaked the wording to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foreseeing the possibility of using the flight hardware with Titan, the USAF decided to..." I would rephrase this since it personifies the Air Force; the organization can't foresee or decide something. Since the next section shows that Air Force did purchase the flight equipment and used it on Titan, something like "The USAF purchased the Centaur flight hardware from NASA to use on Titan IV missions"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
[edit]
  • Add/link the spaceflights for the Galileo and Ulysses deployments
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "just two" with "two" as that comes across as commentary; the reader should understand the difference in time
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The high-gain antenna damage description comes across as speculation on possible causes; was there an official NASA report on what caused it that can be referenced?
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • I would rephrase "Ulysses had to wait even longer" since the satellite isn't "waiting," maybe shorten the sentence to "Ulysses was launched a year later on the IUS, on 6 October 1990"
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the photo of the dedication ceremony down to the legacy section
    checkY Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten the caption of the dedication photo to the first sentence. The names/positions of the individuals described in the caption are already in the section, and Kavandi, Ross, and Oberg are pointed out in the image's description.
    The image description is not on Wikipedia, and is subject to arbitrary removal at any time. We never, ever assume that it will be available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prolonged period of time in the vacuum of space followed where bare metal touching could undergo cold welding." I'm assuming this has to do with the damage to the high-gain antenna, but this comes across as just a fact about cold welding without explaining how it's a problem or linking it to Galileo. Also, I'm no material scientist, but I would think that the time spent in the vacuum of space to reach Jupiter regardless of the launch platform could cause cold welding. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There should not have been any bare metal touching. Elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Planning to comment throughout this week. Do ping if I forget. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eddie891: pinging... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family" maybe add a time frame to the Atlas rockets for context?
    The problem here is that the Atlas family story begins back in the early 1950s, and it is still in use. The latest launch was November last. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thew of the RL-10 engine exploded on the test stand" Thew? What does a 'test stand' test?
    Engines. Linked to engine test stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marshall Space Flight Center to its Lewis Research Center in Ohio." why does only one get a state?
    checkY Added "in Huntsville, Alabama" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 probes to Jupiter and Saturn; " did the two probes both go to each planet, one to each, or something else?
    checkYPioneer 10 went to Jupiter; Pioneer 11 to Jupiter and Saturn. It gets awkward to rephrase here. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "By 1980, Centaur had recorded 53 successful missions against two failures." are the two failures relevant? Would it be worth adding what caused them?
    checkY Wikipedia keeps score in Centaur (rocket stage)#Mishaps. I think we'd be off on a tangent here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decision to use the Space Shuttle for all launches augured badly for the projects" I'd like a time frame for this sentence to anchor the reader as it's the start of a new section
    checkY Added the year (1972). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle" I'm not clear what the IUS would do?
    checkY Added "to be used for launching satellites in higher orbits pending the development of the Space Tug" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They reached an informal agreement" what was the agreement?
    checkY Added "reached an informal agreement that the USAF would develop an interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle
  • Is sullivan's opposition or McLucas's endorsement relevant at all? I think you can go from "They reached an informal agreement and after some debate..." without losing anything.
    checkY Don't think so. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is a "study contract"?
    A contract to carry out a study. As opposed to one to build something. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " expendable solid-fuel upper stage" does not mean anything to me -- could it be clarified, or is it already and I'm just being stupid
    There's three space age concepts here:
    1. expendable - as opposed to reusable. The contrast here is with the space tTug, whose NERVA nuclear engine could be refuelled and restarted.
    2. Solid fuel - as opposed to using liquid fuel, like Centaur and NERVA, which used liquid hydrogen.
    3. Upper stage. Means one of the stages of a multi-stage rocket other than the big one on the bottom. Each stage has its own engine and propellant. Centaur was an upper stage originally developed for use with Atlas.
    checkY expendable launch system and upper stage are already linked. Linked solid-fuel.
  • "What saved Galileo from cancellation " Why would it have been cancelled?
    checkY Added a bit about NASA budget cuts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one" honestly, no idea what either of these mean
    In a pressurized aircraft, the cabin is maintained at a pressure greater than that outside. For a spacecraft, there's no air outside, so venting will mean that it operates in a vacuum. This is easier to do, but creates other problems, because metals can spontaneously weld when they come into contact in an airless environment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 3,200 kilograms (7,000 lb)" is that a lot or a little?
    It depends on what you consider a lot of money. It costs $10,000 to launch a pound of payload into Earth orbit, so this is worth $70 million per launch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when a Mars slingshot would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupite" why?
    The planets move around the Sun at high speed. They have to be correctly aligned for the slingshot trick to work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but this would have added at least $125 million (equivalent to $362 million in 2019) to the price of the $285 million (equivalent to $826 million in 2019) Galileo project because it would have required rebuilding the launch complex at Cape Canaveral" suggest rearranging to "but this would have required rebuilding..., adding at least..." to place the reason earlier
  • "In retrospect," maybe this sentence could just be "Nasa historian Heppenheimer later wrote that"?
    Moved the words around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have to work closely with the USAF, something that NASA management hoped to minimise" I think "hoped to avoid" or something else-- for some reason the sentence as is doesn't flow well for me, but not sure why
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun. " not sure what this sentence adds"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Centaur was chosen as the best option." when? At the 1983 meeting?
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were hardened against" what does hardened mean in this context?
    Protected against "against interception, jamming and nuclear attack". In particular, the electromagnetic pulse of the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • some more to come. It's probably painfully clear this is not my area of expertise... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to tell what level to pitch at article like this at. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Appearing before the Senate a few days later" A few days after what?
    checkY After the order from Congress; that is what the secondary source says, and I don't have access to the primary. Deleted "a few days later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, NASA decided" not immediately clear to me what this is instead of?
    checkY Instead of using Centaur as directed by Congress. Deleted "Instead". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The problem was that" I think this could be dropped with no loss-- was probably not the only problem...
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not familiar with what 'geosynchronous' means
    checkY A geosynchronous or Clarke orbit is one where the satellite is at an altitude where the rotational speed of the satellite matches that of the Earth, so for an Earth observer, the satellite does not appear to be moving at all. If you do the math, that works out to be 35,786 kilometres up. Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Senator Harrison Schmitt," feels like it could be broken into two, it's got a lot of commas and is very windy.
    checkY Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in design seems absent a citation?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Congressmen" perhaps "representatives", being both more specific and avoiding the awkward gendered language followed by a woman's name?
    checkY Sure. In Australia we always call them "representatives" and never "congressmen", but I wasn't sure about US usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William H. Robbins was appointed the head" date?
    checkY In July 1983. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with space adaptation syndrome." I know there's a link, but I think a brief gloss would be apt-- ideally explaining why seasoned astronauts would avert the problem
    checkY "and were known to not suffer from it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " one that in fact " can probably drop "in fact"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gives a good analysis from the technical/matter-of-fact side of the story, but was there any public opinion? Reaction to the cancellation? Other commentary? There may not be, and that's OK Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Battle of Newtonia

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Second Battle of Newtonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After passing GAN in October, this article has since been expanded with two additional sources, and I now believe it's ACR-able. Another Price's Raid action, towards the end of the campaign. While this action was essentially just a series of attacks and counterattacks that fizzled out into a Union victory, it shares a couple characters with the First Battle of Newtonia, which went through ACR earlier this year - James G. Blunt and Jo Shelby. Hog Farm Bacon 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • are there any iconic paintings of the battle that might be able to be used in the infobox? Currently, all we have are maps -- which is fine if that's all we can access within copyright restrictions -- but a painting or iconic photo would help improve the visual appeal of the article
    • Nothing free use of this battle, but there's one of Price's Raid in general I'll add.
  • should the first battle of Newtonia be mentioned in the Background?
    • Done, but only a brief mention, as the two fights don't have much relation to each other beyond Blunt, Shelby, and Newtonia
  • but was forced to fight three battles–Marais des Cygnes: spaced endash or unspaced emdash
    • I've actually rewritten this specific bit out of existence as part of the trimming suggested by Buidhe below
  • the Price and the MSG were --> remove "the" in front of Price
    • Done
  • An element of Fagan's division --> has Fagan been introduced at this point in the article?
    • Thought I had, apparently I didn't. Glossed and linked
  • two brigades, who --> "two brigades, which"?
    • Done
  • position with four guns: do we know what calibre these were?
    • Sinisi refers to McLain's Parrott rifles, but isn't any more specific. Added the Parrott rifles, will check Wood to see if he gives specific caliber tomorrow.
  • The two guns of Collins' Missouri Battery: same as the above?
  • parts of which routed --> "parts of which were routed" or "parts of which withdrew"?
    • Done
  • began making preparation to withdraw --> " began making preparations to withdraw" or "prepared to withdraw"?
    • Done
  • By now, it was approaching sundown, and Union reinforcements commanded by Brigadier General John B. Sanborn arrived on the field, having forced marched from Fort Scott, Kansas: how were these requested, do we know?
    • Added. Via Curtis earlier in the day
  • Two cannons of Battery H, 2nd Missouri Light Artillery Regiment: do we know what calibre these were?
    • Sinisi calls them Rodman guns. Added that, will check Wood tomorrow to see if he is more specific.
  • One modern historian places: suggest naming this person in text
    • Done
  • began completely falling apart --> "began falling completely apart"?
    • Done
  • Most of areas where fighting occurred --> "Most of the areas where fighting occurred"
    • Added
  • in the Sources, I suggest adding a page range for Castel's chapter in Kennedy's work

Source review

[edit]

Sources look OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
  • The "Background" material looks disproportionate; it makes up almost 1/3 of the total non-lead content. Is there anything here that is not absolutely essential for the reader to know? (t · c) buidhe 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Price had lost over two thirds of his army --> "Price had lost over two-thirds of his army"
    • Added hyphen
  • I see two "howevers" in the "Background" section maybe move one to another section?
    • Reworded to remove one outright
  • voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two governments --> "voted to reject secession, essentially giving the state two disputed governments"?
    • Went with "competing", as the Union government was not disputed much due to Union control of the state
  • controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large scale crossing --> "controlled the Mississippi River, preventing a large-scale crossing"
    • Added hyphen
  • I see this "Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment" and "Collins' Battery" maybe standardise them unless they both are proper nouns.
    • Standardized with Collins's
  • American Battlefield Trust estimated 400 and 250, respectively Switch numbers here.
    • Done, in both spots
  • total Union casualties at 26 and those for the Confederates at 24 Same as above.
    • Done, in both spots
  • During the night, most of Shelby's The night of 28/29 October right?
    • Clarified
  • pursuit ended on November 8 at the Arkansas This is the only date who doesn't have a comma all the rest do have one?
    • Added
  • had cost Price more than two thirds of the men --> "had cost Price more than two-thirds of the men"
    • Added hyphen
  • on an elevation behind his main line --> "on an elevation behind his mainline"
    • "mainline" wouldn't work here in American English
  • The "References" section uses DD/MM/YYYY while the "Sources" section uses MM/DD/YYYY maybe standardise the "References" section.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

[edit]
  • Huh, guess I reviewed this at GAN. Will endeavor to have a read through this week. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavalry feels like an overlinked term, may not be though
  • " essentially giving the state two competing governments" is there a reason not to drop "essentially"?
    • Removed
  • "to ferret out the Union defenders." could a more encyclopedic word than "ferret" be used? Not sure how commonly understood the phrase is...
    • Replaced
  • " All in all" perhaps "in total"?
    • Done
  • Any idea what time the battle ended at?
    • Looked at Castel, Collins, Sinisi, and a source that I got off of Amazon recently that I will add before a FAC, and none give an exact time, although I've added a couple comparative times from Sinisi. I don't have Wood with me, but I can get ahold of a copy at some point and check to see if he has a specific time
  • Any reason how you ordered the casualty estimates? I'd put the contemporary report or the battlefield trust first followed by the two historians.
    • Re-ordered
  • "The American Battlefield Trust has been part of the preservation" not really sure what this means
    • Rephrased, is this better?

highly readable, seems well done to my eyes. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:10, 20 April 2021 (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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After my last one wasn't really that well written due to lack of experience writing about books, I think this one's in a lot better shape and is a better nomination. Another Mo. CSA cavalry unit, Nichols's regiment tore up railroad tracks in Arkansas before joining Price's Raid. It played a key role in the Battle of Little Blue River (also at ACR), but was otherwise undistinguished. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "After entering Confederate service". This seems an odd phrase. Whose service was it in before?
    • Rephrased.
  • "the unit participated in Price's Raid". Maybe a brief description of what this was?
    • Added
  • "Nichols's regiment's men". A little clumsy. Perhaps 'The men of Nichols's regiment'?
    • Done
  • "Before the war ended in 1865, the unit disbanded, with few of the men reporting to Shreveport, Louisiana in June to receive their paroles" this seems over-summarised to the point of becoming unclear.
    • It's about as detailed as I can get. I've added that this probably occurred in Texas, but any specific details just aren't known in this case. Confederate records in the Trans-Mississippi in 1864 and 1865 are really fragmentary and hazy and often didn't exist in the first place.
  • "the number of casualties suffered". Perhaps insert 'total'? So readers don't think that it just applies to August.
    • Clarified

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "to continue recruiting. He led his recruits" Are we talking infantry or cavalry here?
    • Cavalry. Specified
  • "while the names of the other companies are unknown" Should "names" be 'designations'?
    • Changed
  • Link Memphis and Little Rock Railroad.
    • Linked
  • Infantry is dup-linked.
    • Unlinked
  • "with a Union surrender by the time Nichols's men arrived". Would "by" → 'before' make the situation clearer?
    • Probably. Done.
  • "the action ended as the Confederates disengaged." Optional: "as" → 'when'.
    • Done
  • "Nichols's regiment saw little action until" → 'Nichols's regiment saw little further action until'.
    • Done
  • "Around 300 men were part of the regiment during the month of August." It may be your US-speak, but does that mean that the total complement of the regiment was around 300?
    • Yes. This phrasing would be acceptable in American English.
  • "By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States"> Perhaps 'military events'? (I assume that is what you mean?)
    • Added "military", as that's primarily what I was referring to and all of the given examples are military events.
  • "Meanwhile, in the Trans-Mississippi Theater, the Confederates had defeated a Union expedition during the Red River campaign in Louisiana from March through May." I think this might benefit from rphrasing.
    • Significantly rephrased, is this better?
  • "suggested that an invasion into Missouri". It may just be me, but that reads oddly. 'invasion of'?
    • Done
  • "divert Union troops away from principal theaters of combat". 'the principal'.
    • Done
  • "on September 19, Price's column entered the state", I suggest making this a separate sentence.
    • Done
  • "where it aligned south of the town". "aligned" seems an odd choice of word.
    • Changed to "deployed"
  • "Price authorized a raid towards Glasgow". "towards" Glasgow, or 'against' Glasgow?
    • Changed to against, as Glasgow was the primary target
  • "allowing them to escape". Who is "them".
    • Clarified
  • "but reinforcements for both sides arrived, under Union Major General James G. Blunt and Confederates under Shelby's command" The phrase "reinforcements for both sides arrived, under Union Major General James G. Blunt" causes something of a double take. Possibly rephrase?
    • Rephrased, but not sure how much of an improvement it is
It looks good to me.
  • "Union artillery was moved from other parts of the line to counter Nichols's attack, which in turn weakened the Confederate center". How does Union artillery moving weaken any part of the Confederates?
    • Must not have had enough caffeine when writing this one. Should've been Union, rather than Confederate.
  • "The next day, some of Shelby's men broke through a Union line defending the Big Blue River in the opening stages of the Battle of Byram's Ford. After breaking through the Union line, Jackman's brigade and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment encountered a Union unit". "broke through breaking ... through". Maybe 'The next day, some of Shelby's men broke through a Union line defending the Big Blue River in the opening stages of the Battle of Byram's Ford. Jackman's brigade and the 5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment then encountered a Union unit ...' or similar?
    • Done. Also found a missing comma later the in second sentence while rephrasing it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton had been following Price from the east and attacked and defeated the Confederate rear guard in the Second Battle of Independence" This seems to come a bit out of nowhere. Who was attacked - Price or Jackman - and when.
    • Clarified when and who
  • "until the Union pursuers broke contact." Was this the same day?
    • Clarified
  • "to catch back up to them." I assume that this is US English, but even so it seems a little clunky. Rephrase?
    • Done
  • "During the Second Battle of Newtonia, Nichols's regiment was held to the rear of the right side of the Confederate line, supporting Collins's Missouri Battery.[37] The regiment did not see close combat at Newtonia." Maybe 'During the Second Battle of Newtonia, Nichols's regiment was held to the rear of the right side of the Confederate line, supporting Collins's Missouri Battery, and did not see close combat at Newtonia.'?
    • Done
  • "few of the men from Nichols's regiment reported to Shreveport, Louisiana, in June to receive their paroles" I think this needs a little further explanation.
    • Unfortunately, the two sources I've been able to turn up that discuss the disbanding of the regiment (McGhee and NPS) give no further details on this. I'm assuming since the unit disbanded before the surrender, most of the men just went home or to Mexico and didn't bother to travel to Shreveport to get their paperwork, but nothing explicitly states this.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another neat piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Hog Farm. Thanks for your work on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • no dup links, no dab links (no action required)
  • suggest adding some sort of sub header to the first paragraph of the Service history section
    • Done
  • newly-recruited unit --> suggest removing the hyphen for the -ly adverb per [52]
    • Seems odd to me, but done.
  • the lead states that the regiment officially formed on June 22, but the body doesn't seem to use such language, instead talking about Jackman's arrival on that day
    • Rephrased in the body
  • and other with the letter H --> "and another with the letter H"?
    • Done
  • Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton had been following Price from the east --> "Union cavalry commanded by Major General Alfred Pleasonton who had been following Price from the east"?
    • Done
  • Nichols's regiment was furloughed on October 30: do we know why this took place? Was this a normal practice?
    • Added a little bit as to the rationale behind this.
  • receive their paroles: suggest explaining the paroles occurred at the end of the war following the Confederates' defeat?
    • Briefly mentioned that the paroles would end their combat experiences.
  • "New York, New York" --> just "New York", IMO

=CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The unit was recruited in early 1864 by Colonel Sidney D. Jackman Maybe add a location here?
    • Prefer not to. There's also not an explicit statement of where in the body, either. Jackman was in northeastern Arkansas when he was authorized to recruit, and he reported his recruits in Arkansas, but the unit was credited to Missouri and sources don't explicitly state where the men were recruited.
  • battery during the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28 and did not Is one of the few dates that doesn't use a comma [or a full stop] behind it.
    • Added one here and in the spot below
  • An element of the unit moved on August 23 to join Same as above.
    • Done, see above
  • Union offensive known as the Red River campaign during The article uses an upper case to "campaign"?
  • On September 30 and October 1, the regiment operated One of the few dates that doesn't use a comma [or a full stop] behind it.
    • Added, although this one feels a little jarring to me for some reason
  • The militia were sent to the vicinity of Isn't it "was" in British English you might use this in American I'm not sure?
    • I'm not sure, so I've changed to militiamen. I'm likely to trim this background stuff before a FAC, as I've been asked to do that at a few FACs, and some of the background details are probably undue.
  • attacked and defeated his rear guard in the Isn't it "rearguard"?
    • Both are acceptable in American English, I believe.
  • conducted a rear guard action while dismounted before retreating Same as above.
    • See above
  • Shelby led a rear guard action Same as above.
    • See above
  • but mostly were due to a lack of food Isn't it "most"?
    • Switched around to "were mostly due to a ...", which I think is fine in American English.

Just some nitpicks. Good job! :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've addressed this now.

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Return soon! Pendright (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • After joining Major General Sterling Price's command, the unit participated in Price's Raid, an attempt to create a popular uprising against Union control of Missouri and draw Union troops away from more important theaters of the war.
Isn't this phrase "the unit participated in Price's Raid" essential to the meaning of the sentence?
Removed the first comma, I think that fixes it
  • On October 12, Nichols's regiment was engaged in a small action at Boonville, Missouri.
in a small acetion -> In military parlance it would probably be comsidered a"minor" action.
Done
  • The unit supported an artillery battery during the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28, and did not see close combat.
and did not see close combat -> "but" shows contrast as opposed to in addition
Done

Background:

  • In November, while at Neosho, Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede, and joined the Confederate States of America, functioning as a government-in-exile.
Eliminating the comma afar November would join the two connecting phrases into what would seen to be a compllete introductory phrase?
Done. This section will probably be trimmed somewhat before this goes to FAC

Operations in Arkansas:

  • An element of the unit moved on August 23, to join in an attack on a station of the Memphis & Little Rock, but the fight had ended with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived.
  • A squad seems more in keeping with miitary terms than element?
  • Done
  • Why the comma after August 23?
  • I've been told that dates should generally have commas after them. I'm not familiar enough with comma rules to really judge what is best with those
  • "an attack on a station of the Memphis & Little Rock" -> Add "held by union soldiers" would seem to benefit the clause?
  • Added

Price's Raid:

  • As events east of the Mississippi River turned against the Confederates, General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department, was ordered to transfer the infantry under his command to the fighting in the Eastern and Western Theaters.
Confederates -> Confederacy might be more apprpriate here.
Done
  • The Confederate attacks were repulsed with significant losses, although the Union troops abandoned the fort overnight. Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.
"with significant losses," -> to whom?
The Confederates. I've rephrased this sentence.
  • On September 27, Marmaduke's and Fagan's men attacked the Union soldiers, who had occupied Fort Davidson.
"who had occupied Fort Davidson" -> How does this phrase fit into the scheme of things?
Not sure. Heavily rephrased.
  • Jackman's brigade then headed to Jefferson City, and Nichols's regiment fought in several small skirmishes on the way.
"several small skirmishes" -> Small vs. minor - same as above
Done
  • During the battle, hundreds of Confederate soldiers including Marmaduke, as well as cannons and supplies, were captured.[34]
Weaving "were captured" between the words soldiers & including might be a better fit?
Done.
  • After Mine Creek, the Confederates reentered Missouri, where they stopped near the town of Newtonia on October 28, only for Blunt's troops to reestablish contact.[36]
"reentered" is hyphenated!
Oops, fixed.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC) @Hog Farm:[reply]

@Pendright: - Thanks for the review! Replies above. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting - Pendright (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saint-Malo

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Battle of Saint-Malo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers an engagement between Allied (mainly American) and German forces in August and September 1944, fought at the tail end of the Normandy Campaign. A reinforced US Army division assaulted a heavily fortified French port town which was garrisoned by around 12,000 Germans. This led to what the always-quotable war correspondent Lee Miller described as "fortress warfare reminiscent of crusader times". The Allies eventually prevailed, but as the Germans had completely demolished the port which was their main objective little was achieved by the victory.

I first became aware of this battle and its unusual nature after seeing an exhibition of Miller's photographs at the Imperial War Museum in London during 2015. I created this article last year after belatedly realising that we didn't have an article on it - which seemed surprising. It recently was assessed as a GA, and after some further expansions and copy editing I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are also met. To pre-empt a possible comment, the article relies heavily on the US Army official history as every other source I have been able to find is also obviously based on this work; there doesn't seem to have been any subsequent significant original research into the topic. Given this, I favoured going to the horse's mouth, rather than using works which re-hashed it. I'm hopeful of being able to develop the article to FA standard, so any comments relevant to further improvements would also be great. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SR and IR—pass

Image licensing checked, looks OK. The sourcing seems to meet minimum standards. Spot checks not done. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Nick, thanks for your work on this article. Unfortunately, this isn't a battle I know much about, so I mainly focused on minor aspects. I have the following review comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a great article. As it happens, I have been reading up on the ETO lately for a couple of articles I have been preparing. Some comments:

  • General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, decided on 2 August that the main effort should be encircling the German forces to the south-east of Normandy rather than securing Brittany. I haven't got Weigley (and someone has borrowed the library's copy) but I'd be interested in exactly what he has to say here. In his weekly appreciation to Marshall on 2 August (S-5667) Eisenhower gives the original plan. The evidence for a 2 August decision seems to be a cable to Montgomery on that date calling for a bold operation against the German flank. He was still in the UK at this point; he met with Bradley and Montgomery to discuss this the following day. Eisenhower's cable to Marshall on 7 August alerts him to a change in plan (although not explicitly), but falls short of saying that the movement into Brittany is being weakened to just one corps. In his book Eisenhower attributes that decision to an 8 August meeting with Bradley. It may have been implicit in the 3 August decision, but it may not have been thought through.
    • I was going a bit further than what Weigley said, and have toned this down. His focus is on the slightly jumbled decision making here, where the American commanders were torn between following the Overlord plan to secure Brittany and throwing the plan out the window to seize an unexpected opportunity to demolish the German army in the west, which took a few days to resolve in favour (largely) of the latter. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blumensen says By this time a decision had to be made on St. Malo. General Bradley at first had specifically ordered the capture of St. Malo. When General Patton made no provision for its capture, Bradley had more or less acquiesced in Patton's concept of clearing the entire peninsula before getting involved in siege operations at the port cities. I'm not sure that "more or less acquiesced" in the source equates to "acquiesced" in the article. Bradley met with Middleton on 2 August and discussed the situation. Bradley's order on 2 August said: "St. Malo may be bypassed and contained if reduction takes too large a force and too much time." [53] So I'm suggesting that Bradley may not have changed his mind. I would simply say that he ordered it taken.
  • I think we're missing a key point about St Malo. In the Overlord planning, it was expected to be opened by D+27 and handling 900 tons per day. That's not that much, although the planners hoped that it might be increased to 3,000 tons per day. It also had poor railway clearance facilities. Its development was therefore never a priority. And of course it was still in German hands when Cobra began on D+49. (Ruppenthal I:288-290)
    • I've added some material here. It seems that St Malo was hoped to be the largest of the small ports, but as you note it was one of a bunch of minor ports which it was hoped would together provide useful capacity. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Communications Zone was a purely American formation. I would not describe it as "Allied"
  • Cherbourg in Normandy and Brest and Saint-Malo in Brittany were the only fortified German-held ports in France to be taken by the US Army. Here the reder is left to infer that other ports were captured by the British, French and Canadian armies.
  • "Britanny" should be "Brittany"
  • "VII Corps" should be "VIII Corps"
  • "existent" should be "extant"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to support. One last item:

Aside: I found it interesting that the strength of the German garrison was underestimated. This was a chronic problem in SWPA, but this is the first reference I've seen to it in ETO. It was usually caused by Ultra, which correctly identified large units but tended to miss small ones. I note that intelligence from the resistance was more accurate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this review. I haven't seen references which discuss why the US Army got this wrong, but have read (I'm struggling to remember where) that the US Army tended to be dismissive of intelligence from the French Resistance, despite it generally being reliable. That the resistance fighters here were mainly communists might be part of the story. That said, tactical intelligence in this campaign was far from perfect - I recently started the Battle of the Mons Pocket which covers an incident where an entire army was diverted to cut off a large group of Germans, and ended up blundering into this force literally in the middle of the night to both sides mutual surprise (though in fairness the Germans were also cut off from their higher headquarters as well). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright Pendright (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The length and breath of this article suggests you’ve spent a good bit of time weaving it together. At about 6,000 words of text, it’s a lot to chew-on in one sitting. So. I'll be reviewing it with a pause or two. In anticipation of your FAC run, I’ll be commenting on anything that I believe might benefit the article. Regards - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The Battle of Saint-Malo was an engagement fought between [the] Allied [forces in Europe] and [the] German [army] forces to control the French coastal town of Saint-Malo during World War II.
SUggested changes based on the following:
  • engagement is defined as "a fight or battle between armed forces".
  • The Allied forces, as you know, had a different mix of countries in the European theater than in the Pacific theater. Italy had already surrencered so there was no Axis in Europe, but only the German army (land troops) at Saint-Malo.
  • town of... -> link says it's a city, or does it matter in this context?
  • Those proposed changes aren't factually correct. The German navy was present, and there was a small Italian contingent. The main source on this battle, Blumenson, almost always refers to Saint-Malo at the time as being a 'town' (though he does use 'city' a few times). It has presumably grown into a 'city' since the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>How about this:
  • The Battle of Saint-Malo was an engagement fought between Allied and German forces to control the French coastal town of Saint-Malo during World War II.
  • The dictionary indicates that engagement and fought mean essentially the same thing.
  • Your point about the German Army is well taken: nevertheless, a case can be made for distinguishing between the European and Pacific theaters for readers.
  • As for a town or a city in France, here is what this Wikipedia link tells us: Town - But there still is a consistentcy issue here.
Nothing further is required unless you are so inclined. Pendright (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked per the above. As the lead sentence notes that the battle was in France, I think that it's sufficiently clear. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battle formed part of the Allied breakout across France, and took place between 4 August and 2 September 1944.
The second clause does not seem to be independent, in which case the comma after France is not needed.
Done Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • United States Army units, with the support of Free French and British forces, successfully assaulted the town and defeated its German defenders.
  • United States Army -> "The" United States Army
<>I beg to differ, it's always "the United States Pendright (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is referring to multiple US Army units which haven't been previously introduced (and don't need to be), so 'The' is unnecessary in this context. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a detinction intended between "units" and "forces"?
  • Saint-Malo was one of the French towns which were designated as fortresses as part of the German Atlantic Wall program, and its pre-war defenses were considerably expanded prior to the Allied landings in Normandy during June 1944.
  • which were -> "that" were
  • pre-war > prewar?
  • as fortresses as part -> as and as?
  • The German garrison on an offshor[e] s island off the shore continued to resist until 2 September.
Consider above changes?
Done (I went with 'nearby' given that it islands are by definition off shore - my bad) Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town had been selected for use as port by Allied pre-invasion
  • Need the indefinte article 'a" betwen as and port?
  • preinvasion is one word

Background:

  • It had a population of 13,000 in 1936, of whom 6,000 lived within the city walls.
City vs. town?
'City walls' is the generic term for fortifications surrounding settlements. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint-Malo's harbor facilities could accommodate medium-sized ships, and were able to unload one thousand tons of cargo per day.
Add "they" between and & were, or drop the comma after ships.
Went with the latter Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town is located on the [nothwest] north-west of the Saint-Malo peninsula,
Consider the above changes?
Done Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small and heavily fortified island of Cézembre lies in [at] the mouth of the Rance, [which is] 4,000 yards (3,700 m) off the coast from Saint-Malo.
Consider these changes?
'in' is standard usage here, but tweaked the distance. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Could be, but my dictionary tells me that

it refers to something that is or appears to be enclosed, but at expresses a location. It’s not in the mouth it’s at the mouth. The usage of in, on, and at can be tricky. Pendright (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you're right: changed. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the Germans neared victory in the Battle of France, it also served as one of several locations [that] from which Allied forces were evacuated to Britain during Operation Aerial in June 1940[,] ;[when] 21,474 personnel were embarked from the town without the loss of any lives or ships.
Consider the above changes?
I don't think that reads well Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Could you be more specific? Pendright (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested edits here make the sentence difficult to understand. I've tweaked the sentence though to simplify it. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1943 the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht designated Saint-Malo and the other coastal cities in France with pre-war fortifications as fortresses.
  • prewar is one word
  • cities vs. towns"
  • The Atlantic Wall program led to a substantial augmentation of the [prewar] pre-war fortifications at Saint-Malo, with this work being undertaken by volunteer and forced laborers controlled by [the] Organization Todt
Consider the above changes?
Done for prewar, but I don't think that the others are grammatically better Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French Resistance had large numbers of [armed] members in Brittany and [who were] was capable of successfully attacking German forces.
Cnsider the above changes?
They generally weren't armed until 1944, when the Allies started parachuting large numbers of weapons in (out of the scope of this article). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resistance in the region was dominated by the communist Francs-Tireurs et Partisans Français who, unlike many other resistance units, were in [favor] favour of making attacks before the Allies [would] land ed in France.[15] This led to a partisan war [that] which intensified from 1943.
Consider the above changes?
Done most of them Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German forces which attempted to suppress the resistance included the Gestapo secret police as well as army military police formations and security battalions.
Consider this version: -> The German forces that attempted to suppress the resistance included the Gestapo secret police, the army military police formations and security battalions.
I don't think that's gramatically better. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Okay, but change which to that Pendright (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the latter were manned by captured Soviet personnel who had agreed to fight for the Germans; these units gained a reputation for war crimes
Many of the "latter" -> needs some specificity?
Good point - done Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allies began [to airdrop] air dropping supplies to the Free French in Brittany from early 1944[,] and special forces units were inserted from June that year to strengthen them.
  • Consider the above changes?
  • "special forces units were inserted" -> Can you share any details with readers?

Allied plans:

  • As part of the preparations for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy, Saint-Malo was identified by [rhe] Allied planners as one of the ports [that] which could be used to land supplies for the Allied ground forces in France.
Consider the above changes?
Done Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A this time, the planners envisioned that the initial invasion phase would be followed by a subsequent phase to secure a lodgment area[.] which [It would have] included all of the coastline and nearby inland areas, including [those parts of] Normandy and Brittany, between the Seine and the Loire rivers.
Consider the above changes - a prospective view?
Much better thanks, done Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was believed that the lodgment area could be secured within three months after the invasion.
the lodgment area -> "a" lodgment area
Tweaked to fix this Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facilities constructed within the lodgment
within "a" lodgment
It was 'the' area. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accordingly, the Overlord plan specified that securing Brittany would be the main objective of Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's Twelfth United States Army Group after it managed to break out of Normandy.
breakout is one word
Done Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944 the Allies and Germans fought a prolonged campaign in the region.
Add a comma ater 1944, -> it's an intrroductory phrase.
Added Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The German forces managed to block the Allies from breaking out into France for almost two months, but suffered heavy casualties in the process.
Add "they" before suffered, or delete the comma
Deleted Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was judged that these operations would be very risky, leading to a decision to only attempt them if [a] the stalemate in Normandy [would become] became] prolonged.
Consider the above changes?
I don't think that's better grammatically Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>The sentence is prospective or potential, thus my comment? Pendright (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As there was a stalemate in Normandy, the suggested tense here isn't correct. The stalemate was broken before it became prolonged. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The collapse of the German Army in France as Allied forces broke out of Normandy in early August led to a change in plans.
Consider this -> With the collapse of the German Army in France, the Allied forces broke out of Normandy in early August and this led to a change in plans.
The German Army's collapse occured as the Allies broke out - Operation Cobra led to the Falaise Pocket and many other disasters. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, decided on 2 August that the main effort should be encircling the German forces to the south-east of Normandy
southeast is one word
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German Defenses

[edit]
  • Prior to the Allied landings in Normandy, the 77th Infantry Division (77. Infantrie-Division) was stationed in the Saint-Malo area.
Add "German" between the & 77th
Done Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This unit was dispatched to Normandy soon after D-Day, and suffered heavy casualties in the fighting there.
It's been referred to as a division?
'Unit' is correct, and was done to avoid using 'division' three times in three sentences here :) Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was later sent forward again as part of the ad-hoc force which unsuccessfully attempted to stop the American breakout at Avranches.
  • No hypen in ad hoc
  • Chabge which to that
  • German Army units included the remnants of the 77th Infantry Division, which had withdrawn again into the Saint-Malo area, the 3rd Battalion of the 266th Infantry Division's 897th Grenadier Regiment, Eastern Battalion 602, Eastern Battalion 636 and Security Battalion 1220. Luftwaffe (German air force) units in the area comprised the 15th Flak Regiment and several other air defense units.
At 59 wrds, this is a long sentence?
Good point: split Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The] Kriegsmarine forces included two coastal artillery units, [the] Navy Artillery Regiment 260 (Marine-Artillerie-Abteilung 260) and [the] Army Coast Battalion 1271 (Heeres-Küsten-Bataillon 1271).
Consider the above changes.
I don't think that's an improvement grammatically Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>It is if one adheres to American grammar - Pendright (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not familiar with this type of usage from the US books on military history I've read. Blumenson doesn't use this kind of formulation, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defenses of Saint-Malo included the city walls, which enclosed the former island and included thick stone ramparts on the seaward side.
City vs. town?
As above, 'city walls' is a generic term Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Consisteny is the point - Pendright (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but 'town walls' aren't a thing. They're referred to as 'city walls'. I've tweaked this sentence to avoid the formulation though. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fort de la Cité d'Aleth, which had originally been designed by the great fortification engineer Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban[,] and was designated the Citadel (Zitadelle) by the Germans, [and] was located on a rocky promontory between Saint-Malo and St. Servan-sur-Mer.
  • Consider the above changes?
  • "by the great" -> does this require sourcing?
  • Several [other] fortresses were located on the approaches to Saint-Malo, including Fort la Vardeat[,] the Pointe de la Varde (fr) on the coast, the St. Ideuc strongpoint to the east of Paramé],] and ]the] fortifications on St. Joseph's Hill to the [southeast] south-east of the town.
Consider the above changes?
Tweaked a bit Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sector on the western side of the Rance[,] around Dinard[,] was the responsibility of the remnants of [the] 77th Infantry Division, which had been assigned a small number of StuG III assault guns from StuG Brigade 341.
Consider the aboe changes?
Done Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pause - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I have some comments to the above responses, some require a response and some do not. Pendright (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resume review - Pendright (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Task Force A:

  • An ad-hoc unit designated Task Force A was the first [of several] American unit[s] to enter the Saint-Malo area.
  • No hyphen in ad hoc
  • Consider the above changes?
  • This force had been established by Patton in late July, and was responsible for rapidly capturing the bridges on the Paris–Brest railway line[,] which ran along the north coast of Brittany[,] before they were demolished by German forces
Consider the above changes?
Done Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It comprised the 15th Cavalry Group, [the] 159th Engineer Battalion and headquarters of the 1st Tank Destroyer Brigade and was commanded by Brigadier General Herbert L. Earnest.
Consider the above change?
Done Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The task force passed through Avranches on 3 August, and engaged German forces 2 miles (3.2 km) from Dol-de-Bretagne that day.
  • Avranches could be linied?
  • Is "that day" necessary?
  • The commander of the Cavalry Group was killed in the initial clash, and Earnest decided to bypass Dol-de-Bretagne to the south after learning from local civilians that the town was heavily defended.
Dol-de-Bretagne could also be linked?
Linked earlier in the article Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middleton directed the Task Force to probe Saint-Malo's defenses as it pushed west in order to investigate how strongly the town was held.
Replace it with "they"?
The task force was a thing, so I think this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regiment's commander decided to delay attacking the town until the next day so that his men would have sufficient time to defeat the large number of German defensive positions.
  • Add a comma after day
  • ..."so that his men would have sufficient time to defeat the large number of German defensive positions." -> Seems like rest and preparedness would have been the justification?
  • As a result, he directed that the 83rd Infantry Division capture Saint-Malo. Patton overruled him, believing that the Germans would only offer a token defense of the town and the 330th Infantry Regiment would suffice to take it. The Army commander preferred that the 83rd Infantry Division follow the 6th Armored Division to Brest.
The intended meaning of the last sentence is unclear to me?
Tweaked to clarify this. As noted earlier in the article, the 6th Armored Division was rushing to capture Brest which was one of the main goals of this campaign. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accordingly, Middleton again ordered the entire 83rd Infantry Division to be concentrate d [on] in the Saint-Malo area[,] and [to] make a quick attack on the town in conjunction with Task Force A in the hope that this could crack the German defenses.
Consider the above
Tweaked along these lines. 'Concentrated' is important here as the division needed to be assembled in the area rather than just focus on it. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A battalion of the 329th Infantry Regiment crossed the Rance in assault boats[,] as the first stage of [the] an operation intended to rapidly capture Dinard.
Consider the above changes?
It was an operation - after it failed a different operation was launched. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These engagements included [the] an advance made by the 331st Infantry Regiment along the coast, during which it penetrated the first line of German defenses near Saint-Benoît-des-Ondes.
Consider the above?
Reworked this sentence Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advance on Saint-Malo:

  • While French personnel had advised them that there were around 10,000 Germans at Saint-Malo, [the] American estimates ranged from 3,000 to 6,000.
<>It is not intended to be superior, it's itended to comply with the definte article rule as relatea to American English - Pendright (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As above, this isn't the kind of usage I'm familiar with in American works. For instance, the US Army official history source here states that "Although Frenchmen warned that about ten thousand German troops garrisoned the fortress, American estimates of German strength varied..." Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Same as the previous response - Pendright (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed here and elsewhere, as Blumenson uses that construction regarding corps names. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the leaders asked him to declare the town an open city to avoid fighting, Aulock stated that he had raised this with his superiors[,] but Hitler had replied ordering him to "fight to the last man".
  • When the leaders asked him to declare the town an open city to avoid fighting, Aulock stated that he had raised this with his superiors[,] but Hitler had replied ordering him to "fight to the last
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also claimed that as his forces included armed boats [that] which were operating near Saint-Malo, it was not possible to declare the town an open city as these vessels were legitimate targets for the Allies.
Consider the above changes?
Made the last of them Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • American troops made attacks towards Saint-Malo across the front line during 6 August.
Odd phrasing?
Simplified Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advance brought the American troops within range of the guns on Cézembre , [and the Germans] which opened fire.
  • The German demolitions and American bombardments resulted in fires which burned for the next week.
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aulock ordered that all French males aged between 17 and 70 who had remained in Saint-Malo after 5 August [to] be arrested as hostages[,] following an inaccurate report that his troops had been attacked by civilians.
  • This position was a quarry [that] which had been converted into a fortification through the addition of tunnels and bunkers.
Cohsider the above changes?

Pause - Pendright (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<>Resonses to my comments would be appreciated - Pendright (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Resume review - Pendright (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Capture of Dinard:[reply]

  • The Germans were unwilling to surrender to [the] Free French troops, but indicated that they would do so for [to the] Americans.
  • On 7 August, the 121st Infantry Regiment crossed the Rance to begin its advance on Dinard[,] and a party from this unit took the surrender of the Germans at Dinan.
  • As the 121st Regiment advanced north from Dinan[,] [they] it found that all roads in the region were heavily defended.
  • Progress was slow, and it took until the afternoon of 8 August for the regiment's 3rd Battalion to capture the village of Pleurtuit, [which was] 4 miles (6.4 km) from Dinard
  • Soon after Pleurtuit was captured, [the] German StuG IIIs supported by infantrymen launched an attack [that] which cut the roads to the village and isolated the 3rd Battalion, [and the] 121st Infantry Regiment.
Consider the above changs?
  • Attempts by the regiment's 1st Battalion to break through were unsuccessful.
breakthrough is one word
Done. American English is weird: you need to adopt proper English, like Australians speak ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this action, Macon judged that the 121st Infantry Regiment's performance was unimpressive and there was a need to reinforce [them] it.
  • He decided to give priority to capturing Dinard[,] after St. Joseph's Hill was secured[,] due to the need to rescue the isolated battalion[;] , eliminate the German artillery in the area and prevent Saint-Malo's garrison from escaping across the Rance.
  • The next day the German commander in the Dinard sector, Colonel Bacherer, rejected [the] a demand made by Macon that he surrender and stated that he would fight "for every stone".
  • During the period [they were] it was isolated, the battalion had fought off several German attacks and suffered 31 killed and 106 wounded.
Consider the above changes

Siege warfare in Saint-Malo:

  • Before the walled town and the Citadel were attacked, it was decided to capture Fort la Varde and St. Ideuc [since they] which were mutually supporting positions.
Consider the above changs?
Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of two battalions under the control of the 330th Infantry Regiment[at this time began the attack on the St. Ideuc position on 9 August.
  • Redundant phrase
  • After three days of artillery bombardments and infantry attacks first on pillboxes and then the position itself, St. Ideuc's 160 surviving defenders surrendered on the afternoon of 12 August.
  • The other battalion under the 330th Infantry Regiment attacked towards Saint-Malo[,] with the goal of capturing the causeway [that] which linked the town to Paramé.
Consider the above changes
  • This led to house to house fighting, with the American infantry advancing with support from tanks, tank destroyers and engineers.
house-to-house
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel:

  • On 11 August, a rifle company from the 329th Infantry Regiment which had been reinforced with engineers and three Free French soldiers assaulted the Citadel after it was attacked by medium bombers
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the troops penetrated into the interior of the fortification, but withdrew after determining that the bombardment had not breached the main defenses.
"into" is redundant
I don't think that it is Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Penetrate means to succeed in forcing a way into or through (a thing) Pendright (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: reworked the sentence to make this clearer. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artillery attacks continued over the next few days, and two specially trained 96-man strong assault groups made another assault on 15 August after the Citadel was attacked again by medium bombers.
Consider this version -> Artillery attacks continued over the next few days, and two specially trained 96-man strong assault groups made another assault on 15 August after medium bombers attacked the Citadel again.
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two 8-inch guns were emplaced less than 1,500 yards (1,400 m) from the citadel so that they could target individual portholes and vents.
Add a comma after citadel
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This marked the end of German resistance in the Saint-Malo area, aside from the Cézembre garrison which continued to hold out.
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cézembre:

  • The German positions on Cézembre were attacked by Allied bombers.
Consider this version -> Allied bombers attacked the German positions at Cézembre on 6 and 11 August.
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the above changes

Aftermath:

  • The battle also occupied Allied aircraft which were needed to support the advance into northern France.
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the surrender of Saint-Malo the German ships which had been operating in the Gulf of Saint-Malo rarely put to sea.
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The] VIII Corps assaulted and captured Brest in a battle which lasted from 7 August to 19 September.
Consider the above change
Not needed Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city's port was also demolished by the Germans, and it proved impractical to restore it to service.
Consider this version -> The Germans also demolished the town’s port, and it proved impractical to restore it to service.
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was undertaken by French units and a US Army division for the remainder of the war
Consider this vesion -> French units and a U.S. Army division undertook this for the remainder of the war.
I don't think that's better grammatically Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Perhaps not, it just speaks in an active voice and not a passive one! Pendright (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: done Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • British and Canadian forces also captured Antwerp, Dieppe, Le Havre and Rouen during 1944 and besieged several other fortified ports in northern France until the end of the war.
Add a comma after 1944
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a report [that] which was completed in September revealed the poor condition of the Canal d'Ille-et-Rance[,] which links the Rance and Rennes, it was decided that reopening Saint-Malo was not worth the effort.
Comssider the above changes
  • His plan was accepted by the local council in February 1946.
Consider this version- > The local council accepted his plan in February 1946.
Done Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Thanks a lot for this very detailed review. I think that I've now responded to all of your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: - <>Thanks in advance for responding to all of my above comments, pause by pause. Pendright (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: Many thanks again - I've replied above, and hope that I've now addressed these comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: You have, thank you, supporting! Pendright (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2021 (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 Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Little Blue River

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Battle of Little Blue River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

There's a little bit of everything here. A military invasion designed to affect a presidential election, recalcitrant militiamen, a governor interfering in military actions, a burning bridge, intentionally firing blanks at the enemy, and dead bodies strewn all the way to Independence. Hog Farm Bacon 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]

Lead

  • Overall, the lead seems a little lengthy given the relative size of the article.
    • I've trimmed the first two paragraphs of the lead pretty heavily and combined them. Is this enough, or do I need to do some more reductionary work?
  • The Confederates then began... the word then is used in the previous sentence as well, suggest: "Instead, the Confederates began..."
    • Dealt with in the trimming of the lead
  • Blunt formed a line... suggest "Afterwards, Blunt..." to make clear this is separate to the Lexington engagement.
    • Dealt with in the trimming of the lead
  • The Union soldiers later fell back to the Big Blue River. So presumably Indepedence was abandoned?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • The last sentence could be split, the word study is used twice.
    • Split, and rephrased away the second usage of study.

Background

  • ...by the end of the year, Price and the MSG... Both Price and MSG are mentioned twice in the same sentence. Could another term be used on the second mention - may be secessionists?
    • Went with secessionist forces

Prelude

  • The delays caused by this slow progress enabled Union forces... suggest: "The slow progress of the Confederates enabled Union forces..."
    • Done
  • ...were withdrawn from their role in fights against the Cheyenne; I'm not crazy about this wording. Would "were withdrawn from their role in suppressing the Cheyenne" be straying too far from the source?
    • Done
  • ...was appointed as the militia's general-in-chief,... militia is used three times in this sentence. Suggest for this instance: "...was appointed as it's general-in-chief,..."
    • Done

I'm up to the the Battle section now, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Started replies, but it's late enough where I am that I'm calling it a night at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 06:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for the rest of it when you are. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this now, apologies for the delay.

Battle

  • Other fords closer to the bridge...: this kinda needs some sort of contrasting statement. E.g., "Despite these defensive precautions..."
    • Added
  • with Union skirmishers, but the Union soldiers...: Union repeated twice in close succession. Given the context, I think the first mention could be dropped without loss of clarity.
    • Went with with Union skirmishers, who were eventually driven across the bridge.
  • the Union soldiers at the bridge: suggest replacing Union soldiers with "defenders". Keeps usage of Union to minimum in this section.
    • Done.
  • Clark, in turn, ordered the rest of his brigade to cross behind the 10th Missouri Cavalry...: Does this rest of the brigade include the 4th Missouri? The following sentence mentions a Union company isolated to the south so presumably it didn't come into contact with the 4th?
    • Rephrased, as the rest of implies the inclusion of the 4th, which did not join that action. The 4th seems to have just hung around the flank, as the sources don't really discuss further actions from the unit, and maps of the battle show the unit stationary to the south of the main fighitng
  • Missouri Cavalry pursued uphill: "pursued them uphill?
    • Done
  • The Union troops holding the bridge also retreated,...: may want to remind readers that the bridge has been destroyed by this point.
    • Done
  • Instead, the Confederate cannoneers...: You could probably drop the Confederate here, the context is pretty clear.
    • Done
  • responsibility with Ford. Ford's men...: close usage of Ford here, suggest rephrasing.
    • Done

Aftermath and preservation

  • The next day, Price...: this is me being a bit pedantic, but we say something like "The day after the battle, Price..."
    • Done. Agree it reads better that way
  • None of the battlefield is listed...: suggest "The battlefield is not listed..."
    • Done

Sources

  • Don't think it is necessary to state Castel is the paperback edition. Same for Sinisi.
    • I personally am more comfortable leaving this in there. I haven't compared hardcover vs paperback editions pagination, so unless I know for sure the pagination is the same, I would like it to be obvious exactly where I'm getting my page numbers from.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - I've got most of these fixed, but it'll probably be about a week before I can get to the rest. Hog Farm Bacon 03:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zawed - All comments above replied to. Hog Farm Bacon 20:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all looks good. I have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Will have a crack at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G’day Hog Farm, I will take a look in the next couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry HF, RW stuff has been getting on top of me. Once you've dealt with ARs comments, ping me and I'll dedicate some some to review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: - I'm ready to respond whenever you get the time to review; no rush though. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry about the delay. The RW is mad at present. A few comments:

Background and Prelude
  • suggest "leaving the Missouri State Militia to beas the state's primary defensive force"
    • Done
  • the command statuses of Blunt and Curtis aren't clear early enough in the second para of the Prelude. Also, if Curtis commanded Blunt, who had three brigades, what other troops were directly under Curtis' command, if any?
    • Is the new version better? Blunt was under Curtis, who commanded Blunt and then
  • "Blunt's volunteers"? This isn't clear earlier enough either, perhaps mention at the top of the para
    • I've rephrased this. It was a clunky way of trying to contrast Blunt's regular forces to the militia
  • "Additionally, heBlunt/Moonlight learned"
    • Blunt. Clarified
  • wasn't it already clear that the KSM couldn't cross the river?
    • I've removed the statement in the first paragraph of the battle section that Curtis's men could not cross the river; I think that's what you're referring to
  • Guerilla warfare is duplinked
    • Corrected
  • in general, I would say that it would be helpful to identify the commanders of all brigades as early as possible (ie in the Prelude section). For example, we later learn that Moonlight is one of Blunt's brigade commanders, but who were the others? More detail about the forces under Price's and Curtis' command would also be good early. What sort of troops were Blunt's? How many infantry regiments and how many cavalry, how many guns?
    • Done for Blunt and Price. The KSM really only plays a supporting role here, so I don't think a breakdown of their order of battle is particularly helpful.

Struggling to stay focussed. Will try to look earlier in the day tomorrow. BRB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting again at the top of Prelude with more detailed points:

  • how was Price's force structured? As a division and into brigades? Could you add how many cavalry and infantry regiments and cannon he had?
    • I've actually got the Price's force structure at the end of the Background section. I thought it was most logical to have the detail where I introduce Price's force. The beginning of the Prelude section contains the number of men, that it was a cavalry force, and that there were 14 cannons. I've also rephrased the description of Price's force to clarify that it was broken into divisions that were further divided into brigades. Unfortunately, it is not really feasible to state how many regiments Price had. As his army picked up men in Missouri, new units were created such as Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment. Since the number of regiments fluctuated throughout the campaign, any single regiment count would have to be couched with a date, and the sources just don't really provide a detailed enough day-by-day breakdown for that. Collins actually briefly mentions in a footnote that this is a very hard campaign to provide a detailed OOB for.
  • same question re: Rosecrans' force
    • I've tried as I can. This one is a bit of a weird one - Rosecrans wasn't divisions or brigades. Rather, there were districts and subdistricts throughout the state which men were assigned to and each district guarded its local area. The result was a lot of dispersion. I've tried to explain this, but I'm not sure if I've quite got it to your satisfaction.
  • more clarity needed about the structure of Curtis' and Blunt's forces
    • I've tried to clarify the relationship between Curtis, Blunt, and Dietzler. I hope that this is a little more comprehensible. It is known that the KSM used a brigade alignment, but the primary sources are so vague that it is difficult to get much more detailed than that, so I've added that statement to explain why the KSM structure explanation is very vague.
  • the Kansas militia info is confusing. It seems that Dietzler and his militia were directly under Curtis' command, as was Blunt, but Blunt had a brigade of Kansas militia? Then "Curtis moved the Kansas militiamen to Kansas City" but which ones? Dietzler's or Blunt's? Then Blunt sends his militia brigade to Kansas City, but Curtis has already sent Kansas militia there?
    • Blunt had some too. I've tried to explain this a little better that Dietzler had most of the militia but Blunt had a little. And that the militia under Blunt tried to keep their old structure and at times tried to report to a militia officer rather than their proper commander. The force moving to Kansas City was most of the non-Blunt militia, I've stated this directly.
  • when the Big Blue River is introduced, say where is in terms of its distance from the Kansas-Missouri border, as it is in Missouri and the militia were Kansans who were only supposed to protect Kansas. The map isn't very helpful, I would ask for someone to make a new one before taking this to FAC.
    • @Peacemaker67: - I'm not sure what the best way to approach this is. The sources I have on me right now - Collins, Sinisi, Kennedy, and a copy of The Collapse of Price's Raid that I just bought earlier this month (the Lause book ought to be enough to bring this up to WP:FACR 1c) don't give an explicit distance from the Big Blue to the Kansas line, possibly because the Big Blue runs in a diagonal from the Missouri River and actually enters Kansas at one point, so the distance is dependent on where you're measuring from. A decent workaround might be to Google Maps the distance between the Big Blue Battlefield Park, which is at a site on the Union line and a point on the Kansas state line. The Big Blue Battlefield Park is kinda in the middle of the Union line and marks where the Confederates attacked the Union line at the Big Blue the day after this battle. But still, that's a little OR-ish. What do you think? These orbat replies will take awhile to perfect - as Collins says in a footnote, this is a very hard campaign to order of battle for a variety of reasons. In fact, this article would be very hard to FAC due to the incredibly confusing and somewhat ad hoc natures of the command structures in this campaign. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both the militia and Blunt's volunteers" does this mean the militia that first went to Kansas City or the militia brigade under Blunt's command? And does "volunteers" mean the other two brigades of Blunt's division?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • at the end of the Prelude section, "the political authorities in Kansas would not allow him to send militiamen to Curtis", but where was Curtis?
    • This one's an embarassing error on my part. Should have been "to Blunt" not "to Curtis".
Battle
  • "to the main Union body" which was where? Kansas City, Missouri?
    • The Big Blue. Clarified
  • "Many of the militiamen did not want to serve outside Kansas,[1] and Carney would not allow them to be moved too far east into Missouri" this seems like a repeat of earlier info. Perhaps "Blunt requested reinforcements from Curtis, but the restrictions on the movement of the Kansan militia meant that Blunt could not be reinforced at the Little Blue River as it was too far into Missouri. Curtis therefore ordered Blunt to leave a holding force at the Little Blue River and fall back to the main Union body at Kansas City (or wherever they were)"
    • Rephrased, pretty close to as you suggested
  • suggest "The 11th Kansas Cavalry Regiment, supported by four cannons, was left behind"
    • Done
  • "The remainder of the 11th Kansas Cavalry" remind the reader how many companies this was
    • Collins and Sinisi don't state the number of companies, neither does Lause my new source I need to add. I don't have Kirkman or Monnett with me at the moment, so I can't check them for that detail today.
  • were the cannons at the bridge?
    • Yes. Clarified
  • "The northward Union company was outflanked and retreated" weren't they more "cut off from the main body of the regiment"?
    • They rejoined the regiment, which I've added.
  • "The 11th Kansas Cavalry Regiment counterattacked with 600 men" but the strength of Moonlight's force varies, perhaps "The whole of Moonlight's force counterattacked"
    • Done
  • "not only the men who had accompanied him" what troops were these? My working assumption is that Blunt had only Jennison's brigade plus whatever elements of Moonlight's brigade that had not accompanied him to the Little Blue River. Could you be more specific?
    • Blunt's non-militia people.
  • what troops comprised James H. Ford's command? It appears from later information that it was the 2nd Colorado Cavalry Regiment? Or were these Kansan militia released from their restrictions, or others from one of Blunt's Union brigades?
    • The 2nd Colorado, part of a non-militia units and an artillery battery. The 2nd Colorado came to Curtis via Rosecrans, which I've added. But the battery was also nonmilitia. Which then raises the question as to where Curtis got it. I'm working on that solution, but the battery just kinda pops up right before the battle in Collins, Sinisi, and Lause with none of them saying where it came from. Still looking. Hog Farm Talk 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - Kinda have this dealt wiht.
  • suggest "Shelby's division committed to the fighting, as it was considered more reliable"
    • Done
  • which formation did the the 7th Missouri Cavalry Regiment and Davies's Missouri Cavalry Battalion come from?
    • Clark's. Added.
  • "made little offensive progress"
    • Done
  • to avoid a repetition of "pressing in successive sentences, how about "Thompson's men began pushing forward."
    • Done
  • suggest "Thompson pushing forwardputting pressure on the Union centre"
    • Done
Aftermath and preservation
  • "the 3rd Missouri Cavalry Regiment combined forsuffered 31 killed and wounded"
    • Done
  • which unit was Todd fighting with?
    • A group of guerillas. Added that as well as his cause of death.
  • According to his article, Todd was killed in the Second Battle of Independence? If true, perhaps move his death down to there.
    • Our article on Todd was incorrect. I corrected the error in the article. On a related note, it seems to be related to a likely connected error in Second Battle of Independence. Our article on that battle conflates Second Independence and Little Blue River. The conflation was added by James H. Jenkins in 2008, but the secondary reliable sources such as Collins, Lause, Sinisi, Kennedy, Monnett, Kirkman, NPS, etc. all treat the two battles as separate actions. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced their way across a crossing of the Big Blue River"
    • Done
  • "visitors' center"
    • Done

That's it. Again, apologies about the time it has taken to get to this. I'm going to have to take a break from reviewing until RW stuff gets under control. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AustralianRupert

[edit]

Comments: while I am conscious of a possible Antipodean bias in reviewers here, I will offer a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, Meanwhile, Blunt had received permission from Curtis -- full name and position for Curtis?
    • Done
  • date format consistency: "24 October 2020" v. "October 21, 1864"
    • I think I've gotten this cleaned up
  • When it entered the state, Price's force: suggest trying to use a slightly different lead-in phrase here so that it doesn't repeat how the last section ended
    • Rephrased
  • many of whom were militiamen: suggest maybe drawing out why this was an "issue" -- were they tranined to a lower standard, more poorly equiped, or encumbered in some way (legally for instance) by their status as militiamen? Wouldn't need too much, as it becomes clearer later. For instance, "many of whom were state-controlled militiamen who were..."
    • I've explained this a little bit. The problem was the Kansas militia was state control, while the Missouri militia were sometimes badly armed and had only been in guerrilla warfare.
  • Shelby's men attacked the: full name on first mention in the body?
    • Oops, thought I'd linked him. Full name and ranked added
  • in the aftermath, between Davies's Battalion --> "between Davies's battalion" (not a proper noun?)
    • Done.

@AustralianRupert: - Are these changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, your changes look good to me. I will take another look when PM has offered some comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk, Hog Farm has had a concussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Sandy. Sorry to hear about this, HF. Head injuries are definitely very serious, so please take as long as you need. I have had several myself from football, cricket and a few incidents in the Army; I'd like to say my forgetfulness and overall low intelligence are as a result, but I probably can't back that up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review now that PM's comments have been addressed. Not much sticks out to me, just a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each brigade was assigned an artillery battery; Blair's brigade was given an extra artillery section as well: if possible, I wonder if you could add the number of guns here. e.g. "Each brigade was assigned an artillery battery (x guns); Blair's brigade was given an extra artillery section (X guns) as well"? If not, no worries;
    • Added.
  • Blunt left part of his command under the command of Colonel Thomas Moonlight to: is there a way to avoid saying "command" twice in the sentence?
    • Rephrased
  • reventing a large scale crossing --> "large-scale"?
    • Done
  • battlefield was fragmented: not quite sure what this means -- does it mean that development has encroached on part of the battlefield?
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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

London and North Western Railway War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I'm back with another war memorial! This one is a prominent London memorial to a railway company, located outside Euston station, and as it turns out covered in some rather obscure books. I wrote the first version a few years ago and I've recently expanded it with a lot of help from Carcharoth, some fantastic photos from Thryduulf, and some obscure sources from the amazing folks at WP:RX. I'd like to take this to FAC but given its piecemeal development I'd like some more eyes on it first. As always, I'm grateful for any and all feedback! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm afraid I don't even have any nitpicks this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed Only a few things that I could pick up on:

  • In the design section, there is mention of a "moulded reed band"; I'm not sure what that actually is, maybe an explanation is required?
    • I've tweaked it and added a link.
  • Also in the design section ...on top of each is a bronze over life-size statue. In the lead, it is over-life-size (the extra hyphen), so one or the other needs to be amended for consistency.
    • I went with the extra hyphen in the lead.
  • ...and the Royal Flying Corps (which became the Royal Air Force),... this sentence construction implies, to me at least, the RFC became the RAF after the memorial was built when in fact it happened in 1918. Perhaps (which had become the Royal Air Force)?
    • Clarified.
  • In the lead it is stated that the LNWR's three VC recipients were present at the unveiling but in the history, only mention is made of Sykes. Also, Victoria Cross and Sykes are dupe links.
    • Dupe links removed and other two VCs mentioned in body.

I fixed what I thought were a couple of typos in the bibliography. Other than the above, this is looking good. Zawed (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Zawed! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I have added my support. I really admire your work on war memorials, I'll keep an eye out for this one at FAC. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Dumelow

Looking good, I've only got down to the start of the History section but a few comments so far - Dumelow (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • On each side of the obelisk, near the top, is a bronze wreath and a stone cross protruding from the body itself. The only inscription on the obelisk itself is... - Close repetition of "itself", any way to reword this or omit one?
    • Eliminated one.
  • Buttresses protruding from the pedestal on four sides act as steps - I am guessing "steps" is an architectural term? There is no way of stepping onto the buttresses themselves.
    • In this usage, yes.
  • each statue standing with its head bowed and resting on an upturned rifle. - Link "resting on an upturned rifle" to Reverse arms?
    • Oooh, good shout! Done.
  • The figures were designed modelled by Ambrose Neale - A word needs to be omitted (or added)
    • Ce'd.
  • "R. L. Boulton & Sons" is linked at second mention in the main text and not the first
    • Moved.
  • R. L. Boulton & Sons of Cheltenham, who built the memorial - you've already mentioned they are the builder in the Background section
    • Eliminated.

In the History section - Dumelow (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Among the other speakers were Ernest Sykes, who worked in the engineering department and was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions during the war - we've already mentioned Sykes and that he won a VC in the background section. Though it was a while back so I am not dead-set against repeating it as a reminder to the reader if that was the intention.
    • Trimmed. That was the purpose but you're probably right.
  • The section about the 1919 strike caught me a little by surprise. Perhaps it would be best reordered with a variant of the 5th sentence as the leading sentence to introduce it?
    • Good idea. Done.
  • Was the Roll of Honour a separate document to the commemorative album mentioned earlier? Both were presented to the nearest relatives of the deceased and contain similar information?
    • Very likely. Fixed.
  • Worth mentioning in the penultimate sentence that the lodges are also grade II listed?
    • Another good idea. Done.

Lead section - Dumelow (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map coord is showing about 30m off for me on Google Maps satellite view. At 6 decimal places it is also probably too precise. Degrees, minutes, seconds might be better? I think 51°31′38.1″N 0°07′57.2″W / 51.527250°N 0.132556°W / 51.527250; -0.132556 is about right.
    • Done.
  • The fact that LNWR paid £8,500 of the cost is explicit in the lead but only implied in the main text
    • Added.
  • The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently - maybe "unusual for the period", or similar. It is not unusual now.
    • I think this is sufficient for the lead. The body says "unusual among First World War memorials" but the lead is supposed to be concise.
@Dumelow: Thanks very much for the review. A couple of good ideas in there! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Support - Dumelow (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

  • " (which was amalgamated to form the Royal Air Force in 1918)" - What was it amalgamated with?
  • " The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." - Is this the "commemorative album" mentioned and described a couple paragraphs earlier?
    • Very likely. Also caught by Dumelow above.
  • According to the sources, the lodges are listed as Grade II should this be mentioned explicitly?
    • Done (also per Dumelow!).
  • Maybe provide the exact date of the Listed Building status in the body, rather than just the year?
    • The date isn't really of any great significance. It's more or less random, which is why I don't normally include it in the prose (though sometimes they list memorials on significant anniversaries and I mention that).

Excellent work, that's all I can find to nitpick. Hog Farm Talk 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Hog Farm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, excellent work. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are all high quality. Some tweaks made to the Bibliography - Simmons was out of order. Random spot checks performed on footnotes 6, 10, 11, 15 (both), 19 and 20. Please double-check footnote 20; the article says "neither necessary nor helpful"; my copy of the source says "neither necessary nor desirable". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 9 March 2021 (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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

55th (West Lancashire) Division

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

55th (West Lancashire) Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was a British Territorial Force division formed in 1908. During the First World War, it fought at the Somme, Passchendaele, Cambrai, and Givenchy. The latter two being particular highlights for different reasons. A court of enquiry was formed due to the division's actions in the former, while its defense of the latter was lauded. At the end of the war, the division was disbanded. It was reformed in 1920, with that history contained in another article. This article previously passed its GAN, and was given the once over by the GOCE. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, I have a few minor comments; sorry, I'm not really at my best WRT reviewing these days: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Will start looking at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  • the lead doesn't reflect the body in terms of the order in which events happened after the outbreak of war, ie the 2nd West Lancashire Division wasn't formed "eventually" after the division was broken up, it was formed within a month of the outbreak of war. The West Lancashire Division was also briefly disbanded in 1915, which should be in the lead. Can you re-look at all this chronologically and rewrite that part of the lead to properly summarise the body?
  • "broken-up through 1914 and 1915, as entire units were dispatched overseas"→"broken up during 1914 and 1915 as its units were dispatched piecemeal to the Western Front" unless they went elsewhere?
  • "was reassigned the units that had been transferred" is vague. Do you mean its original units?
  • "and the Menin Road Ridge"
  • "a major German counterattack"
  • say how many of the division were killed as well
  • the divisional insignia is cited in the body, so doesn't need a citation. Can you put the cited motto in the infobox into the body as well, perhaps in a retitled "Battle insignia and motto" section, and drop the cite in the infobox?
Body
  • I'll wait for the lead and infobox comments to be addressed before I have a crack at the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the opening remarks and suggestions. I have attempted to implement the changes that you recommended to the lede and infobox. I have not created/renamed the insignia section. Rather, I have mentioned the motto just after where the insignia is cited in the body of the article. Per the source, the insignia inspired the poem, and the motto was adopted from the poem. Extra credit: I have added a link to an article that includes the poem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good thus far, with the above minor comments. Will crack on with the body now.
Body
  • link division (military) at first mention
  • "it would take the TF divisions"
  • link brigade at first mention
  • for field training link Field training exercise (I know it is rag order, but no doubt it will one day improve and no longer be so US-focussed
  • for field artillery link Royal Field Artillery
  • I thought that practise was the verb in BritEng, and practice was the noun?
  • there is a tension between the TF divisions being described as a way to expand the British expeditionary forces and the TF mandate of repelling an invasion (and then later that they were slated to go to Ireland). Is there anything definitive about government policy regarding the employment of the TF during the pre-war period?
    I dont have many sources for that period, but I will take another look to see if there is something else to add.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to First World War, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "every unit in the division volunteered" seems out of place, because we don't yet know what that entailed. I assume that he means that every unit exceeded the percentage Kitchener had laid down. If so, which one? 60 or 80%? Perhaps this quote should go after the sentence explaining what "volunteering" meant in a unit sense?
    I have made the change suggested, and removed a little duplication. Copp does not elaborate on the volunteering.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "the all-volunteer West Lancashire Division" at the beginning of the para?
  • "The rest of the West Lancashire Division was then amalgamated into the 2nd West Lancashire Division"
  • the reformation of the division as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division isn't very clear. When the Army Council authorised the reformation of the division, was it as the West Lancashire Division or as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division? If the former, when was the name change authorised?
    It was as the latter, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it would be helpful to explain that the 164th Brigade was the former North Lancashire Brigade, etc. Something along the lines of "...under establishment. The division's previous brigades had been numbered, and were now the 164th (North Lancashire) Brigade, 165th (Liverpool) Brigade, and 166th (South Lancashire) Brigade. By the end of March..."
    I have reworded several parts of this para. The 164th Brigade HQ was deployed to France, whereas the other two were broken-up and then reformed on 3 Jan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully→respectively. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the note is about casualties per month, can I suggest "During its five months in the trenches, the division suffered 1,110 casualties, more than twice the average casualty rate for British infantry battalions in the First World War." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Battle of the Somme. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "In August, the division made three unsuccessful assaults on the Germans positions, suffering 4,126 casualties." how many dead?
    I have updated the sentence per the recommendation. The casualty figure is sourced to Miles, which I do not have access to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The division next saw action on 25 September, when it attacked north-west of Gueudecourt as part of the Battle of Morval, a general offensive launched by the Fourth Army."
  • there is a bit of a gap between the end of 1916 and June 1917, what was the division doing, how many casualties did it suffer etc?
    Copp's coverage is limited to a single para: a "quiet sector", two periods of rest, which ended when "the Division being thoroughly rested and re-equipped, things commenced to wake up and a certain liveliness began. This liveliness continued with ever growing intensity until the end of July..." No record of casualties sustained in this period.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "By July, the division was part of the Fifth Army. It participated in the initial assaults of the Battle of Pilckem Ridge, which formed part of the larger Third Battle of Ypres (also known as the Battle of Passchendaele)"
  • "German first- and second-line trenches"
  • "had captured the third-line trenches"
  • suggest adding the battalion or unit of the VC recipients throughout the article
  • 3,552 casualties - how many killed?
    No mention of the number killed in the sourceEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig"
  • "they had sawseen tape"
  • "launched a failedan unsuccessful counter-attack"
  • divisional casualties amounted to 2,730, how many killed?
    Source does not provide a breakdownEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final role in the Third Battle of Ypres."

Down to Battle of Cambrai. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further feedback. I have made the changes that you have suggested, and sprinkled a few comments in above to specific points or questions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "On 18 November the division suffered from a trench raid,[66] during which 40 members of the division were captured.[67]"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • given the plan didn't necessarily work out, suggest "It was decided that the 164th Brigade would assault two German strongpoints..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counter-attacking forces"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the Cambrai counterattack section, a hyphen is needed to be consistent with the rest of the article
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • also in this section, mention the 164th Brigade was in reserve when you give the front line allocations?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the division's left" do you mean in the left flanking formation, or in the 166th Brigade's sector?
    I have made a slight change to the wording here, the brigade was holding the left hand sector assigned to the division. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that had fellfallen back"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,000 yards (1,800 m) and 4,000 yards (3,700 m)"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lieutenant-General Sir Thomas Snow, GOC VII Corps, wrote..."
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who or what is Bryn Hammond? historian?
    He is, I have added thisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "men from the West Lancashire55th Division"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention in the court of inquiry of the ridiculous frontage of the division and holding it with posts rather than trenches? Seems to me that the lack of defence in depth was directly related to the length of frontline that had to be held and the way it was held. A farcical "inquiry" if it didn't look at that...
    So, personally, the more I read about it, the more I come to the conclusion that it was a farce and it pointed the figure were it didn't belong. Re-reading McCartney and Travers, they don't appear to provide more than what is already in the article. Moore provides more information on the court of inquiry, which looked at several divisions, and he also mentions Haig's opinion. It seems Haig was of the opinion that the division's were to blame. The court does seem to suggest frontage mattered. It highlighted that surprise resulted in the 12th and 20th Div's frontlines being overrun, and concedes that intel suggested the 55th wouldnt be hit? When it was, the primary cause for the failure to hold the Germans back or do better was due to the div's boundary lines, a lack of defense in depth, and a lack of training. General Maxse summarized his findings in an appendix stating the High Command knew the attack was coming, the div's ignored the warnings, and the infantry were not trained enough to hold off the Germans.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have checked down to here, made a couple of minor tweaks. Should finish this off in the next 24 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Early 1918. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • did the VII Corps move to First Army with the division, or the division only? If the latter, to which corps?
  • and Royal Engineers (RE)
  • make it clearer that the reduction in battalions meant each brigade was reduced to three battalions
  • comma after "reorganisation of the front line"
  • where was the 166th Brigade in the Givenchy–Festubert defences?
  • "used the greatest concentration of guns to that point" of what? the Spring Offensive or the war?
  • suggest "18th Reserve Divisions"
  • split the para at "At 09:50, the Germans" as this is the second part of the attack, not a continuation of the attack on the 164th Brigade
  • did the 166th actually move to reinforce the Portuguese, or did they discover they had gone before they moved and stayed put?
  • another para split at "During the morning, the 166th Brigade"
  • "dispatched troops to the other two brigades" if that is correct?
  • "defensive positions on the left flank of the 165th Brigade"
  • where in the divisional defensive layout was the 154th Brigade deployed? In depth behind which brigade? The 166th?
  • "supplemented by and intense artillery barrage"
  • "was repulsed followingby counter-attacks" if that is right?
  • move the link to the 1st Division up to first mention
  • "After his experience at Ypres, Jeudwine had contributed"
  • "the division "could be said..." or "Jeudwine had contributed"
  • "prisoners and deserters stated an attack would occur"?
  • "the result of Spanish flu spreading among the Germans."
  • "After several weeks of relaxedlimited action"
  • I Corps is mentioned. Is this the answer to my earlier question? If so, link at first mention

Down to Advance into Belgium. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAIK, it should be "a practice that continued" given practice is being used a noun rather than a verb here, meaning a "custom or habit"
  • suggest "The Germans were had entrenched on the east side of the canal, supported by a large number of machine-guns."
  • low-ground→low ground
  • "several pillboxes the railway embankment" near, on?
  • "were still occupiedying the positions"
  • suggest "By the end of the next day, the division was close to the Belgian border, which it crossed on 20 October. Later that day, it captured..." to avoid the repetition of border...border
  • there is a village/locality called Froidmont near Tournai [54], could Froidmon be a typo?
  • a bit of assumed knowledge regarding George V, it is marginal, but a non-Commonwealth reader might wonder who George V was, specifically if he was the Belgian king given the division was in Belgium at the time. Maybe "The British King, George V,"
  • drop the comma after "horseback" in the caption
  • suggest "For acts of valour, eleven individuals earned the VC (in some cases posthumously), with Chavasse earning a bar for a second award."
  • "the division had the following awards bestowed on its members (in several cases, multiple times):"
  • "the division's comrades' association" or use the formal title of the association in title case
  • I was surprised to see that Clement Atlee's service in the division is only mentioned in See also. I would insert a sentence at the end of the second para of the Local attacks in the Givenchy sector section. Along the lines of "Also in June, Major Clement Attlee, who was later British Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, joined 1/5SL, having previously served at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia." Source: [55] pp. 149–151

You will be relieved to learn that is all I have. I have made a couple of suggestions in areas you have already addressed, so just check those as well as those immediately above, and ping me when you're done? Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extensive review, comments, and suggestions. I have attempted to address all the points you have brought up. Ill let you take a look at the diffs, and await further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we with this, Peacemaker67?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly very busy in RW, but will look over the responses tomorrow and confirm expected support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of minor typo and grammar fixes, but this is good to go. You haven't addressed my comment about Atlee, but that doesn't hold up my support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, comments, and fixes. Regarding Attlee, please see the end of the first paragraph of the Local attacks in the Givenchy sector section.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks very good to me. Some minor bits:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • Many hyphens in the page ranges need changing to en dashes.
  • Watson comes before Who.
  • Similar with Brookshire.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those catches, I believe I have been able to correct all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Revolt of the Admirals

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Revolt of the Admirals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class more for completeness than anything else. I came to it from the War Plans article, which in turn I came to from the Strategic Air Command in the UK article. It was almost unreferenced at the time, necessitating a complete overhaul. There is little chance of it reaching FAC. The Admiral's Revolt is a case study of a dysfunctional political-military system, and raises issues of civilian control of the military and inter-service rivalry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

No issues, images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The cancellation of the aircraft carrier USS United States and accusations of impropriety led to an investigation Impropriety in what?
    checkY Added "by Johnson in regard to the purchase of theConvair B-36 Peacemaker bomber" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the wartime presidential authority to reorganize the armed forces was due to expire six months after the end of the war Is there an article that we could wikilink to explaining this wartime prerogative of the president?
    checkY The War Powers Act of 1941. Linked. Article isn't very good though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richardson dissented, favoring the status quo over a new department, but accepted the proposal to perpetuate the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff and its various advisory committees by statute. So essentially he compromised; favoring a law permanently authorizing the continuance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in spite of his reservations about a new defence department? Some clarification that the joint chiefs was initially an ad hoc body created during the war would be nice.
    checkY Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was no match for Soviet jet fighters "No match for" is somewhat euphemistic, perhaps "highly vulnerable to" or similar?
    checkY Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The B-29 was therefore the mainstay of the bomber fleet in 1948 "Therefore" would suggest the B-29's status as the mainstay is a logical conclusion of the previously presented facts. In the fact the whole previous paragraph described how this was highly deficient. Perhaps delete that word?
    checkY Sure. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aircraft pushed the state of the art at the time Euphemistic.
    Suggestions?
    How about, "The aircraft promised to be a major technological achievement"?
    checkY Linked state of the art. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not canceled however, and when it looked like bases in China — the only ones in Allied hands at the time within B-29 range of Japan — might be overrun, an order was placed for 100 B-36s. As we're not doing this entirely chronologically, it might be helpful to clarify about when during WWII the Americans were worried about losing their bases in China.
    checkY Added "in 1943". The Japanese offensive that was feared came to pass in 1944, and the bases were overrun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While naval aviators, like submariners, increasingly became a breed apart, and some became zealous advocates of naval air power, they expressed no desire to separate from the Navy. I think "breed apart" means to suggest naval aviators were culturally distinct, but this is a euphemism employing a biological classification. Quotemarks (if this is the word the source used) or revision would be preferable.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 1947, Gallery wrote a top-secret memorandum on the subject that was leaked Was the leaking deliberate?
    All leaks are deliberate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. I mean was Gallery responsible for the leak?
    The source of the leak was not determined. It seems that a large number of people received the memo. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forrestal did not support Truman's 1948 Presidential campaign; instead, he met with Truman's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, with whom he discussed the possibility of remaining in cabinet in a Republican administration. Truman won the election, and on 2 March 1949, he announced that Forrestal was being replaced Was Truman aware of Forrestal's entreaties to Dewey?
    checkY Yes. Added. Truman believed that all officials owed personal loyalty to him, and not to the people, the country, and certainly not to Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the part of B-36 contractors regarding: costs, capabilities and test results. Improper use of colon.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Congressional Hearings section, the text jumps right into the investigation. Some background on who called for an investigation and why would be nice.
    checkY Some people clearly love this stuff about Congress. Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would have included the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and he expressed support for Crommelin's views. Just to be certain, does Barlow's book actually make the explicit clarification that Bogan's emphatic letter would have implied that the Navy's morale was worse than in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
    checkY No, that was Crommelin that said it explicitly. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole episode became known as the "Revolt of the Admirals". This is sourced to a 1949 Time article with the quote as the title. Can you affirm that the article explains people were calling it the "Revolt of the Admirals", and that this is not just a primary source use of Time's headline? If it is, a more up-to-date scholarly source explaining the coining of the phrase would be preferred.
    checkY Added a secondary source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from public condemnation, did Secretary Matthews ever face any consequences for his retribution against the naval officers in apparent violation of the law?
    checkY No, but I have added a bit about his ultimate fate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Navy named entire classes of ship after Leahy, Forrestal, Nimitz, Sherman and Burke, and even Truman and Crommelin had ships named after them, but no Navy vessel was ever named after Denfeld. This is sourced to a directory of ship names. Drawing attention to this fact is essentially an OR violation without a secondary source pointing out the curious absence of Denfeld's name on a ship relative to the commemoration of the other figures.
    checkYThe secondary source was Dittmer, but they wouldn't let me use it. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll take a look over the next couple days. Hog Farm Bacon 02:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • " which were ad hoc wartime creations . Senior US Navy" - Remove the extra space before the period
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although none of the services was completely happy with it" - Should this be were, not was?
    "was" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at one blow , so that recuperation" - Extra space before the comma isn't in the source
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1947, Gallery wrote a top-secret memorandum on the subject [50] The idea was that instead" - Missing a period
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The memo was leaked to a syndicated newspaper columnist, Drew Pearson, who published it in The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Bulletin. Denfeld gave Gallery a private reprimand for making "an extensive and somewhat uncontrolled distribution of a classified document."" - This implies that Gallery linked the memo, but it should be stated directly if true
    No, the criticism was that he indirectly aided the leak by distributing too many copies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 7 March 1949, Hayward flew a simulated atomic bombing mission against California in a P2V launched from the carrier USS Coral Sea off the East Coast" - Assuming he landed on land and was not "expended" here? If so, not really necessary to state, I don't think, but worth checking up on.
    checkY Yes, he landed at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some officers also held a moral objection to relying upon the widespread use of nuclear weapons to destroy the major population centers.[41] Most felt that atomic bombs were best used against targets like submarine pens and logistical hubs rather than cities and industrial facilities" - This just Navy officers, or officers from other branches, as well?
    checkY Navy officers. clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellation of the USS United States
  • "The plan was that the Navy's aircraft carriers would operate in four carrier strike groups, each with a 6A, a Midway-class and two Essex-class aircraft carriers (since there were only three Midways, one group would have a third Essex in lieu)" - Previously, you stated that only eight Essex-class carriers were kept up, but now you've got nine Essexes. I feel like something should be thrown in to clarify this.
    Only eight were kept in commission, but the Essex-class carriers were mothballed, not scrapped. Except for the badly war-damaged Franklin and Bunker Hill, all would see further service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A $189 million line item" - Is this per ship, or for all four?
    checkY As if. Just the one. Clarified. $189 million is equivalent to $1.64 billion today. Whereas the latest Gerald Ford class carrier costs around $13 billion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Joint Chiefs on the advisability of continuing the construction of the United States; Bradley and Vandenberg urged its cancellation" - Why did Bradley change his mind about the carrier?
    checkY Don't know. Added a note to the effect that he had reversed his position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the naval brass protest Matthews' appointment?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson sought the opinions of General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower, the three service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs on the advisability of continuing the construction of the United States; Bradley and Vandenberg urged its cancellation" - What did Eisenhower think about cancelling the project? Later, you say that he provided a key vote in cancelling it, so it seems like it should be mentioned up here.
    checkY Eisenhower’s views are subject to debate among the historians. Rearden (p. 412) says "Eisenhower, too, recommended canceling the project" but Barlow (pp 341–342, n134) says that Eisenhower's note to Johnson does not support this. Removed phrase saying Eisenhower supported cancelation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Into the outcome section, pausing here. Will continue later. Hog Farm Bacon 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually fine with the rest of the article, so that's it. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Claiming, hope to get to tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 02:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Hog Farm/spot checks. There's a handful of smaller issues, particularly in the wording of that Smith block quote. I'd recommend going through this with a fine-toothed comb before a potential FAC nom (if this is going there after all). There also appears to be an instance of a math error in adding figures from a source. Hog Farm Bacon 03:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

[edit]
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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Temporary gentlemen

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk)

Temporary gentlemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Discusses the experience of men from outside the traditional "officer class" who were temporarily commissioned into the British Army during the world wars. I started this way back in 2012 and it's been a long time in the making, reaching mainspace only last December, with a five year gap in the middle. Sturmvogel 66 recently reviewed this at GAN and kindly suggested it might be ready for A-class review. It has been a long time since I put anything through here (February 2013!) so I may be a little rusty, but I am happy to put the work in on this. I would love to be able to take this to FAC one day so please do not hold back on any comments that might be relevant there. Many thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Thanks for the heads up. I've uploaded a local version, under the same license tags, hopefully that's right? - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.
Does the Imperial War Museum's declaration on Flickr that it has "No known copyright restrictions" help? If not, I'll get rid of it - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they're actually claiming "IWM Non-Commercial license" I would err on the side of caution, as opposed to PD-released which would be the only other option I can see. There's no death date given for the author of the photo that would put it in public domain (based on back of the envelope calculations he could well have been alive 70 years ago). (t · c) buidhe 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to an image of Wilfred Owen; published in a 1920 book so should be OK? - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced Geddes' image with a painting made by an artist who died in 1931 so that should be OK, I think? The National Library of Ireland state "No known copyright restrictions" on their Flickr upload, but if not OK I will remove it. Thanks so much for reviewing this buidhe, I always get confused by image licensing - Dumelow (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Geddes painting wouldn't be automatically free in US because 1931+70=2001, after the URAA date. Do we know when it was first exhibited (if either before 1925 or after 2003, then it would be ok to use according to Hirtle chart)?
OK, think I've sorted it. I've found a photo of him from a 1923 issue of the Buffalo Times, New York. Which is PD by virtue of being published before 1925, I think? - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. NLI copyright is a tricky, it's not clear how they obtained this photograph or what they're basing the copyright status off of. I tried to check if it was published in the 11 April 1921 edition of Irish Times but the archive is paywalled.
I've replaced it with a recruitment notice from the Times of 1920, which is actually probably more interesting and relevant anyway - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 10:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient, it all looks good to me now! (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buidhe, sorry I've added a new image to accompany a new background section. Does the licensing of File:The Second Boer War, 1899-1902 Q72432.jpg look OK? - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Eddie891

[edit]

Afternoon, Dumelow. I'll try and give this a read-through tonight or tomorrow. Ping me on or after Sunday if I've forgotten, please-- Eddie891 Talk Work 18:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The use of the term has been described as discriminatory," by who?
  • " though some later " some temporary gentlemen or some other people?
Temporary gentlemen, I've reworded to hopefully clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortfall of 2,000 compared to theoretical full strength" I'm a little unclear what's being said here-- If I interpret it right, it may be better phrased as "2,000 below the theoretical full strength of the Army" or something
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "included VC winners" VC has not been defined
Spelt out and linked - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Royal Artillery " are they both of the royal artillery, or just Nelson?
Hopefully now clarified - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Men who took up this offer were discharged from the regular army and appointed to temporary commissions, a process that caused problems upon demobilisation when many wished to continue their service in the army" I think this would be better placed before the sentence about Dorrell and Nelson, personally
Agreed, reordered - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not receive a separation entitlement " I'm unfamiliar with this phrasing (separation entitlement) and suspect many readers may be as well
I've reworded this passage, though would appreciate a check on it - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some patriotic civilian employers continued to pay half wages whilst on active service such that some temporary gentlemen found themselves quite well off" I think you could manage without "patriotic", maybe add "continued to pay their employees" and perhaps quantify a bit more what "quite well off" means?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some former rankers" what does 'rankers' mean?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many were ex-public school boys who had chosen to serve in the" maybe "many had attended public schools and chosen to serve in the" but not a big deal
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vacancies prior to looking elsewhere" would "before" be simpler than "prior to"
Agreed, changed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hus the majority of newly commissioned officers from this time " what exactly is 'this time'? Just the 'early months of the war'?
Paragraph rewritten to avoid this - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was considerable favouritism shown towards those who had attended public or grammar schools with Officer Training Corps (OTCs). Indeed, even in this regard there was a bias towards the more well-known schools and not all former public school boys received a commission, many instead having to serve in the ranks." perhaps "There was considerable favouritism shown towards those who had attended public or grammar schools with Officer Training Corps (OTCs), and among those there was a bias towards more well-known schools. Not all former public school boys received a commission, instead having to serve in the ranks." but then again, maybe not
I've tried to reword and clarify this paragraph as a whole - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leader of the Conservative Party" conservative party worth a link?
done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The heavy casualties suffered by the British Expeditionary Force saw the majority of the army's pre-war officers become casualties within the first year of the war" strikes me as somewhat redundant, maybe "[OPTIONAL: Heavy fighting saw] The majority of the British Expeditionary Force's pre-war officers became casualties within the first year of the war" (of course casualties led to casualties)
Yep, changed - Dumelow (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the more fashionable regiments" what defined a 'fashionable' regiment?
I'll have a think about this one, think I have a book that touches on this - Dumelow (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring Sandhurst graduates " specifically Sanhurst?
Yes, Woolwich graduates were intended for the technical corps (such as the engineers and artillery), the source states they "continued to maintain their social exclusivity by replenishing themselves from the cream of Sandhurst and being very picky about anyone with a temporary commission" - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that also the holder of the King's "
I've lost this sentence, merging it into the background section - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a change in policy in 1916; in February of that year the" maybe "In February 1916 the War Office"
Yes, much better. Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The policy did, however, have some disadvantages." is this sentence necessary?
No, you are right. Removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also found that many NCOs" perhaps "many NCOs were"-- I don't see the benefit of "it was also found" here
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this at the end of the war it was found that more than half of all British officers" maybe "At the end of the war more than half of all British soldiers"?
Yep it was a bit ungainly, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the majority of whom would have held temporary commissions)"?
Removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even when considering only the select few"?
removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final dispatch from the front" worth a date? Not sure the reader would know when that was
Added and reffed - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To ease their transition into officers the War Office issued several instructional pamphlets, authored by pre-war regular officers, outlining the behaviour expected of temporary officers and regular officers were posted into newly raised battalions to provide advice." I don't think this flows quite how you want it to ("issued several [...] were posted" particularly)
Agreed, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's through first world war. Really an interesting, well done article. Most of my comments are minor things (like subjective phrasing comments) that may or may not be helpful. Will be back to get the rest. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "American sociologist Willard Waller noted" I'd like a date on this, if possible ("noted in. . .")
Added - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " occupations in line with this status." might help to say "such as..."
I've reworded this and the following sentence which provides some detail on these jobs, those with "supervision and control over other men" - Dumelow (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From this point onwards an officer would not" Think you could say "was not"
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government attempted to alleviate the issue" I think it would benefit from a restating of the issue here
Agreed, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half of all positions suitable for returning officers" what does 'suitable' mean in this context?
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to discharged other ranks " -> "to those of other ranks discharged ", perhaps?
It sounds better to me the original way, but I am happy if consensus is against me - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many returning officers experienced considerable hardship," needed?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 50 separate charities and organisations "?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Jonathan Wild argues" is wild also a historian?
Clarified - Dumelow (talk)
  • {"(Sandhurst returned to charging tuition fees after the war)" I wasn't aware that it ever didn't charge tuition?
Deleted this bit - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plight of the post-war temporary gentleman was summed up by Orwell" George?
Yep, named and linked - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though this failed to make much of an impact" ?
Deleted - Dumelow (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much anything from me, I hope some of my comments/suggestions are helpful-- It really is a fascinating, well done article. Nice work! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing: I think this article could benefit from a 'background' section explaining a couple of things, mainly the concept of 'gentleman', particularly in British society, and the background on where officers traditionally came from. You've got some stuff already, but I think it merits a dedicated section. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eddie891, I think you're right. I've made an attempt to add a background section, though it could probably do with some refining. I'd welcome suggestions. I've also added a sprinkling of information from new sources (Mansfield 2016 and Deeks 2017) that were written after I started work on this article and would be obliged if you could review the additions, many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good- I'll circle back once you've gotten a chance to work through my initial comments Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, I think I've covered everything above and I've had another pass through the article. I would greatly appreciate any more feedback - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Year added
    • " It came to be considered that the new officers should be considered gentlemen only by virtue of the commission they held," can you eliminate the repetition of 'considered' in such close proximity?
Reworded
    • "It was rare for temporary gentlemen to rise to senior rank." do you think it's been explained what constitutes a "senior rank" yet? If not, maybe add it-- I've read the article too many times to be sure on this one
I've reworded to "It was rare for temporary gentlemen to be appointed as commanding officers" as the source only discusses lt-cols and above - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The government attempted assist demobilised officers to find new work" missing word?
Missing "to" added - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Eddie891, I must have missed these. Thanks for looking again, it's much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good, thanks for all your work. Happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

This is a really great article, and I'm pretty impressed.

  • A substantial sum of money was required Although in theory, a commission could be sold only for its official value and was to be offered first to the next most senior officer in the same regiment, in practice there was also an unofficial "over-regulation price" or "regimental value" (ie bribe), which might double the official cost.
I've got a copy of Farwell (1981) that covers this and used it to expand this section - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Officers' Training Corps Suggest with"'Officers' Training Corps units".
I've now defined this earlier so I've switched to "OTCs" - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a new paragraph after fn 12, as the subject changes
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • turned first to volunteer from retired officers Should be volunteers
Changed - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19th battalion of the King's Royal Rifle Corps Capitalise "battalion".
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a new paragraph after fn 27, as the subject changes
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the more fashionable regiments continued to discriminate, attempting to maintain their social exclusivity by preferring Sandhurst graduates over those with temporary commissions. The Guards in particular continued to vet applicants for social standing.
    Added "such as the Guards", I'm going to revisit this sentence later as I want to clarify it a bit more - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I remembered from my work on Frederick Browning that joining the Grenadier Guards required a personal introduction and an interview by the regimental commander, Colonel Sir Henry Streatfield, even though there was war on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Household Guards. Is this the Household Cavalry or the Brigade of Guards
    The source states Household Brigade, so named and linked - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The experience of temporary gentlemen was different in the Australian Army which, being a small peacetime force, required that the majority of its wartime officers were former civilians or men promoted from the ranks. I think by "former civilians" the source means "reservists". The Australian permanent force was small, but the Australian Army was relatively large given the population, because conscription had been introduced in 1911.

[W]hile the officers of the first contingent were selected on the responsibility of General Bridges, the duty was afterwards transferred to selection boards consisting of the District Commandant and three senior citizen-officers. It had been complained that some of the earlier commissions had been allotted to youngsters too immature to command Australians. Fixed rules were therefore laid down by which commissions were henceforth to be given only to men of twenty-three or over. This system often noticeably failed to obtain the right type of fighting officer. Fortunately, by the time it was in operation, the Australian battalions were already fighting, and officers were obtained by selecting those men who had shown themselves leaders in actual battle, or who appeared to possess the necessary qualities. Some of the later battalions to arrive in Gallipoli were almost immediately re-staffed by the latter process. From that time forth promotion of selected men from the ranks was the system by which the A.I.F. obtained nearly all its officers.

But in the original 1st Australian Division the great majority were selected from those who were officers already. Only 24 officers out of 631 had never served before; 68 were, or had been, officers of the Australian permanent forces, including 23 Duntroon graduates; 16 were officers of the British regular army! 15 were British officers who had retired; 99 were thus professional soldiers. On the other hand 402 were officers of the old Australian militia forces, including many temporary "area-officers", and another 58 were young officers under the newly-instituted compulsory service scheme. Of the remainder, 33 were retired officers of the Australian militia, and 9 of British, colonial, or foreign territorials. Of the whole 631 there were 104 who had seen service in the South African or other wars.

— Bean I:54

An important difference from the British practice described in this article was that Australian officers commissioned from the ranks continued to serve with their original units. Australian NCOs and subalterns had higher pay than their British counterparts; an Australian lieutenant made £365 a year, more than a British captain. General officers, however, made significantly less.

  • Thanks for the background. I've incorporated some of the info from Bean, but would welcome any further comments on this. I think it's useful to have a comparison to the Commonwealth practice but am wary of diverging too far into this - Dumelow (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. I only included this because I thought the wording was incorrect. I've never seen the term "temporary gentlemen" in an Australian context, but some of the problem of post-war adjustment are familiar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was I? Inter-war period:

  • a status comparable to that which they held as Officers; Decapitalise "officers"
    It was from the original quote but I think it is trivial enough to decapitalise - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the controller-general?
    Controller-General of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement, I've provided a bit of clarification in the article - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Eric Geddes was the Minister of Transport, right?
    He was actually minister without portfolio, the Ministry of Transport wasn't formed until May 1919. In the meantime he assumed an informal position co-ordinating demobilization and reconstruction. I've tried to clarify this - Dumelow (talk)
  • Are we talking here about appointments to civil service positions?
    It was actually both civil service and public sector (prospective employers sent details of vacancies to the department to fill). I've tried to clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • former brigadier-generals acting as cooks Are we saying that some did reach general officer rank? Any names?
    I couldn't find any names but Haig stated a few examples in his last dispatch, listing their former employments. I've added this - Dumelow (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that, I found a couple of names. Of whom I've mentioned George Gater as one of the more prominent - Dumelow (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have anything on temporary officers retained in the British Army after the war? Was this possible?
Some commissions were converted to permanent ones but relatively few, I've added a bit on this - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should emphasise that the temporary officers were just as good as those drawn from public schools. The problem with the latter was not one of quality, but of quantity.

Agreed, I've added a bit into a new "analysis" section (not sold on the title of this yet), with some comments on their performance (I'm looking to see if there's anything else I can add). I've also expanded on the number given battalion command - Dumelow (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article has an implication that things have changed, which is not supported by what I'm hearing about the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm recommending David French, Army, Empire and Cold War: The British Army and Military Policy 1945-1971. The proportion of cadets entering Sandhurst from public schools fell from 65 percent in 1947 to 37 percent in 1971, but the officers continued to be drawn mainly from the middle class. In the 1980s 65 percent of the Sandhurst cadets had attended private schools; this decreased to 42 percent by 2014. [56] (Also, according to Prince Harry, the custom of sending the second son into the Army persists.)

Alas French is out of my price range. I've expanded on this a bit at the end of the WWII and later section. My figures are a little different but the trend is the same - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of commas seem to have deserted or gone missing from the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7, I've been done a run through and made some changes (including adding commas). I'd appreciate another look, if you've the time - Dumelow (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]
Thanks Indy beetle, I think it's in a position that you can take a look now. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment: Tony Gould in Imperial Warriors: Britain and the Gurkhas used the term Emergency Commissioned Officer (ECO) to describe the temporary gentleman of WWII. He also says, at least as far as the British Indian Army was concerned, there was little social conflict between the regular British officers and their "temporary" lower-class counterparts; the new social conflict was between British officers and Indian officers who were termed, according to Bengali officer D.K. Palit, "WOGs (Westernised Oriental Gentlemen)." Gould was a British WWII veteran who served with the Ghurkas. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Indy beetle, good find. I've incorporated this (and some other info) into the WWII section in a new paragraph on the Indian Army experience - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Placeholder, claiming. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of the reasons the government favoured the purchase system was that it removed the need to provide a proper salary or pension to officers" - This implies that there are other reasons. Are the others of any significance?
Not that I can think of, reworded - Dumelow (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Coldstream Guards considered £400 per year as a requirement of entry and the rest of the Household Brigade £300" - Is this entry for officers or all soldiers?
For new officers, I've added this - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the more fashionable regiments, such as the Guards, continued to discriminate," - Unclear what specific unit(s) "Guards" is referring to.
Changed to foot guards, which I've used and linked earlier - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "168 were navvies" - What's a navvy?
Linked Navvy - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "khaki tunic on their back and a Webley .455 at their hip", The constabulary took steps to remove such men" - I think there should be a period in place of the comma
Agreed, fixed (I also missed an 's' from ranks - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system was gradually reformed; after the reintroduction of conscription a General Service Corps scheme was set up to assess all new army entrants for suitability for a commission" - Can it be stated when this occurred?
I've given the year for conscription being introduced. I'm not certain on when the GSC scheme came in. I've just realised I don't have a copy of Holmes, so I've ordered one. Once it arrives I may be able to add this - Dumelow (talk)
  • References 111 and 113 have the title in sentence case, while the rest are in title case. Can this be standardized?
Fixed 113, on 111 I wouldn't normally capitalise "of" - Dumelow (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check on worldcat for OCLCs or ISBNs for the print sources that lack them.
Good shout, I've filled in the ones I could find - Dumelow (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Talk 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, much appreciated. I've responded above - Dumelow (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, supporting. Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Questia went dark two months ago so #15, 59, 114 need new links
Hi Sturmvogel 66. Oh, how annoying! I found a new source for #59, but the other two don't seem to be online anywhere. Am I best just to convert them to offline references? - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to pretend that you used physical copies in your local library if you are ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! - Dumelow (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for #68 is dead
Fixed with Internet Archive - Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Lisa Nowak

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Lisa Nowak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article on an astronaut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
Comment by Buidhe

Although the 2007 incident is a significant event, it is unlikely to have attracted any media coverage if Nowak wasn't already known for being an astronaut. The current size of this section (1,800 words out of a bit more than 5,000 about her life in the body text) seems a UNDUE in that context. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only would it not have attracted media coverage, but Nowak probably wouldn't even have been charged. The saddest cases are the ones drummed out of the services for PTSD, and then denied medical treatment. I have to respect the hard work of other editors, but I have expanded the rest of the article to give it more balance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The appearance of this article on the front page in the Did You Know? column garnered 36,330 page views, making it one of the all-time page view leaders. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

Added to my list Eddie891 Talk Work 00:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me-- really interesting, well done article on the whole. All of my comments are, as always, suggestions rather than orders, open to discussion. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now satisfied with the prose, happy to support Eddie891 Talk Work 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text review by Neopeius (support as of 12-12-20)

[edit]

Lede

*"in over 30 different aircraft, and was" Commas are unnecessary before dependent clause (and there are many places in the article appropriately without such commas, so this should be fixed to be consistent as well as grammatically correct). Delete or make ", and she was"

Early life and education

I won't press the point, but the MOS note you reference refers to actual quotations. 'Nowak' is closer to the "simple gloss" exception.--Neopeius (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*"writing a thesis on "Computational Investigations of a NACA 0012 Airfoil in Low Reynolds Number Flows"." Use italics for article title rather than quotes (same reasoning; also, publications later in article are italicized)

Astronaut training

*"she was one of 150 finalists deemed highly qualified, and was asked" ", and she was asked"

Space Flight

*"and her classmate Stephanie Wilson would" add commas before and after Stephanie Wilson

Homecoming *"They attended X Games XII at the Home Depot Center in Los Angeles from August 3 to 6, and the Houston Astros game at Minute Maid Park on August 14. The crew got to meet" Suggest "on August 14, where the crew got to meet"

Altercation

*"Nowak drove from Houston to Orlando, Florida, on February 4–5, 2007." This sentence comes out of nowhere (even if you move the paragraph regarding her marriage from the prior section to here). Suggest reversing the order (start with the date) and add "with the intention of confronting Shipman." (and possibly injuring, killing, or kidnapping her, but the only ultimate charge was burglary and battery so you don't need to give any more context. :) )

Arraignment

  • While arguing for pre-trial release Nowak's attorney remarked, "One's good works must count for something". Put period before quote.
    checkY Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was widespread reaction to Nowak's arrest with concerns expressed" Add "public" before "reaction"
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For her work as a member of the crew of STS-121, NASA announced on May 30, 2007, that Nowak would receive the NASA Space Flight Medal at Johnson Space Center on June 5, 2007.[93]" This should go elsewhere, perhaps "After NASA" or an Awards section.
    checkY Moved. Some people were surprised that she was still awarded the medal. I was more surprised that she was awarded full custody of the three kids. (Those daughters are chips off the old block.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After NASA

*"A Naval administrative panel of consisting of" delete first "of"

In Popular Culture

*"Rocket Man" italicize

@Hawkeye7: Fantastic work. Very few changes needed. I would ask that, before I work on Shuttle-Centaur that you do a search for any commas before dependent clauses and either delete them or make them independent clauses (generally by adding a pronoun) as required. That would make my editing much easier. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Support --Neopeius (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Claiming. Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref numbers are from this revision, although I'll also try to provide some context to help clarify which references I am referring to.

Spot checks coming later. Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/Lisa Nowak. A couple things, but overall satisfactory. Hog Farm Talk 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Hog. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Thomas Cooke (soldier, born 1881) Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Rethymno Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Heraklion Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uroš Drenović Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Kamytzes Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kidnapping of Heinrich Kreipe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2021/Promoted&oldid=1058646673"